chapter one: introduction - university of...
TRANSCRIPT
Abstract
"I honestly think we're seeing a more profound change, for map-making, than the switch from
manuscript to print in the Renaissance. That was huge. But this is bigger," Jerry Brotton-
University of London cartographic historian- referring to Web mapping.
Dynamic changes in the World Wide Web technology and in society’s information needs have
led up to the relatively new concept of web mapping. It has in the past just twenty years or so
quickly grown to be one of the main mediums of relaying and sharing important information.
Growths in the demand for geographic information and for simpler technology have seen
numerous web mapping software being created every year; causing a rapid development of the
web mapping industry. Among these is the map mashups phenomenon being spearheaded by
Google Maps API. Map mashups have led to the evolution of Cartography from being a
preserve of highly skilled specialists requiring expensive instruments or equipment, to being a
highly democratized system. However, many in this part of the world are still unaware and/or
apprehensive of the functionalities of map mashups and web mapping solutions in general and
are therefore not utilizing them.
This project applied the mashup -web mapping- technology to come up with an online,
interactive map and a documentation of the Geoparks in Kenya (in support of the ‘Geopark
initiative’). Google Maps application (Google Fusion Tables tool) was used as the platform, so
as to demonstrate some of its functionalities. The data required was collected from National
Museum of Kenya (NMK), Geological Society of Kenya (GSK) and Kenya Wildlife Service
(KWS), while the base map was sourced from Google Map.
The project revealed that the process of creating low accuracy thematic maps is no longer long,
tedious nor intensive. Map Mashups however come with issues that need to be addressed as
well as challenges and disadvantages. The recommendation is for more entities to embrace the
web mapping solutions (mashups in particular) for mapping, documentation and dissemination
of spatial data.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Thank you, Sammy Matara, for being the ultimate project leader and for being remarkably
supportive. You pointed me in the right direction. I hope I did not disappoint.
Thank you, Dr. Ing. Musyoka, for your insight and for being patient with me.
Thank you, Dennis Milewa and Gladys Kianji, for kindly providing me with the data I needed
and generously offering support. I highly appreciate.
Thank you, Solomon Maina and Jack Kingi, for introducing me to HTML coding and for
teaching me the basics. I would have had a very ugly map without your help!
Thank you, Nelly Mwawasi for ungluing me when I got stuck.
Many thanks to Mary Gwena and Alan Orth.
Finally, thanks to my parents for enduring: my absence from home, and my ‘busyness’ during
this last semester.
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure a: Percentage of map mashups (From Programmableweb.com)...............................5
Figure b: Marafa Canyon/'Hell's Kitchen'.............................................................................12
Figure c: Illustration of consumer's grown dependence on the internet (from Dr. Siriba's
notes)..........................................................................................................................................23
Figure d: shows typical workflow of a mashup (Source: Howard Yamaguchi).................27
Figure e: Showing the typical workflow of Open source web-mapping solution (By
Howard Yamaguchi)................................................................................................................28
Figure f: Principles that make up Web 2.0 (From O'Reilly media).....................................30
Figure g: study area..................................................................................................................34
Figure h: Outline of the methodology process.......................................................................36
Figure i: showing the Google account sign up page...............................................................38
Figure j: showing the visualization step..................................................................................41
Figure k: showing the interface for customizing info window style.....................................41
Figure l: showing section of resultant Fusion data table.......................................................43
Figure m: showing a screenshot of the resultant blog...........................................................44
Figure n: showing the pop-up info window on clicking Hell's Kitchen location marker...45
Figure o: web browser search result provides a link to the database created....................46
Figure p: Showing Tourist Geopark map on Google Earth.................................................46
Figure q: Showing symbolization that requires legend information...................................47
Figure r: Excerpt from ILRI Job advertisement 2013..........................................................50
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Summary of 'Geotourism' definitions......................................................................21
Table 2: Summary of 'Geosite' definitions.............................................................................21
Table 3: Advantages and Disadvantages of Web maps.........................................................32
Table 4: Web 1.0 vs Web 2.0 from Copacetic (2006).............................................................36
ABBREVIATIONS
API Application Programming Interface
CSV Comma-separated values
GDP Gross Domestic Product
GGN Global Geopark Network
GIS Geographic Information Systems
GoK Government of Kenya
GSK Geological Society of Kenya
HTML Hyper Text Markup Language
IEBC Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission
JPEG Joint Photographic Expert Group
KML Key Markup Language
KWS Kenya Wildlife Society
NMK National Museum of Kenya
PNG Portable Network Graphics
TTF Tourism Trust Fund
UNESCO United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
USA United States of America
USGS United States Geological Survey
UTM Universal Transverse Mercator
WTM World Travel Market
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................1
1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION.............................................................................................................1
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT.........................................................................................................................6
1.3 OBJECTIVES..........................................................................................................................................8
1.4 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS.....................................................................................................................9
1.5 REPORT ORGANISATION.......................................................................................................................9
2.0 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW.....................................................................................................11
2.1 TOURISM............................................................................................................................................11
2.1.1. What is Geo-tourism?............................................................................................................11
2.1.2. What is a Geosite?.................................................................................................................14
2.1.3. What is a Geopark?................................................................................................................15
2.2.Geoparks justification........................................................................................................................16
2.2.1 How to set up a geopark........................................................................................................18
2.2.2 The ‘Geopark Initiative’ in Kenya............................................................................................21
2.3.Technological changes.......................................................................................................................22
2.4.WEB MAPPING...................................................................................................................................24
2.4.1. Web 2.0 Mashups..................................................................................................................29
3.0 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................34
3.1 STUDY AREA.......................................................................................................................................34
3.2 TOOLS.................................................................................................................................................35
3.3 METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................................36
3.3. 1 Data Identification..................................................................................................................36
3.3. 2 Data collection.......................................................................................................................37
3.3. 3 Data preparation....................................................................................................................37
3.3. 4 Processing..............................................................................................................................38
3.3. 5 Output Dissemination............................................................................................................42
4.0 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS...............................................................................................43
4.1.RESULTS.............................................................................................................................................43
4.2.ISSUES ARISING..................................................................................................................................47
5.0. CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS......................................................................49
5.1.CONCLUSIONS....................................................................................................................................49
5.2.RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................................49
BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................................................51
1 CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND INFORMATION
During the 13th International Conference of the Geological Society of Kenya (GSK) in Nairobi,
Kenya on the 21-23 March 2012, geologists proposed 9 sites for designation as National
Geoparks and subsequent development into Global GGN-UNESCO Geoparks. These sites are
neither recognized nor marketed as National Geoparks of Kenya despite their being so. GSK is
in the first phase of their ‘Geopark Initiative’. This is a project that aims to: identify geosites,
designate potential geoparks, record and document them systematically, and plan and develop
them into Global Geoparks for sustainable development. GSK hopes to raise the interest of the
related government and Non Governmental sectors and private entities, with the assistance and
of UNESCO, to provide funding, support and involvement.
UNESCO takes over the role of strong awareness-raising in the Geopark concept and
accomplishes this through informing the Ambassadors of the different Member States, and
other related government authorities about Geoparks. This in itself will lead to a much better
understanding of, and support for, local initiatives, not to mention the other benefits of joining
the GGN.
The Global Geopark initiative is an exciting concept that was introduced by UNESCO _
Global Geopark Network1 program in 1998. It seeks to promote and conserve the planet’s
geological heritage, while encouraging research on and use of sustainable methods of
economic development, in the particular territory, by the concerned communities.
1 The Global Network of National Geoparks (GGN) is a voluntary network of Global Geoparks supported by UNESCO. It is a dynamic network where members are committed to work together and exchange ideas of best practise and join in common projects to raise the quality standards of all products and practises of a Global Geopark.
