:: Publication Detail

INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Prof. Mike Goodchild - Chairman
University of California,
Santa Barbara 4, USA

Prof. Hugh Calkins,
State Unversity of New York, - Member
Buffalo, USA

Dr. R. Srinivasan,
Texas A&M University,, Texas, USA - Member

Prof. I.Calder, - Member
University of New Castle-Upon- Tyne,
U.K.

Prof. J. Hogg, - Member
University of Reading, Reading, U.K.

Dr. B.D. Acharya, - Member
Head (NRDMS)), DST, New Delhi

NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

1. Secretary, - Chairman
Deptt. of Science & Technology
2. Resident representative UNDP, - Member
New Delhi or his representative
3. Secretary, Ministry of Rural - Member
Development
4. Secretary, Ministry of Water - Member
Resources.
5. Secretary, Ministry of Mines & - Member
Geology
6. Secretary, Department of Health - Member
7. Secretary, Department of Family - Member
Welfare
8. Secretary, Department of - Member
Non- conventional Energy Sources
9 Secretary, Department of - Member
Agriculture
10. Chairman, Central Pollution Control Board - Member
11. Chairman, University Grants Commission - Member
12. Director General, ATCTE, New Delhi - Member
13. Dr. K. Krishnaunni, Former, DG, GSI - Member
14 Director, IIT, Bombay - Member
15. Director, IIT, Delhi - Member
16. Secretary. Development & Planning, - Member
Government of West Bengal, Kolkata
17. Secretary, Rural Development & Panchayati Raj, - Member
Government of Karnataka, Bangalore
18. Surveyor General of India, Dehradun - Member
19. Director, National Atlas & Thematic - Member
Mapping Organisation, Kolkata
20. Joint Secretary (Administration) DST - Member
21. Joint Secretary (Finance) DST - Member
22. Dr. B.D. Acharya Head (NRDMS)), DST, Convenor
New Delhi

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

1. Dr. B.D. Acharya Head (NRDMS)), DST Chairman
New Delhi
2. Dr. R.K. Midha, TIFAC, DST, New Delhi - Member
3 Dr. Pradeep Sharma, UNDP, New Delhi -do-
or Representative of UNDP
4. Prof. P.B.S. Sharma, IIT, Delhi -do-
5. Prof. .S. Panesar, Punjab Agri. Univ., Ludhiana -do-
6. Dr. A. Perumal, NRSA, Hyderabad -do
7. Prof. A.K. Gosain , Deptt. of Civil Engg., IIT, Delhi -do
8. Dr. Mrs. P. Venkatachalam IIT, Mumbai -do-
9. Dr B. Krishna Mohan IIT, Mumbai -do-
10. Dr. D. Dutta NRDMS DST, New Delhi -do-
11. Dr. M. Prithviraj NRDMS DST, New Delhi -do-
12. Shri P.S. Acharya NRDMS DST, New Delhi Convenor

ORGANISING COMMITTEE

1. Dr. B.D. Acharya Head (NRDMS)), DST Chairman
New Delhi
2. Dr. R.K. Midha, TIFAC, DST, NEW Delhi - Member
3. Prof. A.K. Gosain Deptt. of Civil Engg., IIT Delhi -do-
4. Mrs. P. Venkatachalam, IIT, Bombay -do-
5 .Dr. B.K. Mohan, IIT, Bombay -do-
6. Brig. Gopal Rao, Survey of India, New Delhi -do-
7. Dr. A.K. Singh, IARI, New Delhi -do
8. Shri Ashok Malhotra, UNDP, New Delhi -do-
9. Mrs. Sadhana Relia, Int. Divn., DST -do
10 . Mr. Ravi Gupta, CSDMS, NOIDA, U.P. -do-
11 Shri Bhoop Singh NRDMS, DST, New Delhi -do-
12 Mrs. N. Mendiratta, NRDMS DST, New Delhi -do-
13. Shri D. Datta, NRDMS, DST, New Delhi Convenor

INAUGURAL ADDRESS

APPLICATION OF GIS TECHNOLOGIES TO LOCAL LEVEL PLANNING
Michael F. Goodchild

APPLICATION OF GIS TECHNOLOGIES TO LOCAL LEVEL PLANNING

Michael F. Goodchild
Department of Geography
University of California, Santa Barbara, USA

