A Framework for Implementing Volunteered Geographic Information Systems

In an effort to contribute to the conceptualization of the burgeoning field of Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI), we propose to review selected definitions and debates around Geographic Information Systems (GIS). “Traditional” geographic information emerges from the interplay of the components of GIS: hardware, software, data, and application, and it is shaped by the processing of geographic data through a series of functions for input, management, analysis, and presentation within GIS. We suggest framing VGI as an information product originating in “volunteered geographic data” that are sourced and processed within such a complex computer system. Taking this broader perspective of VGI as the output of a system will allow us to understand different types of VGI and the processes of generating them. Ultimately, we may be able to design more effective participatory Geoweb applications. This position paper for the Geothink annual general meeting 2014 summarizes ongoing research in the Geographic Information Science and Systems (GIS) group at Ryerson University. Background and Relevance In debates about conceptualizing volunteered geographic information (VGI), VGI is often equaled to “data”. For example, Elwood, Sui, and Goodchild (2012) do not seem to distinguish VGI from crowd-sourced data. However, the way the term was coined by Goodchild (2007) with the component “information” in it, it is challenging to conceive it as data. Data are usually placed at the bottom of a chain of constructs with increasing level of abstraction: data information knowledge (Meeks, 2007). If we stick to the “i” in VGI, we need to define it as the outcome of data processing, by which data obtain a meaning for a recipient and can be used to answer a question. In his seminal book “Thinking about Geographic Information Systems”, Tomlinson (2007) recommends to implement GIS effectively by defining the first information products to be achieved. These information products originate from data that undergo a series of purposeful transformations. Indeed, the input, management, analysis, and presentation functions for geographic data have often been used to define GIS (e.g., Heywood, Cornelius and Carver, 2006; Longley, Goodchild, Maguire and Rhind, 2011). In Europe, this definition is known by the initials of the functional groups as the IMAP model of GIS (Bill and Fritsch, 1999). Furthermore, transformation of geographic data occurs within unique “GIS ecosystems” consisting of specific hardware, software, data, and applications. This HSDA model (Bill and Fritsch, 1999) is another way of defining GIS, which includes the functional IMAP model in its software component. Generally speaking, the IMAP model is suitable to describe a generic GIS software package while the HSDA model characterizes a specific GIS implementation. Of note is that the HSDA model includes users as part of the applications component. With respect to the Geothink partnership grant, this research has the potential to inform future theoretical research and Geoweb application development across most themes of the partnership. For example, to address the objective of identifying best practices in developing and using the Geoweb ecosystem in local government, we need to first comprehensively identify the components and functionality of existing or potential solutions. Among the Geothink partner organizations, The Neptis Foundation, Sani-ITA, and Ryerson’s Journalism Research Centre have been involved in some discussions around this research, with the potential for practical implementation and application in the near future.