The aim of the Global Geoparks Network is to protect and conserve the geological heritage of our planet but to do so in way where local communities can take ownership of these special places and where they can get some sustainable economic benefit from them. While allowing for the sustainable economic development of geoparks, the network actively promotes geo-conservation and explicitly forbids the destruction or sale of the geological value of a geopark.
A country having a National Geopark may wish to adopt the standards and practices of the
GGN to its Geopark, to improve its quality. To do this formally, the Voluntary applicant will
commit to structure (or restructure as it were) the aspiring Global Geopark according to the
guidelines set by the GGN for membership to the Network. These guidelines outline the
criteria for assessing that the applicant has met the Global Geopark requirements. In the
process of adhering to these guidelines, the applicant will at the same time be developing the
National Geopark into the set model for best practices and quality standards- i.e. with regards
to conservation, sustainable economic development and community involvement. After GGN
evaluates and approves an application, the successful applicant becomes a member and stands
to benefit from a worldwide network as opposed to a local initiative. The member also benefits
from such things as:-
− The experience and knowledge of other members
− Awareness-raising role of UNESCO
− Membership is an internationally recognized sign of excellence
− Use of the GGN logo which may act as a marketing tool
It is a concept that has brought social and cultural revitalization, as well as economic growth to
many regions and their respective local communities. Because of this, there is a huge desire to
apply the Geopark concept to the areas around the 9 proposed sites (i.e. Njorwa gorge in
Hell’s Gate National park, Lake Bogoria and geyser in Rift Valley, Mt. Longonot, strato-
volcanic Mt. Kenya, Menengai crater, Thimlich Ohinga, Kit Mikayi overlooking Victoria,
Mt. Elgon, Simbi Nyaima- crater lake near lake Victoria, and Kanam hot springs) to
benefit communities around them.
A geosite is a site or an area with geological and scientific significance, whose geological
characteristics (mineral, structural, geomorphologic, physiographic) meet one or several
criteria for classifying it as outstanding (valuable, rare, vulnerable, or endangered).
A Geopark is a special zone including one or more geosites of international significance that
represent the region’s geological history, and must have a sustainable territorial economic
development strategy that includes the locals in its participation.
UNESCO’s aim is to label up to 500 Geoparks worldwide through the Global Geopark
Network. By September 2012 it had approved and published 91 from 27 countries, none in
Africa. This is an exciting time for Kenyan geologists, environment conservators, stakeholders
in Kenya’s tourism sector and others because some two National Geoparks2- Mt Suswa and
Hell’s Kitchen in Malindi – show promise of being accepted and labeled as Global Geoparks;
the first in Africa. Application forms for these two Geoparks were presented to UNESCO and
the GGN during the 1st International Conference on African and Arabian Geoparks ‘Aspiring
Geoparks in Africa and the Arab World’ (El Jadida, Morocco, 20-28 November 2011) by
Catherine Casolani and Johnson Ole Sipitiek.
The ‘Geopark initiative’ being spearheaded by the GSK is very much in line with Kenya’s
Vision 2030. Tourism will be a lead sector in achieving the goals of Vision 2030 as Kenya
aims to be among the top 10 long-haul tourist destinations in the world by offering a high-end,
diverse, and unique tourist experience. The specific strategies (and indeed their implementation
in some of the Flagship Tourism projects) for realizing this goal include –among others-:
Creating and marketing of new high value niche products e.g. community and eco-
based tourism.
Improvement and Better marketing of under-utilized parks so as to bring more tourists
to game parks that have not been receiving many visitors (GoK, 2008)
Establishment of these proposed sites is hence, important to the economy of the country.
Mapping and documentation is a crucial step in this development. It will ensure record-
keeping, it will be an indispensable tool for decision-making and will serve to better market the
sites as tourist destinations.
2 National Museum of Kenya and Kenya Wildlife Service recognize their Geopark status and label them as such.
What role then, does the Geospatial Engineer play in bringing this ‘Project Geopark’ to
fruition?
The whole ‘Geopark initiative’ project is based on the systematic inventory of the geosites and
the compilation of a GIS-aided database for the geosites, geo-trails and potential geoparks.
With his/her background in cartography and Geospatial database management systems; a
Geospatial Engineer can create a map to show the locations of the Geoparks and the spatial
relationships between them. The engineer should also be able to create a spatial database to
document the attributes/features and other important information on those sites. Creating and
maintaining a geospatial database of this kind can only be efficiently done through Geospatial
Mapping (cartography) and Documentation (spatial database) techniques.
The past few years in GIS technological change have seen great strides in cartography and
spatial database creation. Basic General Reference mapping is no longer a preserve of highly
trained specialists. It would seem that no longer are entities fully dependent on skilled
Cartographers and Geospatial Engineers or their expensive and complex hardware and
software, to come up with simple thematic maps and their related databases. With the rise of
web mapping, a range of data and technology was born. Free data generated by
OpenStreetMap3 as well as proprietary datasets owned by Navteq4, Google, and others are now
available. A range of open source web mapping software (e.g. QGIS, uDig, GeoServer etc) has
also been generated, alongside proprietary tools like ArcIMS and ArcGIS online server.
Examples of Internet GIS products include: Autodesk, MapGuide, ESRI ArcIMS, Intergraph
GeoMedia Web Map, and MapInfo MapXtreme; and more recently, Google Maps, Google
Earth, WikiMapia, and Nokia’s Ovi Maps. This has been stimulated by the widespread
availability of the Internet and market demand for greater access to geographic information. As
3OpenStreetMap is a collaborative project created by Steve Coast in the UK in 2004, to create a free editable map of the world. Since then, it has grown to around 300,000 contributors, who collect data using GPS devices, aerial photography, and other free sources. This crowdsourced data is then made available under the Open Database License. Rather than the map itself, the data generated by the OpenStreetMap project is considered its primary output (Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenStreetMap).
4 Navteq is a Chicago-based provider of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data and is a principal provider of fundamental electronic navigation maps. The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Nokia but operates independently. Its underlying map database is based on first-hand observation of geographic features. It provides data used in a wide range of applications, including automotive navigation systems for many car manufacturers where it accounts for about 85% of the market share especially in North America (Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navteq).
a result, the barrier to entry for creating maps on the web has shifted from that of the paper
atlas and other traditional cartography.
Web 2.0 has introduced map mashups i.e. creation of maps by integrating various data sources
and web services. The major player in this field is Google Maps with an estimated 47% share
of all map mashups created online.
Figure a: Percentage of map mashups (From Programmableweb.com)
With the publication of the Google Maps API and the release of Fusion Tables, Google has
earned itself the reputation of being one of the largest Geospatial companies in the world
despite not setting out as one. Tim O’Reilly (President and CEO of O’Reilly media Inc.) wrote
(2005):“Mapping-related web services had been made available for some time now by GIS vendors such as ESRI, Microsoft MapPoint, MapQuest etc. But Google Maps set the world on fire because of its simplicity.”
Its web maps are interactive, easy to make and upload on an external website, and have some
analytic capabilities; making them popular.
The advent of web-mapping is however, not without challenges. It does spell a lot of
advantages in terms of leveraging the World Wide Web for cheaper dissemination, possibility
of real-time mapping, hyper linking to other related information, distributed data sources, etc.
However, it also brings with it issues such as: Data ownership issues, insufficient screen
viewing space (particularly for mobile and location based devices), Quality and accuracy
challenges, data integrity etc.
It is commonly said that 80% of all information is geographic (spatial) in nature. This suggests
that there are many organizations that have spatial data in their databases, but have not mapped
this data or shared it with the people who may need it. Yet, mapping and sharing has been
made very easy in this age of ‘mass amateurisation’ such that; when Google introduced My
Maps in 2007, Jess Lee, Product Manager Google Maps, entitled it ‘Map-making: So easy a
caveman could do it!’ Savvy organizations the world over are reaping huge benefits for
embracing and taking advantage of these technological Mapping advances and are also being
of great benefit to the public. Government agencies and local authorities e.g. USGS,
Southward Council in London, Chicago state, Houston Transtar, Traffic England, Highland
Agency etc, are using Web-Mapping platforms to display real-time information on weather,
traffic situations, election results, crime mapping, and even real property; as well as providing
the public with other useful location-based data, information and maps.