ABSTRACT

Geographic information systems (GIS) are widely acknowledged as valuable tools in support of spatial decisions, and thus in local level planning. Applications of GIS in this domain date from the early computer adaptation of the work of McHarg, and the concept of planning criteria as separable layers of mapped information. The paper reviews current trends in this area, focusing first on the social critique of GIS, and its consequences in terms of increased interest in public-participation GIS; and second on the role of the Internet in dramatically changing the dominant paradigm of GIS, from a standalone desktop application to a system for communicating and sharing knowledge of the planet's surface.
Introduction
Geographic information can be defined as information about places on the Earth’s surface, and related information about the near-surface above and below the Earth, such as the atmosphere and the crust. Geographic information has always played a major role in human society (see, for example, the fascinating historical story of geographic information theft related by Harvey, 2000), allowing early hunter-gatherer societies to tell fellow band members about food sources and dangerous areas; allowing military strategists and imperial powers to conquer and consolidate territory; and allowing today’s citizens to find places and the directions for reaching them. More formally, geographic information links places on or near the Earth’s surface to properties, such as elevation, temperature, population density, or wealth.
The terms geographic and spatial are often used interchangeably, though the former is strictly a special case of the latter, and the term geospatial is also widely used. Today we recognize two types of geographic information, corresponding to two distinct conceptualizations of the geographical world. In the discrete object view, the Earth’s surface is an otherwise empty space littered with features, such as buildings, humans, vehicles, or roads, each of which might be depicted on a map using appropriate symbols, and represented in a database as a point, line, or area with associated geometry and attributes. Discrete objects can be identified on the ground and counted. In the field view, the Earth’s surface can be described using a finite set of functions of location, each visualized as a continuous surface. For example, atmospheric temperature can be measured at every point on the Earth, and visualized as a continuous surface, perhaps by tracing its isotherms. Some phenomena clearly fit the discrete object view better, and some fit the field view better. Each view defines the operations that can be performed in manipulating and exploring geographic information.
A geographic information system (GIS) is defined as a computer system for input, storage, manipulation, and output of geographic information, and is to geographic information as the word processor is to text, or the statistical package to statistical analysis. Geographic information systems trace their origins to a single project, the Canada Land Inventory, which was funded by the Government of Canada beginning in the mid 1960s (Tomlinson, 1998). The computerization of map data at very substantial expense was justified on the grounds that computers are far more efficient than humans at performing elementary operations on geographic information, including the measurement of simple properties like length and area, and the overlay and comparison of multiple layers of geographic information. Each layer might correspond to a single field, or a single collection of similar discrete objects (e.g., lakes, roads, or oilwells).
Since the mid 1960s, and particularly starting in the early 1980s, GIS has grown into a very substantial application of electronic data processing, with annual software sales approaching $1 billion, and a related data and services industry worth perhaps ten times that. GIS has been quick to adopt recent technical innovations, such as the Internet and World Wide Web (WWW), object-oriented programming and database design, and universal standards. It is estimated that on the order of 10,000 are employed directly in the GIS industry; that on the order of 100,000 are trained in GIS use and apply it regularly in their jobs; that on the order of 1,000,000 have received some level of technical exposure to GIS; and that on the order of 10,000,000 regularly use GIS-based services such as computer-derived wayfinding instructions (e.g., http://www.mapquest.com). For recent introductions and reviews of GIS see Longley et al. (1999, 2001).
