Xem mẫu

Chapter 20 Ensuring access to GIS for marginal societies Melinda Laituri 20.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter examines issues related to access and use of GIS by marginal societies. Marginal societies are defined as those groups that have been oppressed, exploited and denied access to the fundamental resources to enhance their everyday lives (Kozol 1991; Shiva 1997; Athanasiou 1996). Three different case studies are examined and evaluated to consider use of and access to GIS, as well as underlying issues related to data development, training and implementation. Common themes from the case studies are compared to identify larger conceptual issues related to GIS implementation. These case studies include the Maori communities of Panguru, Pawarenga and Whangape in Northland, New Zealand; the Arapaho-Shoshone Indian Nations of the Wind Rivers Reservation, Wyoming, United States; kinder-garten through 12th grade (K–12) teachers in the Poudre School District, Ft Collins, Colorado, United States.1 Local knowledge is increasingly recognized as critical to resource man-agement issues, but has not been adequately integrated into management strategies (Laituri and Harvey 1995). The two case studies involving indigen-ous peoples contribute to current work being conducted internationally to include indigenous biological knowledge within the Western framework of computerized knowledge systems used for resource management. Additionally, these projects explore the types of geographic information that is derived from different cultural groups for their explicit needs. An important thrust in recent geographic literature is environmental equity for disadvantaged and marginal populations (Ekins 1992). Increasingly, the use of GIS and information systems for resource management and development issues is a critical factor in allowing access to decision-making. Such data-bases must be constructed with equity in mind for all societal groups, and methods need to be developed that allow access and empower such groups through appropriate training and education. The case study involving K–12 GIS education provides a model for developing appropriate methods for specific user groups. © 2002 Taylor & Francis Ensuring access to GIS for marginal societies 271 20.1.1 Politics of position: protocols of using alternative knowledge systems Information is increasingly becoming a medium of exchange in technologi-cal society. Academics, scientific researchers and others have discovered that the knowledge indigenous people hold of Earth and its ecosystems, wildlife, fisheries, forests and integrated living systems is extensive and informed. Numerous efforts have been made to access such information (Duerden and Kuhn 1993; Denniston 1994). However, efforts to understand and utilize indigenous knowledge remain problematic due to cultural differences, lack of trust and controversies over who should collect such knowledge. As Katz (1992) has noted, representation of the ‘other’ is a serious play of power. Concern over social colonialism has developed into a debate over the ‘crisis of representation’ and questions of who should speak for whom. This crisis is synonymous with the struggle for indigenous land rights and ethnic ident-ity, and its implications are far reaching in academic research (Jackson 1991). The issue of representation is critical in devising research strategies that share indigenous knowledge. It is important to acknowledge and consider the implications of representing another group in technological-ethno-graphic research. All research is conducted from a position of observation. Defining the research position removes some of the power from the researcher, positioning them within the research as a visible part of the cul-tural representation which they construct. As an integral research compon-ent, partiality must be explicitly acknowledged in order to cross cultural boundaries and validate alternative perspectives. Indigenous perspectives often consider knowledge as sacred, while Western perspectives treat know-ledge with skepticism and focus on evaluating and validating information (Patterson 1992). Given this difference in epistemology, it is important to respect different approaches to knowledge transmission. The challenge is to combine indigenous knowledge with Western technology in order to devise alternative natural resource management and conservation strategies that may be more efficient, and environmentally- and culturally sensitive. However, strategies blending indigenous and scientific approaches need to be developed without privileging one culture over the other. The legit-imization of local traditional knowledge is a promising avenue of empower-ment in conservation decision-making. Supporting alternative knowledge systems of indigenous people may allow them to access foreign techniques as they choose. This is an essential caveat in the use of GIS by indigenous people: that the GIS is utilized by them for their needs. The need to assert self-determination in the research process itself is essential to the success of such efforts. Several reviewers have identified specific problems with adopting indigen-ous knowledge in Western systems (Thrupp 1989; Watson and Chambers © 2002 Taylor & Francis 272 M. Laituri 1993). First, must indigenous knowledge be ‘scientized’ by Euro-American researchers to be legitimate? Euro-American scientific theories are commonly considered the dominant epistemology, and superior to alternative knowledge systems. Examining traditional knowledge through Euro-American method-ologies may abstract such knowledge so that the complex subtleties (e.g. spiritual and mystical values and perceptions) are neither acknowledged nor recognized. Traditional knowledge could be further marginalized if it is considered ‘unscientific’. However, romanticizing indigenous knowledge is equally problematic. A balance needs to be achieved that recognizes both the limitations and contributions of indigenous knowledge. Further confounding the relationship between Euro-American theories and traditional knowledge systems is language. Can cultural concepts transcend not only the barrier of cultural perspectives but of language differences as well, and be used within a computerized environment? Second, is it appropriate for traditional knowledge to be extracted and used? A contradiction in the recording of traditional knowledge is that it can be