The rest should take cue and maximize on the numerous benefits of map mashups (as well as
open source software and the other recent mapping technologies available) that include easier
and cheaper map creation.
1.2 PROBLEM STATEMENT
As previously mentioned, implementation of Geoparks concept in Kenya is very important as
this leads to accomplishment of the Vision 2030 goals for geo-tourism and sustainable
development. Catherine Casolani, in stressing the need for Geoparks (Mt. Suswa in particular)
said, “The ‘without tourism’ scenario in these areas is that the landscape is currently under
threat from:
Overgrazing- over population of livestock
Erosion from unsustainable agricultural practices
Tree felling for cooking
Human disruption of caves’ fauna and flora and fragile ecosystem”(Casolani 2009)
A vital part of establishing and managing geo-tourism and conserving environment in the
proposed areas is mapping and documentation. Creation of data bank and GIS database for
these sites and geoparks is essential for registration, planning and development of the geoparks,
management, monitoring for conservation purposes and as a repository for research and study
material.
The ‘geopark initiative’ has five main phases:
I. Identification, assessment, categorization and methodical registration of geosites
and potential geoparks.
II. Assemblage of a geo-database using Geographic Information System (GIS) for the
geosites, geo-trails and potential geoparks in the country.
III. Planning and development of geo-trails for both pedestrians and vehicles.
IV. Development and management of the geoparks. Application for Global Geopark
status to GGN- UNESCO.
V. Production and dissemination of appropriate material for marketing, education and
research, or awareness raising purposes.
At this conception stage of the Geoparks, maps and inventories are especially needed to enable
relevant authorities and/or interested parties make decisions. For instance, mapping the
proposed sites will make that information available to the Government at a time when they
want to add niche tourism products to the market. Interested parties will be able to quickly see
where the proposed sites are located and access other general information about the sites. It
will also enable them to analyze progress and support decisions made toward making the
proposed sites UNESCO- accredited, as well as in general management.
Mapping is also done for lobbying, awareness creation and marketing purposes. To present
these areas in the most attractive form for decision-makers and would-be tourists, interactive
online maps and easily accessible information about them is imperative.
This kind of information targets a wide audience. It is also in the best interests of stakeholders
to find a method that is low-cost, effective and not labour intensive for sustainability and
maintenance purposes. In modern times the internet has proved to be useful in this regard. Its
use has become prevalent due to it provision of a low cost efficient way of gathering, storing
and dissemination of spatial information to wide audiences.
Online mapping and documentation can be useful in: making these geologically significant
areas globally recognized, promoting them to tourists (domestic, student field trips, geological
study, recreation etc), promoting further interest in decision-makers, and facilitating further
research and publication of findings by geologists, scientists and researchers.
Creating and maintaining a geospatial database to meet these needs can only be efficiently
done through online Geospatial mapping (cartography) and documentation (spatial database)
technology.
Not much has been done in way of data collection for this initiative as it is still in its infant
stages. The role of the Geospatial Engineer will therefore be to find a suitable modern (online)
technique for mapping and documentation; map these sites and collect all other spatial and
non-spatial data, organize them in an efficient GIS system, and disseminate it to the users.
Phases I &V concentrate on dissemination of information and will therefore be the main target
and therefore the tourists are the main users of a mapping and documentation project at this
stage.
1.3 OBJECTIVES
The main objective of the project is to use Google Maps application and its corresponding
Fusion Tables database management tool to create both an online map of the Geoparks in
Kenya and a database for their documentation. These are aimed mainly at tourists but also
geologists and the related government and private-sector agencies may find application.
Specific objectives are to:
i. Create a database for the documentation of the proposed and approved
Geoparks in Kenya using Fusion tables.
ii. Create a dedicated blog to store and display comprehensive information on
the sites. This will include pictures, complete history and other literature
about the sites, as well as links to websites with related information.
iii. Show the locations and spatial distribution of the Geoparks (both approved
and proposed) on an interactive and dynamic online map of Kenya.
iv. Display the map on the dedicated web-blog.
1.4 SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS
This project deals with online geospatial mapping and documentary technology. Out of the
various software and platforms for web mapping that exist (e.g. ArcIMS, Geoserver, Udig etc)
this project shall confine itself to Web 2.0 Map Mashups. Out of the various free web-mapping
mashup tools available (e.g. Yahoo! Bing Maps, OpenStreetMaps, Nokia’s Ovi maps,
WikiMapia, etc) Google Maps and Google Fusion Tables shall be used because of their
prevalence, and also for the purpose of investigating and demonstrating their
functionalities/suitability in the ‘Geopark initiative’ phases. The ‘Geopark initiative’ is still in
its infant stages and therefore there is a limit as to the data available and the phases in which
the project can find application.
The study area is the country Kenya.
1.5 REPORT ORGANISATION
The report is organized into five chapters. Chapter one tackles introduction to the concept of
Geoparks and the project’s objectives, scope and limitations. Chapter two is the literature
review with reference to Geotourism, Geoparks initiative, and web-mapping. Chapter three
discusses the materials used and the methodology applied in the project. Chapter four gives the
results and analysis. The final chapter contains the conclusions and the recommendations as
determined from the project.
2.0 CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 TOURISM
Tourism is one of the major sectors that make up the bulk of Kenya’s GDP (Gross Domestic
Product). Kenya’s services sector, which contributes about 63 percent of GDP, is dominated by
tourism. It is the second largest source of foreign exchange revenue following agriculture. In
the past year, 2011, the revenue from tourism was 96 billion Kenya shillings, down 2% from
2010’s 98 billion.
In October of 2007, Kenya’s Government unveiled the Kenya Vision 2030_ a long-term vision
and strategy to and guide the development of the country towards being a rapidly
industrializing middle-income nation by the year 2030. Among the sectors of the economy that
have been addressed in this vision is tourism. The aim is to make Kenya a top-ten ranking
destination. This is to be done by expanding her global and African market share by: offering
new products, expanding tourist expenditure and, by improving her international marketing
strategies (GoK, 2008).
By combining the geo-tourism aspects of conservation of geological heritage and sustainable
economic development with that of community involvement, the Geopark initiative being
championed by GSK seems to be a perfect vehicle for accomplishing the tourism goal, through
the prescribed ‘creation of niche products’ strategy (see GoK, 2008).
2.1.1. What is Geo-tourism?
In some parts of the world, earth formations have left visible features of such outstanding, rare
and significant value, as to be of interest internationally.
Figure b: Marafa Canyon/'Hell's Kitchen'
Such areas have attracted both domestic and local tourists. As communities economically
exploited these areas, it became necessary to put in place guidelines on how to benefit from
these geological features in a way as not to degrade them. This resulted in the concepts of Geo-
tourism and Sustainable tourism.
Sustainability tourism advocates for protection of the product for future generations by
anticipating development pressures and applying limits and management techniques that
preserve such things as heritage sites, natural habitats, local culture and traditions. Among
other things, it also seeks to conserve resources in ways such as reducing pollution and waste,
minimizing on energy and water consumption, and avoiding harmful substances such as
landscaping chemicals and excessive nighttime lighting (National Geographic, 1996).
It was Jonathan B. Tourtellot and his wife, Sally Bensusen, who coined the term Geotourism
to mean geographical sustainable tourism in 1997. This was in response to requests from
readers of National Geographic –of which Tourtellot was senior editor- for a term and concept
that was more encompassing than ecotourism and sustainable tourism (Wikipedia, 2013a).