The ultimate purpose of GIS, as with all information systems, is to inform decisions. The decisions informed by GIS are by definition geographic, that is, they are affected by geographic location, and refer directly to geographic location. Thus decisions over the use of a particular parcel of land, or over the appropriate location for a given activity such as an industrial plant or road or community health clinic or school, or over the route to be taken by a bus service, are all geographic decisions. A GIS has sometimes been identified as a spatial decision support system (SDSS), and its design and functionality is ideally adapted to assisting in the solution of spatial problems. Quality of data has been a major concern in the GIS research community for the past decade (for an early review see Goodchild and Gopal, 1989), since it is obvious that good decisions cannot be based on poor data.
The purpose of this paper is to review the current status of GIS for spatial decision support. The next section reviews the history of this area of GIS application, and explores the nature of spatial decision support. This is followed by a review of recent critiques of GIS, focusing on issues in spatial decision support. The concept of public-participation GIS is reviewed, together with recent developments in the research literature. Finally, the role of the Internet is reviewed, with associated concepts of digital libraries and Web-based mapping, all of which have proven to be significant in the development of GIS as spatial decision support systems.
GIS in planning
The role of GIS in decision support is consistent with longstanding traditions in a number of disciplines. McHarg (1969) focused and partly formalized some of these traditions in his well known layer model, in which the solution to spatial problems is obtained by superimposing layers of suitably weighted geographic information in the form of transparent maps. For example, the best route for a new highway might be obtained by preparing a series of maps, each representing one factor or criterion relevant to the decision. Each map would show the factor, and be shaded darkest where the factor is least favorable, and lightest where it is most favorable. When overlaid, the combined layers reveal the weighted combination of all factors (in principle their product), allowing the best location to be chosen quickly by eye. To McHarg, the layer model was a simple representation of the process of landscape architecture, and each layer represented one specific disciplinary expertise. McHarg was quick to see the relevance of GIS, as a way of automating and further formalizing the simple procedure. Instead of the uncontrolled combination of layers that occurs when they are superimposed over a light source, GIS implementations of McHarg’s method allow each layer to be carefully evaluated and weighted, and for the process of combination to be controlled to follow the most appropriate mathematical function. The command language invented and popularized by Tomlin (1990) and known as cartographic modeling is one way of facilitating this combinatorial process, and other approaches have been described by Takeyama and Couclelis (1997), van Deursen (1995), and others. The term multi-criteria decision-making (MCDM) is now used to describe such analytical procedures (Massam, 1988; Thill, 1999).
Recently, far more sophisticated methods have become commonplace in GIS, and have been enabled through extensions to GIS functionality. Saaty’s Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP; Saaty, 1980) provides a complete scheme for making multi-criteria decisions. The factors of importance are first identified, and then rated on a pairwise basis by a group of individuals with stakes in the decision. AHP provides a way of processing the pairwise comparisons to produce weights that can be associated with each factor. Finally, the composite scores are computed and mapped, and a decision is made. AHP is only one of many such methods, but has proven to be efficacious in a wide range of spatial decisions. Massam (1980, 1993) has discussed many examples of the application of MCDM to spatial problems. Support for MCDM is now present in many commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) GIS, although Idrisi (http://www.clarklabs.org) has probably advanced the furthest in implementing this class of functionality and in providing compelling examples.
More generally, the acquisition of expertise in GIS has become a major element in the training of planners and landscape architects, and students in related design-oriented disciplines. Extensions to standard GIS software have greatly improved the value of GIS in this application area, including:

