A persistent question about participatory methodologies that rely on technologies, such as public participation geographic information systems (PPGIS), is how to integrate values, such as inclusiveness of all the people that are impacted by a decision, or identifying options that are popular by the majority but acceptable to the minority, within technologically focused projects. Moreover, technologies do not operate by themselves – they are embedded in organizational, political, and social processes that set how they are used, who can use them, and in what context. Therefore, we should explore where the values reside? Two factors obscure our view: The misleading conceptualisation that technologies are value free, and can be used for good or for bad – which put all the weight on the process, and ignores the way in which any technology allow only certain actions to be taken. Another popular view of technology conceptualisation is to emphasise their advantages (upside) and ignore their limitations. If we move beyond these, and other “common sense” views of technologies, we can notice how process and technology intertwine. We can therefore look at the way the process/technology reinforce and limit each other, and the way that the values are integrated and influence them. With this analysis, we can also consider how technological development can explicitly include considerations of values, and be philosophically, politically, and social-theory informed. We need to consider the roles, skills, and knowledge of the people that are involved in each part of the process – from community facilitation to software development. The paper will draw on the experience of developing participatory geographic information technologies over the past 20 years, and will suggest future directions for values-based participatory technology development.

1. Examining the values that are
embedded in the processes and
technologies of participatory GIS

2. Acknowledgement
This talk would not be possible without the
generosity of the many people and
communities that we have worked with
over the years…

3. Acknowledgement
… and the funders, project partners, and sponsors that
we’ve worked with (and will work with in the future)

4. Outline
• Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) as a
socio-technical practice
• Values in PPGIS
• Values and technology: Andrew
Feenberg’s mapping and deep
democratisation
• Explicitly integrating values and process
in technology
• Where next?

5. Participatory GIS: context
1980s
• Participatory
Rural
Appraisal
• Participatory
Learning and
Action
1990s
• Public
Participation
GIS (PPGIS)
• Participatory
GIS (PGIS)
2000s
• Volunteered /
Crowdsourced
Geographic
information
• Participatory
Sensing
2010s
• Citizen Science
APB-CMX Harry Wood 2010

6. Chauffeurs, facilitators & technology
Aurigi, A., Batty, S., Bloomfield, D., Boott, R., Clark, J., Haklay, M., Harrison, C., Heppell, K., Moreley, J. and Thornton, C.
(1999), UCL Brownfield Research Network, University College London, London, UK, 42 pp
1998
Technical: Commercial
Desktop GIS,
government
environmental
information, desktop
computers
Social: Facilitated
participatory process,
low level familiarity
with technology

7. 2003
In house development
by a green IT company,
costly basemap
Collaborative
deliberative process,
paper focused

8. 2006
Google mapping & API,
ease of development
and use
Haklay, M.. 2006, How to build a Green GIS from the bottom up?, Israeli Geographers Association Annual Meeting, Tel Aviv,
Israel, December 17-18
Collaborative
deliberative process,
paper focused

9. 2007
Community led
software development,
participatory data
collection
Haklay, M. and Weber, P., 2008, OpenStreetMap – User Generated Street Map, IEEE Pervasive Computing. October-December
2008:12-18.
Mapping Parties, Pub
meetups, self-
organised/IRC
coordination

10. Community air quality monitoring 2016
Decoupled front
end/back end software
for community
mapping, APIs
Structured process,
both community led
and initiated
deliberately, digital
Ellul, C., Francis, L., and Haklay, M., 2012, Engaging with local communities: A review of three years of community mapping.
Urban and Regional Data Management, UDMS Annual 2011 - Proceedings of the Urban Data Management Society Symposium

11. • From the start, PPGIS was both limited
and enabled by technological aspects:
hardware, software, data, and network
speed
• The “Public Participation” part means
that it is embedded in complex and
detailed social practices
PPGIS as socio-technical practice

12. PPGIS AND VALUES
Examining the values that are embedded in the processes and technologies
of participatory GIS

13. • As if being socio-technical is not enough…
• PPGIS is a valued-laden practice
• Moreover, PPGIS is mostly about
expressing the values. Otherwise, usual
instrumentalist/utilitarian/technocratic/
empiricist practices should apply
Values

14. • Ensuring societal benefits from technology
Values in PPGIS

15. • Respecting lay, local and traditional
knowledge
Values in PPGIS

16. • Community, collective views, addressing
inequities
Values in PPGIS

17. • Maintaining scientific standards, ensuring
quality, empowerment
Values in PPGIS

18. • Supporting wider societal and
environmental goals
Values in PPGIS

19. • Democratisation
Values in PPGIS

20. • Representation, giving voice
Values in PPGIS

21. • Inclusion (passive or assertive)
Values in PPGIS

22. Values
• Address social or
environmental justice
• Inclusion
• Democratisation
• Control & Self-
determination
• Egalitarian production of
knowledge
• Respect to lay, local and
traditional knowledge
• Relinking to nature
• Individual vs. community
• Data validity, scientific
standards
• Not wasting participants
time
• Ensuring efficient,
effective, and economic
participation
• Securing decision making
by majorities/loud
participants vs. including
minorities
• Contribution to wider
societal goals (e.g.
science)
• Meaningful & flourishing
human relationships
• “The Good Life”