National Geographic Society defines Geo-tourism as tourism that sustains or enhances the
geographical character of a place, where the term ‘geography’ incorporates: environment,
aesthetics, geological cultural and social heritage, and the people living in the area. In their
definition, Geotourism incorporates the concept of sustainable tourism while allowing for ways
to protect the character of the area. It also adopts the ecotourism principle of using tourism
revenue to promote conservation and extends it to culture and history as well. It involves the
community, benefits the residents economically, and provides educative information to both
host and visitor (National Geographic, 1996).
Geological and Abiotic Nature-Based Tourism has one of its definitions5 of Geo-tourism as “A
form of natural area tourism that specifically focuses on landscape and geology. It promotes:
tourism to geosites, conservation of diversity in geography, and an understanding of Earth
forming sciences through education. This is achieved through such means as: independent
visits and guided tours to geological features, designated view-points, geo-trails and geosite
visitor centers, as well as participating in geo-activities"(Wikipedia, 2013b).
A closely similar definition of Geotourism is the one elaborated on by David Newsome & Ross
Dowling (2005). Geotourism can be broken down into ‘geo’ and ‘tourism’. In the definition,
‘Geo’ refers to the appreciation of processes that form geological and geomorphologic features
such as landscapes, landforms, fossil beds, rocks and minerals. ‘Tourism’ refers to visiting
geosites for the purpose of passive recreation, appreciation and education/learning.
5 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geotourism for the other definitions.
Table 1: Summary of 'Geotourism' definitions
AUTHOR DEFINITION OF GEO-TOURISM
Geology and Abiotic Nature Based Tourism
A form of natural area tourism that specifically focuses on geology and landscape. It promotes such things as: tourism to geosites, the conservation of geological diversity and, an understanding of sciences that deal with the formation of geosite features through appreciation and learning.
National Geographic
Tourism that either sustains or improves the geographical character (culture-customs and traditions-, environment, heritage, aesthetics, people etc) of a place.
Dowling & Newsome
Visiting geosites for passive recreation and for the appreciation of, and education about, the geological and geomorphologic processes and features
2.1.2. What is a Geosite?
From the two latter definitions we encounter the term ‘Geosite’ A geosite is a site or an “area”,
a few square meters to several square kilometers in size, with geological and scientific
significance, whose geological characteristics (mineral, structural, geomorphologic,
physiographic) meet one or several criteria for classifying it as outstanding i.e. valuable, rare,
vulnerable or endangered (Geological Society of Kenya, 2012).
Table 2: Summary of 'Geosite' definitions
AUTHOR DEFINITION OF A GEOSITE
GSK An area with geological and scientific significance, whose geological characteristics (mineral, structural, geomorphologic, physiographic) meet one or several criteria for classifying it as outstanding
Geology and Abiotic Nature Based Tourism
An area generally involving geomorphologic sites (or geo-morphosites) and geological sites such as petrologic and volcanic sites.
There are many criteria for classifying sites as outstanding. Only one is required for a
geological site to be declared as a geosite though in practice, a combination of criteria is
considered. The possible criteria for geosites are:
• Sites that provide value in science, education, history or culture. Geo-tourism appeal,
spiritual significance, and social value, economic value, international significance, ,
sanctuary for rare or endangered species, link to biodiversity, aesthetic value, being
representative (universal value), stratigraphic milestone, paleo-biodiversity, rare or
unique (irreplaceable), valuable, vulnerable, endangered, quality or state of
preservation, size, accessibility(Frey et al, 2001 -as cited by GSK, 2012)
2.1.3. What is a Geopark?
A zone is referred to as a ‘geopark’ when it includes more than one geosite. The geosites must
be representative of the region's geological history as well as of the events and processes that
shaped it. A geopark must also be a territory of or containing an aspect of international
significance and most importantly, with a sustainable territorial development strategy. It must
also have clearly defined boundaries and a sufficient area to allow for true territorial economic
development, primarily through tourism (Frey et. al., 2001, cited by GSK, 2012).
Geological sites found in Geoparks can be related not only to geology but also to archaeology,
anthropology, ecology, history and culture. All these geosites in the geopark must be linked in
a network and constitute thematic parks with routes, geo-trails and rock sections.
A National Geopark is one that has been recognized as a Geopark by a country’s governing
body. A Global Geopark is a national geopark which has joined global membership of the
Global Geoparks Network by voluntarily subscribing to their standards and best practices.
2.2. Geoparks justification
The geopark concept is a huge achievement and critical step towards sustainable economic
development. It provides a working model for improving the well being of people living
around the geopark not just in the present, but also in the unforeseeable future. UN Assistant
Secretary General & Deputy Executive Director UNEP, Amina Mohammed said this about
sustainable socio-economic development (K24-TV, 2012):“The model, the economic model that exists today doesn’t work; it’s broken. And you
know it’s broken because it affects even the developed countries to the extent that it is
doing…I mean, economies are going down…Look at what is happening in Greece …
Spain….; and why? Why; because they are using a model that is past its sell-by date. We
need to go back to the basics of 1972. We need to go back to sustainable development and
develop in a manner that will ensure that we will have jobs created, and that we can
produce food. And you know what is really scary? It is that the population is going to
grow dramatically by 2015; from 7bn to 9bn. We need to produce 70%- which is the
minimum- in fact; we need to produce 100% more food to be able to be feed that
population. And it will be done on the basis of finite resources: the same soil, the same
water sources, the same everything! The earth is not going to expand! We will just have to
be more efficient. We’ll not be more efficient if we actually are not thinking ‘Sustainable
development’, if we are not thinking ‘Environment’, if we are not thinking ‘Protection of
the environment for future generations’- using the resources in a manner that satisfies our
needs for today but recognizes that there are others after us.”
Geoparks enable this kind of development model. This is proved by the fact that those
geoparks that are part of the Global Network: 1) Preserve geological heritage of the area (2)
Educate the broad public (not only host and visitor) about geological sciences and issues
thereof as well as their relation with the environment (3) Implement only practices that
promote sustainable socio-economic and cultural development (4) Using participatory schemes
and co- partnership to promote conservation and maintenance of geological heritage and
cultural diversity(5) Stimulate research of nature of the areas, as well as on better methods and
practices of managing them.(6) Contribute actively to the global network through: contribution
of articles to the GGN Newsletters, books and other publications, communication, exchange of
information, participation in meetings and common projects, and involvement in other
collaborative activities (UNESCO-GGN, 2010).
In most of the areas where a Geopark has been proposed in Kenya, the current situation in
terms of income-generation and sustainable practices is dire and in need of intervention. For
instance, the situation at Mt Suswa area before Geopark status, as observed by Casolani
Catherine (2007) was:
Tourism is not an income-generating part of their economy as little or no money is
getting to the community from this economic activity. There is only that little derived
from tour guides.
The area is largely unrecognized as a tourist destination. It is little known and mention
of it in international Tour guide and Travel books as well as the websites is mostly just
in passing and almost always in relation to the nearby more prominent parks.
Infrastructure in these areas is wanting. Access by public transport is virtually
impossible and visitors are forced to organize for their own transport and supplies.
There are no tourist facilities such as established places of accommodation or
campsites.
The environment’s landscape and biodiversity is under threat due to bad practices in
land tenure and land use as well as poor unsustainable agricultural practices. There is
livestock overpopulation, overgrazing, erosion, human disruption of the ecosystem and
degradation. Also, lack of a management structure for the little tourism activity that
goes on has brought in issues such as strain on the scarce ‘common’ resources like
water. There is also a huge problem of gully erosion and impassability of certain areas
where visitor vehicles have left tracks.
This situation is largely the same in most of the areas around the other proposed sites.