These technologies can require enormous investment in data acquisition and computation, and raise the question of the value of realism in simulation. To what extent is the planner or decision-maker ethically obliged to create realistic views of the consequences of decisions?
Another area of recent interest has been geo-computation, or the use of computers and GIS to simulate the operation and effects of natural or human processes on the landscape (Longley et al., 1998). A wide range of computer-based numerical models are now available for the simulation of such natural phenomena as forest succession, tectonic uplift, groundwater flow, and slope erosion (e.g., Smith et al., 1997a,b). More recently progress has been made in simulating processes of urban growth (e.g., Clarke et al., 1997), and other primarily social phenomena, and in the coupling of models of different but interacting processes. Some of these models implement formal mathematical representations, such as the partial differential equations that describe atmospheric or hydrological processes. Others approximate social or ecological processes through the implementation of appropriately designed cellular automata. Still others attempt to model the actions of humans or animals at the individual level, through models of the behavior of autonomous agents (O'Sullivan and Haklay, 2000), reflecting a widespread belief that modeling of complex human and physical systems requires a very fine degree of granularity and massive computational power.
The relationship between GIS and geo-computation is complex. In one view, geo-computation’s concern with dynamics and prediction will finally move GIS away from its static, map-oriented roots (Couclelis, 1998; Goodchild, 1988), and enable it to address issues of great significance to public policy. Only by simulation is it possible to evaluate the impacts of decisions on complex systems, through the assessment of what-if scenarios.
The social critique of GIS
Until the early 1990s, the development of GIS had followed the pattern of many other areas of computer application: great enthusiasm for the technology’s potential, and remarkably little skepticism. In the late 1980s a new movement in academic cartography began to question the underlying motives of map-making, led by the late Brian Harley (Harley, 1989). In this critique, map-making was seen as an essential instrument of imperial power and domination, and the example of India was frequently cited (Keay, 2000). Such critiques were in line with trends in the social sciences generally, and the rise of deconstructionism, which argued that the products of many areas of human endeavor can be analyzed to reveal the hidden motives of their agents; cartographers were no exception. “Whose agenda is in your glove compartment?” became the title of a chapter in Denis Wood’s deconstruction of cartography (Wood, 1992).
The subject of this critique quickly extended to GIS, which by the early 1990s was fast becoming a major force in academic geography and in many government agencies. GIS was and continues to be expensive, though the price of entry has fallen dramatically over the past four decades; in 2001 it is possible to acquire the hardware and software of a powerful GIS workstation for less than $5,000 US, which is perhaps four orders of magnitude less than the price of entry in 1965. Nevertheless a GIS laboratory represented a very significant investment for an academic institution.
The critique had several major thrusts. First, GIS continues to raise concerns over privacy, because information on the location of individuals can be used for powerful and possibly sinister ends. Geographic location, in the form of a street address, can be used to link records together and to assemble detailed dossiers on individuals, and can even lead to identity theft. Geographic location can be highly sensitive, when people do not want others to know where they are; for example, it can be a factor in stalking. Geographic information is clearly of interest to the intelligence community, and modern technologies of high-resolution space imaging and closed-circuit television raise the specter of unwanted surveillance.
Second, GIS has strong roots in the military, and played a very major role in the wartime operations of the Allies in the Gulf War. It is used to select targets, and to guide smart bombs and cruise missiles. It is argued that GIS was at least partly responsible for the Allied victory in the war, and the extremely disproportionate casualty figures of the two sides. Yet GIS texts say little about the military side, much of which remains classified.
Third, and most relevant for the purposes of this paper, is the critique of GIS as elitist and marginalizing. Because of its high cost, the first major GIS installations occurred in government agencies and powerful corporations. Most oil and gas agencies and companies, along with most forest resource agencies and forest products companies, had acquired major GIS installations by the mid 1980s. Moreover, early GIS inherited many of its basic ideas from map-making, including the scientific principle that it is possible to describe the true nature of the Earth’s surface in a single, scientifically correct version. This principle of scientific measurement was easily applied, for example, to the measurement of topography.
The problem with this view of GIS is that it suggests a powerful elitist technology, that can easily be perverted into serving the interests of a powerful elite. As a scientific tool filled with scientific data, it reflects the notion that science can be conducted by dispassionate observers according to altruistic principles. But in areas such as spatial decision support there is clearly the opportunity for any technology to favor the interests of a particular, powerful group, and to ignore or marginalize the views of others. This view was simply reinforced by the observation that access to early GIS, because of its cost, was virtually limited to the powerful, whether in the form of government agencies or private corporations. Moreover it fed directly from the earlier critique of cartography, which showed in a similar way how an ostensibly objective, scientific technology could be subverted to serve hidden interests and motives.
Several excellent summaries of the social critique of GIS have appeared (Pickles, 1999; Schuurman, 2001), and despite some initial intellectual skirmishing the critique seems to be generally accepted as having merit, and requiring response. A series of initiatives, beginning with a meeting organized by the U.S. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis in 1993, have attempted to encourage constructive dialog. Most relevant for this current paper is the emergence from the critique of a concept of public-participation GIS, a major development with both technical and institutional implications, and the subject of the next section.
Public participation and GIS
The term public-participation GIS (PPGIS) has been explored at a series of meetings and is the subject of a substantial literature (Craig et al., in press; Jankowski and Nyerges, 2001; and see http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/varenius/ppgis). It is founded on several fundamental assertions and principles:

These assertions are so strikingly divergent from the norms of objective science that it is easy to believe that new technologies are needed to implement them. Thus discussions of PPGIS often focus on the notion of GIS-2, a new generation of GIS technology that is fundamentally different from the old. However, detailed examination often reveals that the new ideas are compatible with the old technology.
Discussions of PPGIS often address issues of cross-cultural and cross-linguistic significance. It is argued, for example, that the history of GIS is a reflection of Western and European cultural norms, and even of masculine norms, and that a GIS designed for and by another culture might take a fundamentally different approach. The concept of classification is often cited, since many GIS layers of variables such as land cover or land use assume that all local conditions can be assigned to exactly one class; more recently, fuzzy approaches to classification have become popular in the GIS literature as an effective alternative (e.g., Hunsaker et al., 2001).
PPGIS is part of a wider interest in the role of information in social processes, particularly community-building. Access to GIS, through public institutions such as libraries and schools, allows all citizens to become involved in the planning process, and to be more active stakeholders. Several large-scale experiments have been funded in the U.S., through the mechanism of the National Partnership for Reinventing Government, to explore these issues (http://www.fgdc.gov/nsdi/docs/cdp/). GIS is seen as a way of bringing government closer to the communities that it serves, and as a basis for what has become known as place-based planning, or planning that addresses the local characteristics and unique needs of places while being mindful of global or national priorities. These discussions assume open and free access to information, and are therefore strongly driven by the changes that have been wrought in the past decade by the advent of the Internet and the WWW, the topic of the next section.
The Internet and GIS
The concept of linking computers by high-speed communication links dates from the 1960s, but inserted itself into the public consciousness only in the 1990s, with the growth of the Internet. The WWW, as an application running on the Internet that allows users seated at client machines to retrieve information from remote servers and to follow links between different servers, dates only from 1993. But the combination clearly drove the massive boom in information technology that occurred from then until 2000, and is still echoing today.
GIS developers were quick to realize the power and implications of the WWW, and the first GIS application was one of the very first WWW sites (Longley et al., 2001). In the U.S., the concept of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) was defined in 1993 (Mapping Science Committee, 1993) and became the subject of a Presidential Order in 1994. It proposed to replace the traditional, centralized mode of production and dissemination of geographic information, dominated by federal agencies, with a patchwork in which each community would be empowered to collect and maintain its own high-resolution data under national guidelines and standards, and in which each element of the patchwork would be integrated with its neighbors and with coarser elements maintained higher in the administrative hierarchy. The NSDI was to be funded through a system of public–private partnerships involving groupings of government agencies, NGOs, and corporations.
The NSDI was defined around the concept of framework, the set of layers of geographic information that form the foundation on which all other layers are created. The framework includes all of the geographic features used by people to orient themselves on the Earth’s surface and commonly shown on topographic maps: roads and streets, rivers, land use, political boundaries, topographic features such as hills, and photographic images. The gazetteer, or list of named places, is clearly part of the framework but was not one of the original NSDI layers. The NSDI would become the modern digital equivalent of the base map, but would take advantage of the benefits of digital technology: fast updating, easy change of scale, printing on demand, etc.
One of the major programs of the NSDI has been the development of the National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse (NGDC; http://www.fgdc.gov). NGDC allows custodians of datasets to advertise their availability through a WWW site, and allows users to search for datasets across distributed servers using a single search mechanism. Currently some 300 servers are members of the clearinghouse network, having agreed to follow NGDC standards for dataset description through the use of a common metadata standard (metadata are defined as data about data, or digital documentation). NGDC, and related programs that encourage custodians of datasets to describe them with metadata and register them with NGDC, have had enormous influence on the availability and sharing of digital geographic data, not only in the U.S. but worldwide.
NGDC is an instance of a geolibrary, a library whose primary search mechanism is based on geographic location. Thus it is possible to search a geolibrary for all of the relevant information associated with a given footprint, or area on the Earth’s surface. Many geolibraries now exist, sponsored by both public and private organizations, and making use of the common metadata standard first promulgated by the U.S. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC; http://www.fgdc.gov). Geolibraries have the potential to revolutionize the availability of geographic information for use by communities in support of the solution of spatial problems.