both exploited for development purposes and used to protect culturally sensitive sites. There is a risk that institutions that sponsor conservation efforts may mine or exploit indigenous knowledge and develop projects inap-propriate for local needs (e.g. the Green Revolution, or the use of biotech-nology to create genetically different strains of crops that replace indigenous strains). Inappropriate use of sensitive traditional information (e.g. about sacred sites, traditional areas and hunting and gathering sites) may also pose problems. Restricted access to information may be critical not only to protect specific sites, but also to reinforce the integrity of knowledge systems depend-ent on ritualized processes of knowledge acquisition (Turnbull 1989). Finally, what safeguards and assurances are built into the research or development process to ensure that the introduction of new technology does not represent another ‘system of knowledge as a system of domina-tion’ or scientific colonialism (Cashman 1991: 49)? In addition, will safe-guards ensure that new or existing local elites will not monopolize new technologies? Assurances are built on earned trust and goodwill, which obliges a researcher to a long-term commitment of time. Safeguards might include restricting access to products and outputs, creating monitoring committees made up of local representatives who oversee the introduction and use of new technology, and identifying returns that the community will receive from adopting such technology. One purpose for blending indigenous and Western-based knowledge sys-tems is to encourage participatory development and communication through ‘knowledge-sharing’ (Brendlinger 1992). This establishes an ongoing relationship with long-term goals rather than a single project goal. As inform-ation is jointly constructed through use of such tools as GIS, all participants gain a vested interest and knowledge acquisition is recognized as an evolving process. © 2002 Taylor & Francis Ensuring access to GIS for marginal societies 273 20.2 CASE STUDIES Three different case studies are now examined and evaluated to consider underlying issues of access related to data development, training and imple-mentation. Common themes from the case studies are then compared to identify larger conceptual issues related to GIS implementation. 20.2.1 Maori communities of Panguru, Pawarenga and Whangape in Northland, New Zealand The North Hokianga Maori Development Project is an ongoing joint research project at the University of Auckland with the Maori communities of Northland, New Zealand. The purpose of the project is to identify potential areas for economic development in the North Hokianga region of Northland, focusing on three communities, namely, Whangape, Panguru, and Pawarenga. A further component of the project is to develop culturally relevant data lay-ers – specifically, the identification and assessment of Maori resources and identification of significant cultural and sacred sites through participatory mapping exercises – and then incorporate this information into a GIS. Maori input is important to the development of GIS in the New Zealand context due to the mandate of the Resource Management Act and the Treaty of Waitangi (Michaels and Laituri 1999). Future developments in technology transfer must occur with respect to transmitting GIS skills and the methods of capturing sen-sitive cultural information. GIS may facilitate the transmission, protection and maintenance of sensitive cultural information that is currently being lost. However, it is critical that local communities make their own decisions regard-ing the use, capture, and storage of such information. The construction of a community-based GIS has provided the iwi (tribes) with the opportunity to identify meaningful applications of their particular areas from their own perspective rather than applications based only on Euro-American models of resource management and land-use. This has required close consultation with local Maori and especially the komatua (elders). The initial step toward creating a GIS demanded working through problems of methodology, accessibility, identification of the types of infor-mation to be included, and protecting sensitive cultural information. Tribal people were not only the GIS users but the GIS designers as well. The database was designed to include two levels of access: (1) baseline data that includes all publicly accessible data (socio-economic, demo-graphic, land resource inventory, valuation, cadaster and topographic); and (2) community information (traditional lands, hunting and fishing lands, subsistence land-use, historic and current agriculture fields, sensitive cul-tural information). Limited accessibility to the data was permitted depend-ent upon permission from community elders (Figure 20.1). © 2002 Taylor & Francis 274 M. Laituri COMMUNAL DATABASE Socio-Economic Physical/Natural Resources demographic description Meshblocks Hydrology Hydrology legal boundaries valuation ownership Cadaster Infrastructure -soil -geology -vegetation -erosion -land capability Coastline Land Resource Inventory (LRI) Remotely Sensed Data Rails Major Roads Settlements Aerial Photographs Satellite image Cultural Sites Marae Locations (sacred sites) Genealogy Waahi Tapu (sacred sites) Komatua (elder) information COMMUNITY DATABASE restricted data Traditional Land-Use Rahui (planting/harvest sites) Tapu (restrictions) Harvesting sites Potential Development Forestry Aquaculture Cottage Industry Ecotourism Figure 20.1 Two-tiered database for the North Hokianga Project, New Zealand. The first tier of the database was completed and provided the community with a set of maps that evaluated the natural resources in each community. In addition, land tenure and parcel maps were created based upon existing digital data. These data were several years out of date (1979) and high-lighted the need to update and integrate land ownership records. This is a daunting task as it demands the integration of data sets between several different governmental entities, including the Valuation Department, Lands and Deeds, the Department of Survey and Land Information, and the Maori Land Court. The second tier of the database design was agreed upon in principle; however, the actual inventorying and identification of culturally sensitive information proved problematic. © 2002 Taylor & Francis ... - tailieumienphi.vn
nguon tai.lieu . vn