Casolani (2007) summarized the aspirations of the communities around the proposed Geoparks
in seeking to utilize and develop geological assets of their location for Geo Tourism as:
− Creation of new sources of income and alleviation of poverty
− Provision of employment for younger members of the community
− Enhancement of the local economy
− Direction of the profits from tourism and donations from visitors to social projects to
benefit the wider community
In 2009, the justification to develop Mt Suswa (one of the Geoparks) as a new visitor
destination was supported by the then Minister for Tourism- Najib Balala- in his in his
statement to WTM (World Travel Market) “The key objective is to increase the diversity of
Kenya’s product base” as reported on Travel Mole (quoted in Casolani 2010 p.2). Reiterating
the importance of creation of niche products, Tourism Trust Fund (TTF, 2007) project funding
stated that “Diversification of Kenya’s tourism products is critical in ensuring future and
sustained success” (Casolani 2010).
2.2.1 How to set up a geopark
In his publication, Geoparks in Greece, Theodosiou Ir. (2010) wrote that there were five sub
projects in the process of designating geosites and geoparks and the process up to their
accreditation by Global Geopark Network. These were:
I. Identification, assessment, categorization and methodical registration of geosites
and potential geoparks.
II. Assemblage of a geo-database using Geographic Information System (GIS) for the
geosites, geo-trails and potential geoparks in the country.
III. Planning and development of geo-trails for both pedestrians and vehicles.
IV. Development and management of the geoparks. Application for Global Geopark
status to GGN- UNESCO.
V. Production and dissemination of appropriate material for marketing, education and
research, or awareness raising purposes.
Awareness of Geoparks protection, benefits and the project has to be effectively and
extensively carried out. As with any other project, this may determine the success or failure of
the entire venture especially if financial, logistical or any other external support is required
There are other important preliminary details such as taking an inventory of available capacity,
human resource training, setting up working teams, tendering, etc (Mulaku, 2012).
Identification of geosites and potential geoparks is done according to the criteria set out by the
Geological community of the particular area. Data is then collected using forms that will
enable the compilation of a comprehensive exhaustive GIS database for multi-user needs (e.g.
for scientific research, education and training, planning infrastructure development, land use,
monitoring conservation, and in the planning and development of the entire project. Attributes
may include: criteria used for selection, detailed information about the site, detailed
information about the area where the site is located e.g. income levels, population density, state
of transport network, practical ideas and opinions about management of the geoparks etc
Theodosiou Ir. (2010).
Potential geoparks may then be developed according to the principles for recognizing
Geoparks as elaborated in detail in the UNESCO-GGN guidelines (2010) i.e.:
I. Size and setting: - should have clearly defined boundaries and a large enough area
for it to serve local economic and cultural development (particularly through
tourism). The Geopark should take into account the whole geographical setting of the
region (people, environment, culture, aesthetics, heritage etc), and shall not solely
include sites of geological significance. Guidelines have been given concerning areas
that are identical to, or partly or wholly overlap with an area that has already been
inscribed, (for example, on the World Heritage List or registered as a UNESCO
Biosphere Reserve, or a National Park).
II. Management and local involvement: - there has to be the establishment of an
effective management system and program of implementation. The management body
or partnership should: have an effective management infrastructure, adequate
qualified personnel, and sustainable financial support and, be based on strong
community support and local involvement. It shall involve public authorities, local
communities, private interests, and both research and educational bodies, in the
design and running of the Geopark and also in its plans and activities for regional
economic and cultural development.
III. Economic development: - it should serve to foster socio-economic development that
is culturally and environmentally sustainable. The direct impact on the area involved
should be to improve: human living conditions and, the rural and urban environment.
It should stimulate, for example, the creation of innovative local enterprises, small
business, cottage industries and initiate high quality training courses and new jobs by
generating new sources of revenue (e.g. geo-tourism, geo-products). All these should
be done with an eye on protection of the geo-resources of the Geopark (e.g.
encouraging casting instead of the sale of fossils).
IV. Education and research: - must be at the forefront of educating the public (both
visitor and host) on the geo-scientific, environmental and cultural concepts of the area
by providing and organizing support, tools, and activities. For example, through
museums, interpretive and educational centers, trails, guided tours, popular literature
and maps, and modern communication media. It should also allow and foster
scientific as well as innovative research and cooperation with universities, a wide
discipline of scientists and the local populace.
V. Protection and conservation: - should explore and demonstrate methods and best
practice in conserving geological heritage. The management authority of the Geopark
should in consultation with relevant statutory bodies, ensure adequate protection
measures, to guarantee effective conservation and ensure physical maintenance.
Those sites will remain under the sole jurisdiction of the country (or countries) in
which the Geopark is situated in that; the country has the responsibility of deciding on
how to protect the particular sites or areas, in conformity with their local
legislation/regulations.
VI. Legal status and sovereignty issues: - the term ‘Geopark’ does not specifically refer
to a different category of protected area or landscape as is an entirely protected and
regulated National Park or Game Reserve. Branding of an area as a “Geopark” mainly
refers to the practices of conservation and economic development applied to the area
and does not necessarily affect the legal status. However, for legal protection of
certain geosites within the Geopark that may include their gazettment as protected
areas, the authorities responsible for the Geopark must ensure its protection in
accordance with local traditions and legislative obligations. (Further details on criteria
are found in UNESCO GGN guidelines, 2010).
2.2.2 The ‘Geopark Initiative’ in Kenya
The Geopark initiative can be said to have its roots in the efforts of several geologists (from as
early as 1960s) to include Mt Suswa in the country’s tourist destinations.
One who stands out in his efforts was Kenyan based researcher and caving enthusiast Jim
Simons (Casolani, 2007). He carried out extensive studies and research on the geological
features of Mt Suswa as published in (Simons 1980 & 2003). In 1972, he presented a report
(Simons, 1972) to the Ministry of Tourism proposing to make Mt Suswa a National Park
(Casolani, 2010). This attempt was unsuccessful as it was neither in line with the priorities nor
the objectives of the then Ministry of Tourism.
More research was done by different geologists such as: mapping and assessment of the
tourism potential of the principle cave group by Checkely et al (2007); members of the Cave
Exploration Group of East Africa (CEGEA) and Woods (2007, cited by Casolani, 2010), as
well as other groups such as South Rift Association of Land Owners (SORALO, 2008).
Chris Wood was the first to term Mt Suswa as a possible ‘geopark’ in 2007 after the
popularization of GGN and the Geopark concept (Casolani, 2010). This led to launching of a
spirited effort by Catherine Casolani (a UK project team leader in community development) to
gazette Mt Suswa as a geopark. She was joined by Johnson Ole Sipitiek (a professional in
community development) The multi-disciplinary team formed in February 2007 comprised of:
geological scientists and conservation experts (experienced in the development of natural
heritage sites worldwide) including Jim Simons and Chris Wood, caving specialists
(experienced in adventure and activity), community development specialists, African
Conservation Centre and SORALO (Casolani, 2007 p.3)
After the successful gazettment of Mt Suswa, interest was developed in the geological
community culminating in the gazettment of Marafa Canyon/’Hell’s Kitchen’ and the launch
of the ‘Geopark initiative’.
Geopark areas in Kenya
In Kenya, two areas have been gazetted as National Geoparks. These are: (i) Mt. Suswa and (ii)
Marafa Canyon/”Hell’s Kitchen” (Milewa, 2012 pers comm).
When the geological community set about the identification of potential geoparks, they sought
out areas that showed potential for huge benefits from applying the Geopark concept. The
criteria used to identify them were: (i) significance (geological, cultural, archeological, rarity
etc) that was not being fully exploited (ii) sanctuary for rare or endangered species, or presence
of endangered feature necessitating conservation (iii) inscribed areas that presented a geo-
tourism appeal, and (iv) great potential for economic value/benefit to the community (Kianji,
2012 pers comm).