Geolibraries also reflect a substantial change in the approach used to disseminate geographic information. Traditional arrangements have been centralized, dominated by the national mapping and related agencies in each country. Under these arrangements, each type of geographic information, or layer, has a separate production mechanism, and is often the unique responsibility of a separate agency. In the U.S., for example, production of geographic information is divided between the USGS, NIMA, NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and several other agencies. The evolution of NSDI has required very elaborate efforts to encourage interaction between these agencies, through the FGDC. These arrangements can be described as horizontal, in the sense that they provide for separate production of each major layer. But GIS technology adopts a vertical perspective, by integrating separate layers based on common geographic location. The transition from a horizontal set of arrangements to a vertical set is enormously beneficial, in improving access to geographic information and in promoting the ideals of NSDI and geolibraries, but will entail a lengthy process of institutional rearrangement.
Another more recent type of geolibrary is exemplified by the Geography Network, a Web site maintained by the Environmental Systems Research Institute (http://www.geographynetwork.com/). The Geography Network is distinguished from its predecessors by its level of integration with GIS technology, specifically ArcGIS 8.1. A user of this GIS is able to access the network from within the GIS, and to make use of data sets as if they were locally resident and native to the GIS. Besides data, the Geography Network allows users to access GIS services offered by its members, and allows custodians of data to advertise their datasets in much the same way as the NGDC.
The development of geolibraries is one example of the use of the Internet and the WWW to advance the GIS agenda. In addition, many WWW sites now offer extensive facilities for the creation of customized maps based on server-side GIS functions, and such sites have become instrumental in the widespread popularization of GIS. There are several instances of community-wide approaches to GIS, in which technology provides the link to bring communities closer together, based on improved access to information.
All of this enthusiasm for Internet-based GIS assumes a high degree of connectivity, and clearly is at odds with the reality of Internet access for much of the population. In developed countries, the last-mile problem describes the extreme variability in Internet access that is observed over short distances, such that households located in the same street can experience orders of magnitude differences in the bandwidth available to them. Rural areas and poor neighborhoods clearly do not enjoy the same level of access to the Internet as universities, libraries, and corporations. In addition, access is severely constrained in schools by concerns about the use of the Internet for disseminating pornography and other ethically unacceptable types of information. At an international level, access to the Internet varies dramatically from country to country, and between social classes within countries. The digital divide is emerging as a major social problem of the new millennium.
Over the past decade a significant shift has occurred in the way GIS is viewed. In the first few decades of its development, GIS was perceived as an application of standalone computing systems, performing tasks that its users found difficult or tedious or impossible to perform by hand. But with the Internet, the paradigm has shifted significantly, and GIS is now perceived more as the means by which people share their knowledge of the planet’s surface, in the form of geographic information (Goodchild, 2000). This shift in perspective brings a number of associated shifts, in the ways in which GIS activity is valued, and the issues that confront its adoption. Earlier concern for analytic power and computing speed is replaced by concern for access to archives of data, and communication bandwidth. It also implies a greater concern for the role of GIS in community planning, and the ability of GIS to promote community interaction.
Concluding comments
The purpose of this paper has been to review recent developments in the area of GIS applications for spatial decision support. Over the past decade there have been several significant developments: the rapid evolution of SDSS functionality in GIS, as exemplified by Idrisi; the continuing social critique of GIS and responses from the GIS community; and the development of the WWW as a mechanism for sharing geographic information and building communities through improved access. There have also been calls for the development of a new form of GIS, or GIS-2, that addresses many of the criticisms leveled at GIS-1.
At a global level, many issues confuse the perspective that emerges from the developed countries. First, despite efforts to develop a global approach to spatial data infrastructure, an integrated approach to the creation and dissemination of geographic information remains a privilege of a few developed countries. Efforts under the International Steering Committee for Global Mapping (http://www.iscgm.org), the Global Spatial Data Infrastructure initiative, and the Digital Earth initiative (http://www.digitalearth.gov), share many common goals and even joint meetings, but lack a strong organizational home and significant funding.