23. VALUES IN TECHNOLOGY
Examining the values that are embedded in the processes and technologies
of participatory GIS

24. Thinking through technology
©Stock.XCHNG

25. ©Stock.XCHNG

26. • The prevalence of the instrumentalist
view: technology is value-free, and
therefore it is open to any use
• Digital technology is being promoted by
emphasising the up-sides, and not
mentioning, or even ignoring, downsides
and side-effect
Two common challenges

27. Feenberg‘s philosophy of technology

28. Main positions in Philosophy of
Technology
Technology is: Autonomous Humanly Controlled
Neutral (complete
separation of means and ends)
Determinism
(traditional Marxism)
Instrumentalism (liberal
faith in progress)
Value-laden
(means form a way of life that
includes ends)
Substantivism (means and
ends linked in a system)
Critical Theory (choice of
alternative means-ends
systems)
Source: Feenberg, A. (1999) Questioning Technology, Routledge, New York.

29. Feenberg’s Deep Democratisation
• ‘Technical representation is not primarily
about the selection of a trusted
personnel, but involves the embodiment
of social and political demands in
technical codes.’
• Technology can be also change from
within, through an intervention by the
users
Source: Feenberg, A. (1999) Questioning Technology, Routledge, New York.

30. INTEGRATING VALUES IN PPGIS
TECHNOLOGY & PROCESSES
Examining the values that are embedded in the processes and technologies
of participatory GIS

31. • Integrate technology with a social
process, and take account of the context
ExCiteS/MfC Guiding principles
Wider
context
Social
context
Mapping
• Politics
• Economics
• Local
inclusiveness
• Technical ability
• Views /
Perceptions
• Facts / Evidence

32. • Directed process, with deliberate open
elements to ensure co-design and local
control
ExCiteS/MfC Guiding principles
Introduction
to existing
public
information
General
perception
mapping
Discussion &
initial
priorities
setting
Digitisation,
visualisation
and
discussion
Website and
online map
Citizen
Science and
data
gathering

33. • Work with people where they are, don’t
expect them to come to you (physically,
and digitally)
ExCiteS/MfC Guiding principles

34. • Keep it simple, in order to make it
inclusive (no cutting edge tech)
ExCiteS/MfC Guiding principles

35. ExCiteS/MfC technologies

37. http://geokey.org.uk/

38. Community Maps

39. Mapping for Change Process
Introduction to
existing public
information
General
perception
mapping
Discussion &
initial priorities
setting
Digitisation,
visualisation and
discussion
Website and
online map
Citizen Science
and data
gathering
Haklay, M., and Francis, L., forthcoming 2017. Participatory GIS and community-based citizen science for environmental justice
action, in Chakraborty, J., Walker, G. and Holifield, R.(eds.), Handbook of Environmental Justice, Routledge

40. Earthquake preparedness

41. • Reach people where they are: linking to
social media outlets
• Simplify: process is deliberately simple
and limited in analysis, with ability of
exporting information for further analysis
• Community control: moderation,
different levels of access
• Representation: visualisation and icons
through participatory processes
GeoKey/Community Maps
Roick, O., Haklay, M., and Ellul, C.. 2016, GeoKey - open infrastructure for
community mapping and science, Human Computation

42. Engagement: Free, Prior Informed Consent
(FPIC)

43. Participatory software design

44. Participatory Software design

45. Training and support

46. Monitoring poaching

47. • Respecting local knowledge: designing
icons in the field with participants
• Data control: acting as custodians in
terms of managing the information
• Community vs Individuals: FPIC,
community protocol.
• Democratisation, giving voice:
technology and process to ensure
inclusion
Sapelli/GeoKey
Stevens, M., Vitos, M., Altenbuchner, M., Conquest, G., Lewis, J. and Haklay, M.,
2014, Taking Participatory Citizen Science to Extremes, IEEE Pervasive
Computing, 13(2):20-29

48. • Integrating values into PPGIS technologies
is possible, but does not stop using it as a
means to a different ends:
– Using Sapelli to help navigate legal details of
logging permits and laws
– Using Community Maps to collaboratively
map experiences of Concord
– Using GeoKey for community preparedness
checklists with alerts
Deep democratisation?

49. WHERE NEXT?
ExCiteS & Mapping for Change

50. Experimenting with maps

51. 51

52. Tap&Map

53. Summary
• PPGIS is a socio-technical, value-laden
process and practice
• Values should be expressed in the social
practices and in the technologies that are
used
• Generic technologies can be used, with some
compromises and trade-offs
• Developing technologies also require
compromises and trade-offs

54. • Follow us:
– http://www.ucl.ac.uk/excites
– Twitter: @UCL_ExCiteS
– Blog:
http://uclexcites.wordpress.com
The work of ExCiteS is supported by EPSRC,
ERC, EU FP7, EU H2020, RGS, Esri, Forest
People Program, Forests Monitor, WRI and all
the people in communities that we’ve worked
with over the years