According to these criteria set, the Geological Society of Kenya (GSK) proposed some 9
Geoparks. These potential Geoparks are: Lake Bogoria and geyser, Mt. Longonot, Strato-
volcanic Mt. Kenya, Menengai crater, Thimlich Ohingla, Kit Mikaye, Mt. Elgon, Simbi
Nyaima- Crater Lake, and Ol Njorwa Gorge in Hell’s Gate (GSK, 2012). Some of these
areas are partly or wholly inscribed in other tourist destination categories such as: National
Park, UNESCO Biosphere Reserve, World Heritage site, Prehistoric site etc. However, the
conservation and tourism-related economic activities taking place therein may not be
conducted in such a way as to: protect the geological heritage of the area, or promote education
and research, or even benefit the local community. This leads to the desire to adopt the
standards of quality and best practice as prescribed by GGN in order to incorporate these
aspects (UNESCO-GGN, 2010).
This section has explained the significance of Geoparks; the next section will address the
technology used to represent them in thematic maps and document them.
2.3. Technological changes
In cartography, technology has continually morphed with the changing demands of new map
makers and users. The first maps were manually constructed, varied in quality and their
distribution was limited. The advent of instruments such as compasses, vernier, telescopes, and
printing presses allowed for more accurate maps and reproductions. Recently, advance in
electronic technology has been witnessed specifically: computer hardware devices such as
computer screens, scanners and plotters, visualization procedures, image processing, spatial
analysis and database software (Wikipedia 2013c).
For most people, the internet has become the main source of information. As illustrated in the
figure below (from Dr. Siriba’s class presentation), the World Wide Web has morphed to meet
a diverse range of consumer needs.
Figure c: Illustration of consumer's grown dependence on the internet (from Dr. Siriba's notes)
The internet plays many important roles including: diffusion of raw data through online
geospatial databases. The existence of online mapping and management tools consist important
internet-based technological advancements that make information available to many
management authorities, facilitate exchange of scientific ideas, and increase public
environmental awareness. Today the internet is the major source of satellite imagery.
GIS performs Mapmaking faster and with more sophistication than traditional manual
methods. Internet GIS technology has allowed browsers to disseminate, share, display and
process spatial information on the internet without installation of GIS software on the local
computer machine. Web-based solutions provide a low-cost efficient way to deliver map
products to users. Users can access data at the browser-end and integrate that with local
specialized application data of their own residing in the local machine (Geospatial world,
2011).
2.4. WEB MAPPING
Thematic maps came late in the development of cartography; they were not widely introduced
until the early nineteenth century. Today such maps are produced quickly and cheaply, not
only because the difficult process of base mapping has already been done by others but also
because of the benefits of computer technology and the ever increasing availability of data
used in their creation. The last 35 years have been referred to as the “era of thematic mapping”.
The ultimate impact on the development and production of thematic maps by the easy access to
both data and mapping software on the World Wide Web has probably not yet reached its full
potential, although the impact thus far has been dramatic. Thematic maps make it easier for
professional geographers, planners, and other scientists and academicians to view the spatial
distribution of phenomena (Dent et al. 2009 p.3)
Wikipedia defines web mapping as the process of designing, creating and disseminating or
displaying maps online (2013b). There exists a difference between web-GIS and web-mapping;
web-GIS places an emphasis on analysis, exploring and processing of spatial data while, web-
mapping refers to creation and/or display maps on a web platform with little no GIS analysis
functionality (Avraam, 2009). The World Wide Web – introduced in 1989- provided a means
of disseminating maps to a wide audience. With the dynamic evolution of technology, the
World Wide Web has been leveraged for: cheaper dissemination, easier updating of data and
software, tailored map content, dispersed data sources, and sharing of geo-information.
The earliest web maps were static- maps that can only be viewed with no provision for
animation or interaction; basically digital/scanned paper maps with graphics formats such as
JPEG, PNG, GIF, TIFF and PDF. Web maps have since expanded their portfolio to include: (i)
Real time maps- e.g. population, weather, and traffic (ii) Analytic maps- offer GIS
functionalities such as analysis (iii) Online atlases (iv) Collaborative maps e.g. those provided
by Google Map Maker, OpenStreetMap and WikiMapia (Wikipedia, 2013b).
Kraak (2001) enumerates the advantages of web maps over paper maps; some of which are as
listed in the table below.
Table 3: Advantages and Disadvantages of Web maps
ADVANTAGES DISADVANTAGES
Can deliver up to date, or real time information
Not very reliable
Cheaper hardware and software infrastructure Geographic data is expensive in parts of the world other than USA
Easier distribution of product updates Usually need high bandwidthInteroperability across web browsers and computer operating systems
Limited screen space on which to view the maps e.g. on mobiles and location based services
Distributed data sources Quality and accuracy are often poorPersonalization of content and appearance is allowed
Developing interactive web maps is complex
Hyper-linking to other related information is enabled
Technology and development applications are still immature
Easy inclusion of multimedia such as videos Data ownership issuesAbility to collaborate in data acquisition Infringement on privacy with the wide
availability of data and info e.g. high resolution satellite images
Web -based GIS use the standard client-server modeling technology used by online
applications for network computing. There exists ‘Clients’ and ‘Servers’ who often (but not
always) come in separate hardware components. Client refers to a web browser e.g., Mozilla
Firefox, Google Chrome and Internet Explorer. Server refers to the host that provides services
and enables sharing between multiple clients. An engine for rendering the map is usually built
on top of the server and connected to a backend GIS database in order to retrieve and deliver
data. Communication is via HTTP request from client to server and HTML response from
server back to client in the form of images, maps or documents display (Alesheikh et al, 2002).
The architecture between the client and the server contains three units i.e. presentation unit,
storage units and a logical unit to link them. Client side usually consists of the presentation
unit, while server side consists of both the logical and storage units though this is not always
the case.
Sometimes, the client-server model can be further categorized into: thin client, thick client
architecture and client architecture based on stages of interactive map retrieval (Jiang, 2010).
There exists various web mapping services:
Proprietary are those provided commercially for by GIS vendors e.g. GeoMedia,
ESRI’s ArcIMS, and MapInfo. In proprietary web mapping solutions, the technology is
that of server and client side software combined in a single entity and not separate. This
makes their installations to be very simple since no user-side configurations are
required.
Open source which provide free mapping solutions which are usually interoperable e.g.
Open Layers, MapServer, GeoServer, etc. They have limited functionality compared to
the proprietary and the disadvantages of limited professional support and difficulty in
installation (as the client and servers are separate)
Web 2.0 Mashups provide simple functionalities and high-quality maps. They are easier
to learn. Made possible by WWW development from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0. APIS allow
developers to combine many geographic data and services into mashup applications
(Rinner et al. 2008). Have made web mapping easy for non-skilled map makers.
Examples include Google Maps, Bing maps, Yahoo! OpenStreetMap as well as other
non-commercial ones.
Figure d: shows typical workflow of a mashup (Source: Howard Yamaguchi)
Figure e: Showing the typical workflow of Open source web-mapping solution (By Howard Yamaguchi)
2.4.1. Web 2.0 Mashups
The term Web 2.0 appeared in 1999, and was subsequently used to refer to the cumulative
change in the use of the World Wide Web by software developers and end-users (and not to an
update of any technical specification). A Web 2.0 site may allow people to interact and
collaborate with each other as creators of content in a virtual community, in contrast to Web
1.0 sites where users can only passively view the content presented to them. Examples of Web
2.0 applications include social networking sites e.g. Facebook, blogs, wikis (-Wikipedia,
WikiMapia), video sharing sites like YouTube, photo hosting services e.g. Flicker, folk
taxonomies (collection of tags that facilitate web browser searches), web applications and
mashups.
