The Geothink partnership is a great opportunity for academics to work directly with those organizations pushing the leading edge of our field. Last fall, uWaterloo student Erin Bryson held a co-op placement working at Montreal-based non-profit (and Geothink partner) OpenNorth. Working closely with OpenNorth staff, Erin wrote an excellent white paper on the potential for current Canadian open data programs to adopt the International Open Data Charter (IODC). The IODC presents 6 main principles as a set of best practices for governments around the world that produce and distribute open data (see image below from opencharter.net).
In creating her report, Erin interviewed a number of municipal governments across Canada, asking them to consider how the IODC could inform their existing work with delivering open data and to determine how aligned existing practices are with the IODC. Erin’s full paper is available for download from the OpenNorth website. Congratulations Erin, and thank you to OpenNorth for your continued work with Geothink.
I recently had the pleasure of working on a new project called “Volunteered Drone Imagery: Challenges and constraints to the development of an open shared image repository”, with Dr. Britta Ricker, University of Washington-Tacoma, and Sara Harrison, a recently-graduated MES student from Waterloo.
We were inspired by the overall concept of OpenStreetMap, a user-generated map of the world, and wanted to think about how the same concept – volunteered geographic information, could be applied to the explosion of imagery data now being made available through the use of recreational drones. There is an emerging ecosystem of technologies and systems to support not only the creation of micro-level imagery, but to overcome the daunting task of sharing this information. We looked to the OpenAerialMap project as an example of this. Drawing on technology adoption constraints literature, we consider the main challenges to creating this open shared image repository (emphasis on open here – there are a number of private-sector options that do not allow imagery to be shared or re-purposed).
Simone, along with co-authors Dr. Keith Hipel and Dr. Peter Johnson, uses the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution to model the longstanding dispute over water allocation between Nevada and Utah. This modeling process allows for new insights into how different actors perform in different situations. Congrats to Simone for publishing her work in a very prestigious venue!
A strategic analysis of the ongoing conflict between Nevada and Utah, over groundwater allocation at Snake Valley, is carried out in order to investigate ways on how to resolve this dispute. More specifically, the Graph Model for Conflict Resolution is employed to formally model and analyze this conflict using the decision support system called GMCR+. The conflict analysis findings indicate that the dispute is enduring because of a lack of incentive and opportunity for any party to move beyond the present circumstances. Continued negotiations are not likely to resolve this conflict. A substantial change in the preferences or options of the disputants, or new governance tools will be required to move this conflict forward. This may hold lessons for future groundwater conflicts. It is, however, increasingly likely that the parties will require a third party intervention, such as equal apportionment by the US Supreme Court.
At long last, a team publication from the GEOIDE grant The Participatory Geoweb has been published in ACME journal. This paper, co-authored by myself, Jon Corbett, Chris Gore, Pamela Robinson, Renee Sieber, and Patrick Allen, takes a critical view of the general enthusiasm for Geoweb projects. We challenge the commonly held notions that the Geoweb is ‘easy’, and highlight several implementation challenges derived from a variety of case studies. For those working with the Geoweb, crowdsourcing, and VGI, I would recommend this as a good overview of the challenges of both developing these types of tools and implementing them within a community context. It’s open-access, so please check it out!
I’ve co-authored an exciting new paper with Dr. Renee Sieber from McGill University. It is currently online first with Government Information Quarterly. With this piece we take a look at the dominant models of open data provision by government and start to lay out what the challenges are for delivering open data. We tried to make this both a reflective look at where open data is, and also to push civic open data forwards, examining how open data works as part of open government strategies. I’ve copied the highlights below. A pre-print copy is available.
We define four main models for how government delivers open data; data over the wall, code exchange, civic issue tracker, and participatory open data.
We define challenges for the continued delivery of open data, including; conflicting motivations, the shifting role of government, and the fragility of ‘mission accomplished’.
We propose that open data be framed as more than provision, but rather as way for government to interact with citizens.
We all know that climate change is having a major impact on weather patterns around the globe. One industry that is particularly exposed to these changes is the ski industry. Though large mountain/high elevation ski resorts may remain insulated from the impacts of shorter ski seasons and more erratic weather, those ski resorts at low altitude are particularly vulnerable to a changing climate. As a mid-latitude, lower elevation (comparatively) ski region, the Pyrenees are one area where the impacts of a changing climate are pronounced.
I have had the pleasure of working with Marc Pons, a PhD student at Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya(BarcelonaTech), in Spain. Marc has been working on developing an agent-based model (ABM) to explore the climate change impacts on winter ski tourism in Andorra, a key skiing destination in the Pyrenees. Marc’s work has looked at how artificial snowmaking can serve as an adaptation response to extend a marginal ski season, or to ensure adequate snow coverage for peak ski times, such as holidays. The benefit to using an ABM for this type of work is that one can quickly develop and test alternate scenarios. For example, in his work, Marc tests the impact of artificial snowmaking on several different Andorran ski resorts – each with a unique geography and elevation that impacts how effective snowmaking is. Also, Marc has taken into account several different scenarios of climate warming, allowing him to present best/worst case scenarios. I see this rapid scenario development as one of the strengths of ABM, particularly in how it can be used in climate adaptation research. Future work can focus on the skier response to changing snow conditions, helping to determine which resorts, operating in a competitive marketplace, can expect to draw more skiers. There are clear business implications of this research, especially when considering how closely tied a local economy is to a major attraction such as a ski resort. This research will be published very soon in the journal Climate Research, but you can take a look at a pre-print version here.
This research is actually (and unintentionally) quite timely – there seems to be much made about ‘Geodesign‘ these days and the possibility to connect geospatial analysis tools and approaches within a policy context. Here is a recent meeting from The Centre for Research in Social Simulation at the University of Surrey that discusses the interface between ABM and policy. Everyone seems to be trying to figure out how geotech tools can help decision-makers make better decisions – a noble pursuit, for sure! However, as I (drawing from many others – thanks Helen Couclelis) point out in the paper, there is a fundamental disconnect between the modeler and the planner or policy developer. Modelers (and scientists) thrive on the ability to be wrong about things – a luxury that the policy developer can’t afford (to put it mildly).
When I think about Geodesign, I am excited that GIS and geospatial tools can make an impact within decision-making. But I also hope that this general level of enthusiasm for tools and approaches is accompanied by a similar investment in research that looks to identify and negotiate the adoption constraints associated with technology implementation. As I’m finding out with my current Geoweb research, there are a unique set of constraints created by an organization (community, government, corporation) that can serve as a massive impediment to using any technology. A balanced view going forward should be a research priority!