Second, the notion that communities can be empowered by GIS clearly needs to be adapted to the realities of developing countries. Access to the Internet is severely restricted in many countries, and beyond the means of many communities. Concepts of community empowerment through PPGIS that work for the developed world need to be modified to take account of institutional and technological realities. It may be that different approaches to facility sharing are needed, or different approaches to communication in the face of severely limited bandwidth. Little if any of the investment in Internet access in the developed world has focused on wireless communication, but this may be the answer to limited infrastructure in developing countries.
References
Clarke, K.C., S. Hoppen, and L. Gaydos (1997) A self-modifying cellular automaton model of historical urbanization in the San Francisco Bay area. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 24(2): 247–261.
Couclelis, H. (1998) Geocomputation in context. In P.A. Longley, S.M. Brooks, R. McDonnell, and W. Macmillan, editors, Geocomputation: A Primer. Chichester, UK: Wiley, pp. 17–30.
Craig, W.J, T.M. Harris, and D. Weiner, editors (in press) Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Goodchild, M.F. (1988) Stepping over the line: technological constraints and the new cartography. American Cartographer 15: 311–319.
Goodchild, M.F. (2000) Communicating geographic information in a digital age. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90(2): 344–355.
Goodchild, M.F., and S. Gopal (1989) Accuracy of Spatial Databases. London: Taylor and Francis.
Harley, J.B. (1989) Deconstructing the map. Cartographica 26: 1–20.
Harvey, M. (2000) The Island of Lost Maps: A True Story of Cartographic Crime. New York: Random House.
Hunsaker, C.T., M.F. Goodchild, M.A. Friedl, and E.J. Case, editors (2001) Spatial Uncertainty in Ecology: Implications for Remote Sensing and GIS Applications. New York: Springer.
Jankowski, P., and T. Nyerges (2001) Geographic Information Systems for Group Decision Making: Towards a Participatory Geographic Information Science. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Keay, J. (2000) The Great Arc: The Dramatic Story of How India Was Mapped and Everest Was Named. New York: HarperCollins.
Longley, P.A., S.M. Brooks, R. McDonnell, and W. Macmillan, editors (1998) Geocomputation: A Primer. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Longley, P.A., M.F. Goodchild, D.J. Maguire, and D.W. Rhind, editors (1999) Geographical Information Systems: Principles, Techniques, Management and Applications. New York: Wiley.
Longley, P.A., M.F. Goodchild, D.J. Maguire, and D.W. Rhind (2001) Geographic Information Systems and Science. New York: Wiley.
Mapping Science Committee (1993) Towards a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Massam, B.H. (1980) Spatial Search: Application to Planning Problems in the Public Sector. New York: Pergamon.
Massam, B.H. (1988) Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) Techniques in Planning. New York: Pergamon.
Massam, B.H. (1993) The Right Place: Shared Responsibility and the Location of Public Facilities. Harlow, England: Longman Scientific and Technical.
McHarg, I.L. (1969) Design with Nature. Garden City, NY: Natural History Press.
O'Sullivan, D, and M. Haklay (2000) Agent-based models and individualism: is the world agent-based? Environment and Planning A 32(8): 1409–1425.
Pickles, J. (1999) Arguments, debates and dialogues: the GIS–social theory debate and the concern for alternatives. In P.A. Longley, M.F. Goodchild, D.J. Maguire, and D.W. Rhind, editors, Geographical Information Systems: Principles, Techniques, Management and Applications. New York: Wiley, pp. 49–60.
Saaty, T.L. (1980) The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Schuurman, N. (2001) Critical GIS: Theorizing an Emerging Science. Cartographica 53.
Smith, T.R., B. Birnir, and G.E. Merchant (1997a) Towards an elementary theory of drainage basin evolution: I. The theoretical basis. Computers and Geosciences 23(8): 811–822.
Smith, T.R., G.E. Merchant, and B. Birnir B (1997b) Towards an elementary theory of drainage basin evolution: II. A computational evaluation. Computers and Geosciences 23(8): 823–849.
Takeyama, M., and H. Couclelis (1997) Map dynamics: integrating cellular automata and GIS through Geo-Algebra. International Journal of Geographical Information Systems 11(1): 73–91.
Thill, J.-C., editor (1999) Spatial Multicriteria Decision Making and Analysis: a Geographic Information Sciences Approach. Brookfield, VT: Ashgate.
Tomlin, C.D. (1990) Geographic Information Systems and Cartographic Modeling.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Tomlinson, R.F. (1998) The Canada Geographic Information System. In T.W. Foresman, editor, The History of Geographic Information Systems: Perspectives from the Pioneers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR, pp. 21–32.
van Deursen, W.P.A. (1995) Geographical Information Systems and Dynamic Models: Development and Application of a Prototype Spatial Modelling Language. Utrecht: Koninklijk Nederlands Aardrijkskundig Genntschap, Faculteit Ruimtelijke Wetenschappen Universiteit Utrecht.
Wood, D. with J. Fels (1992) The Power of Maps. New York: Guilford