Drumgole (2006) summarized his opinion of Web 1.0 versus Web 2.0 in the table below
Table 4: Web 1.0 vs. Web 2.0 from Copacetic (2006)
Web 1.0 Web 2.0
Reading WritingCompanies CommunitiesClient-server Peer to peerHTML XMLHome pages BlogsPortals RSSTaxonomy TagsWires WirelessOwning SharingIPOs Trade salesNetscape GoogleWeb forms Web applicationsScreen scraping APIsDialup BroadbandHardware costs Bandwidth costs
Cormode G. and Krishnamurthy B (2008) have written:
‘Web 2.0 is both a platform on which innovative technologies have been built and a space where users are treated as first class objects.’
Tim O’Reilly summarized web 2.0 as a set of principles as shown in the figure below:
Figure f: Principles that make up Web 2.0 (From O'Reilly media)
Mashups are enabled by Web 2.0. They are new creations, or additions of value to an already
existent creation, made by combining data from different sources and/or services. It has
become a powerful concept in digital cartography because it provides a relatively easy way of
overlaying different types of data on an online base map (Developer-force, 2013).
Online mapping has become so prolific that it is estimated (Programmableweb, 2013) that at
least 10 map mashups are created every day.
A prominent example of a map mashup is Housingmaps.com created by Paul Rademacher.
This is a service that displays real estate information on Google maps. It combined the housing
inventory -houses, apartments, and quarters for sale or rent- from the Craigslist website and
displayed their pictures, and charges on their location markers in Google map (Yee, 2010).
Rollen Ola, President of Hexagon Group, has said:“In many geospatial conferences, people ignore Google. It is the biggest geospatial company in the world, which the geospatial industry does not acknowledge. But the fact of the matter is that Google has delivered something to the world that this industry couldn’t deliver even though it possessed the technology all this while. Google has delivered what the consumer market needs and we should give credit to them. They have created a baseline for the industry with maps, virtual earth and augmented reality.” (Geospatial World, 2013)
From Cartwright W (2009) and Mulaku (2012) it emerges that there are certain issues arising
from mashups that need to be addressed. They include:
i. Who owns the data- mashups are a combination of data from various sources therefore
it can be hard to determine ownership rights for the final product.
ii. Liability- Who takes responsibility if data from a published mashup has errors and
users suffer harm or loss? How is quality/integrity of data guaranteed especially when
non-cartographers make and distribute maps?
iii. Web Standards- Are there widely recognized data, organization, certification and
educational standards that exist to govern the field of web mapping? How are they
implemented?
iv. Data Integrity- Satellite imagery from most non-conventional web map services
(Google, OpenStreetMap, Bing, Yahoo! etc) are 1-3 years old yet the public usually
assumes that it is current. Also for many of these free datasets, some parts of the world
are not adequately covered nor updated.
v. Data Security- What security measures exist to (i) enable the recovery of data should it
become corrupted or lost e.g. through data scraping (ii) Protect data against access by
unauthorized entities
vi. Economics- There are a number of social collaborative organizations that provide data,
services and applications for free. How shall the proprietary entities compete with them
for market? How will they price their services and products to ensure there is income
for sustenance?
vii. Confidentiality- Refers mostly to the use of mobile geographic information services
that can be tracked when in use on a service provider. Also, some satellite images
provided on the web are a violation of privacy. Certain sites e.g. Panoramio allows
mapping of geo-tagged pictures.
viii. Informal mapping- some spatial database systems have their main focus not on
Cartography but on using the maps to target consumers of their main product. How
are users to be made aware of the difference
ix. Public awareness- Methods have to be devised and implemented, of informing users
about the differences in usability, functionalities, quality standards, accuracies etc of
the different categories of web mapping products that exist. Example: self-produced,
collaborative, proprietary, fully GIS and partly GIS etc.
There is also the concern that the role of the skilled geospatial engineer and cartographer is
being taken over by Internet GIS software. We hear such questions as, “if anyone can easily
make maps through Google Maps why are there still institutions that teach cartography and
GIS?”
Mapping platforms like Google Maps and Google Earth however, do not possess all the
functionalities of a legitimate Geographic Information System (GIS). Analysis functions such
as buffering and clipping, as well as other functions like DEM creation, linear calculations etc
cannot be performed using these platforms. If one uses one of the commonly accepted
definitions of GIS, they therefore cannot easily place Google Maps/Earth in this realm. They
provide some GIS functionality but are not true Geographic Information Systems. A forest
change problem would not be solved by Google Maps/Earth. A Soil-erosion risk map cannot
be created using Google Maps.
With the addition of the Google Fusion Table, Google Maps can have the Database
Management functionality of a GIS but it however still cannot be termed as GIS. It is therefore
safe to suggest that Google Maps/Earth, as well mapping platforms from Bing, Yahoo!,
MapQuest etc as are not Geographic Information Systems, but rather Mapping Information
Systems/Networked Mapping Tools. They are only partially GIS, but lacking the full
functionality needed (Avraam 2009).
The use of web-GIS software like ArcIMS still requires the expertise of the GIS professional.
However, with online tutorials and friendlier user interfaces, the learning curve is a lot shorter.
Concerning the suggested redundancy of cartographers; topographic maps, Cadastral maps
hydrographic maps and navigation charts still require the expertise of a cartographer and
cannot be done by your average non-skilled citizen. However, in this age of rapidly advancing
disruptive technologies6, the future is anyone’s guess.
Holder (1994, as cited in Dent et al. 2009, p5) points out that with the current availability of
point-and-click map production, it may be too easy to ignore fundamental cartographic and
geographic principles and knowledge that have been at the traditional core of the discipline.
The technological advances being experienced provide the potential for new and better map
designs, but without proper cartographic education not only will map quality ultimately suffer
but the geographic understanding that is obtained in practicing geographic cartographic
cartography may be lost as well.
6 Disruptive technologies are innovations disrupting an existing market in unexpected ways, typically by lowering price or by focusing on different consumers.
3.0 CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY
3.1 STUDY AREA
The study area is the entire republic of Kenya. The country is in the African continent –in East
Africa- and lies on the equator. Its geographic boundaries are (330 53’ - 410 55.5’) longitude
and (50 - 40 40’) latitude. It is bordered by Tanzania to the south, Uganda to west, South Sudan
to the north-west, Ethiopia to the north, Somalia to the north-east and the Indian Ocean to the
East.
Figure g: study area
Kenya has a land area of approximately 582,646 km2. Of this, 11.76% is classified as terrestrial
protected areas7 according to the last report of 2010 as published by World Bank 2012.
3.2 TOOLS
Materials used in the project were:
I. Unlimited and fast Internet connection bandwidth- 100Mbps- to enable loading
of maps
II. Computer machine with :
o Windows operating system
o Microsoft Office 7 for data entry and report writing
o Specifications8 :
i3-2350M CPU
500GB
4GB RAM
III. Google Earth Pro- to overlay and display kml files
IV. ArcGIS 10.1- for comparison of project results with corresponding ArcGIS
output in the Analysis stage of the project.
7 Terrestrial protected areas are totally or partially protected areas of at least 1000 hectares that are designated by national authorities as scientific reserves with limited public access e.g.; national parks; natural monuments; nature reserves or wildlife sanctuaries; protected landscapes; and areas managed mainly for sustainable use.
8 These specifications are for the laptop that was used for the project. It is however not to be supposed that these exact specifications are compulsory for the undertaking of any other such Endeavour. For instance, a machine with much less RAM and memory space, and of slower speed can satisfactorily perform the tasks albeit probably not at the same speed.
