USGS Science⌕ Search

USGS · 70026354

The open black box: The role of the end-user in GIS integration

Abstract

Formalist theories of knowledge that underpin GIS scholarship on integration neglect the importance and creativity of end-users in knowledge construction. This has practical consequences for the success of large distributed databases that contribute to spatial-data infrastructures. Spatial-data infrastructures depend on participation at local levels, such as counties and watersheds, and they must be developed to support feedback from local users. Looking carefully at the work of scientists in a watershed in Puget Sound, Washington, USA during the salmon crisis reveals that the work of these end-users articulates different worlds of knowledge. This view of the user is consonant with recent work in science and technology studies and research into computer-supported cooperative work. GIS theory will be enhanced when it makes room for these users and supports their practical work. ?? / Canadian Association of Geographers.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

B.S. Poore. 2003-05-20. The open black box: The role of the end-user in GIS integration. https://doi.org/10.1111/1541-0064.02e13

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related USGS reports

The socioecology of fear: A critical geographical consideration of human-wolf-livestock conflict

Animal fear can be an important driver of ecological community structure: predators affect prey not only through predation, but by inducing changes in behavior and distribution—a phenomenon evocatively called the “ecology of fear.” The return of wolves to the western United States is a notable instance of such dynamics, yet plays out in a complex socio-ecological system where efforts to mitigate impacts on livestock rely on manipulating wolves’ fear of people. Examining Washington state’s efforts to affect wolf behavior to reduce livestock predation, we argue that this approach to coexistence with wolves is predicated on relations of fear: people, livestock, and wolves can arguably share landscapes with minimal conflict, as long as wolves are adequately afraid. We introduce the “socioecology of fear” as an interdisciplinary framework for examining the interwoven social and ecological processes of human-wildlife conflict management. Beyond frequently-voiced ideas about wolves’ “innate” fear, we examine how fear is (re)produced through human-wolf interactions and deeply shaped by human social processes. We contribute to the Critical Physical Geography project by integrating critical social analysis with ecological theory, conducted through collaborative interdisciplinary dialogue. Such integrative practice is essential for understanding the complex challenges of managing wildlife in the Anthropocene.

Washington↗