3.3 METHODOLOGY
Figure h: Outline of the methodology process
3.3. 1 Data Identification
In view of the objectives set, it was concluded that the data required was:
Kenya map showing administrative boundaries
Kenya- Major towns map
Kenya- Major roads map
Kenya- Map of accommodation facilities
Data IdentificationDeciding on which data sets will be used for the projectData Collection Collection and collation of the required datasetsData PreparationPre-processing the data to make it ready and suitable for use.ProcessingData entry and working on the data to come up with the desired resultAnalysisComparison of results to the intended objective Output and DisseminationDisplay and distribution of the result
Kenya- Map of airstrips and airports
Location coordinates of proposed and approved Geoparks in Kenya
Available information about the Geoparks in Kenya including pictures
3.3. 2 Data collection
It was later realized that there was no need for the maps on: Kenyan major towns,
administrative boundaries, or major roads, as all these were already incorporated into Google
maps and at a much higher scale than the local maps available.
The data collected was:Table 3: Data sources
DATA SOURCE
Geographical coordinates of the geoparks National Museum of Kenya
Information/literature on the geoparks
including photos
NMK, Internet, KWS
Map of Hotels, lodges, campsites and
airstrips in Kenya
Virtual Kenya
3.3. 3 Data preparation
In this stage, preparations were made to set the stage for processing and the collected data was
transformed into the required format.
The photos were to be shared online and therefore had to be uploaded to a photo-hosting site
on the internet. Here, the collected photos were uploaded to Photobucket. (There are many
such sites that can be used, and the choice depends on the user’s preference.) Photobucket is an
image and video hosting, slideshow creating and photo sharing website. It was chosen because
of its popularity (50,000,000 registered users) and the fact that the author was already
conversant with it.
To use the Fusion Table Tool one is required to log in via their Google user Account.
Therefore, in this stage, a Google user Account was created to allow access to the tool.
Figure i: showing the Google account sign up page
Google Maps API uses latitude-longitude geographic referencing or Geocodes from addresses
in the USA. The spatial data collected on the Geoparks were GPS coordinates. Conversion of
the collected data to latitudes and longitudes was done to enable plotting of the points onto
Google Maps using Fusion Tables.
To enable online display/dissemination of the resultant map in a comprehensive manner, a web
page was required on which to embed the map. The literature was also to be stored online. A
blog was preferred to a website due to financial constraints (blogs are free). A blog was created
and named ‘Geoparks in Kenya’. This was done in Google’s Blogger due to its ease of
operation and high probability of appearing in web browser search results.
3.3. 4 Processing
The objective was to come up with an online interactive map that showed the Geoparks in
Kenya with hyperlinks to the documentation of these parks.
I. All literature was collated and comprehensively put into a page in the blog created, for each
geopark. This included history of the parks, full descriptions, scientific research papers,
pictures/photos, references and hyperlinks to related information on the web. Microsoft
Word was used to compile these pages, which were then published as blog posts on the
dedicated blog – Geoparks in Kenya.
II. Google Fusion Tables’ principal operation is the transformation of tabular data into the
spatial format of the map. It creates maps directly from the database; therefore to create a
map one has to create the database first. Because Google Maps API uses kml and csv files,
the required spatial and non-spatial data was entered into an excel file. The attributes
entered included separate columns for latitudes and longitudes of the points, hyperlinks to
the photos, hyperlinks to respective blog pages, short descriptions etc.
Table 4: Section of data table
PARK NAME DESIGNATION PICTURES LATITUDE LONGITUDE
Mt. Kenya -0.14673 37.307733 (4)
Mt. Longonot National Park -0.921004 36.447258 (4)
Mt. Suswa -1.176141 36.348867 N/A
Criteria yet to be met:
National Park, UNESCO World Heritage Site, UNESCO Biosphere Reserve
http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b621/saya2013/280px-Pt_Thomson_Batian_Nelion_Mt_Kenya_zpse802f6e7.jpg
http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b621/saya2013/mtkenya_zpseaf709a3.jpghttp://
i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b621/saya2013/longonot-header_zps366ab6a5.jpg
http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b621/saya2013/Mt_Longonot_from_Hells_Gate_zps0870804e.jpg
National Park, Conservancy,
http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b621/saya2013/IMG_0042_zpsf3733d79.jpg
http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b621/saya2013/Suswa-2_zpsa2b3afea.jpg
III. The excel file was then exported to Google’s Fusion Tables to create the online database.
This database was made public i.e. it could/can be accessed by anyone.
IV. The map was then created through a map visualization of the database.
Figure j: showing the visualization step
V. The resulting map was styled. The interactive information window was customized using
HTML code to ensure that all the required information fit into it, and to make it
aesthetically pleasing to the map user.
Figure k: showing the interface for customizing info window style
VI. The Geoparks’ kml file was downloaded and exported to Google Earth. The tourism
infrastructure kml file was imported into Google Earth and overlaid with the Geopark layer
to produce a tourist map of the Geoparks in Kenya.
3.3. 5 Output Dissemination
The resultant map was disseminated online by embedding its HTML code on the dedicated
blog- ‘Geoparks in Kenya’. This was to enable distribution of the compiled information to a
wide audience. The data tables were also made public to allow them to come up in web search
results and be accessible to anyone.
4.0 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
4.1. RESULTS
A database was created in the form of a table in Fusion tables with links to more
information in the blog as well as other related online web pages.
Figure l: showing section of resultant Fusion data table
The Fusion Table database could not be merged with any other data since no relevant data had
been collected specifically targeting the Geoparks in Kenya. This meant that other relevant
datasets (e.g. tourist infrastructure) could not be merged with the Geopark attribute table, since
there was no common key with identical column values in both tables.
A blog was created for the documents containing information on each Geopark. It
contained literature such as history, description, and tourist information (e.g. how to get
there and where to stay), pictures, and hyperlinks to: scientific research papers, references
and other related tourist and geopark web pages.
Figure m: showing a screenshot of the resultant blog
The resultant map was interactive in that, the map user could access relevant information
by clicking on the location markers.
Figure n: showing the pop-up info window on clicking Hell's Kitchen location marker
The information was disseminated to a wide audience. The data tables, map, kml file and
downloads were all made public during the creation stage i.e. permission was granted to
access the information online. The resultant map and the documentation were hosted
online on a blog. Anyone making an inquiry, via a web browser, as to the availability of
this kind of data, will be given the links to these data.
Figure o: web browser search result provides a link to the database created
The kml file showing the full tourist infrastructure around the Geoparks was as shown below:
Figure p: Showing Tourist Geopark map on Google Earth
4.2. ISSUES ARISING
1. The Google base map has a lot of important relevant information to the map reader but that
information becomes lost on the map reader since there is no legend to explain the
symbols. For instance, in the map created:
Figure q: Showing symbolization that requires legend information
The roads have obviously been classified and symbolized accordingly (e.g. A2,
B5, B6, and C4) but no legend is provided to show what these classes are.
The dashed lines represent administrative boundaries while the green polygons
represent protected areas but the map reader will not know this since there is no
legend.
2. The resultant map is, cartographically speaking, incomplete. There is no provision in
Google Maps for inserting the map’s ancillary elements that are important for the correct
communication of information between the map maker and the map user/reader. These
elements include:
Title
Neat line
North Arrow
Grids/Graticules
Notes
3. The scale bar in the resultant map can be observed to change with movement from the
equator. This shows a variation in scale in Google Map from the equator to the polar areas.
4. Google Maps use a close variant of the Mercator projection. It uses the formulae for the
spherical Mercator, but the coordinates of features are based on the WGS 84 datum. The
difference between a sphere and the WGS 84 ellipsoid causes the resultant projection not to
be precisely conformal. This causes the maps of local areas to deviate slightly from true
ellipsoidal Mercator maps at the same scale.
5.0. CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. CONCLUSIONS
Anyone searching for the availability of this data/information (any of the featured
Geoparks in Kenya) using a web browser will be provided with the link to the products
of this project in the web results. They can all be found and accessed online using a
web browser which was the essence of publishing it online. This has achieved the
desired goal of reaching a wide audience.
A tourist using the map can access tourist information, description of the site, videos
and pictures by clicking on the point since the Fusion Tables offer ability to hyperlink
to other relevant pages and show an information window for each location marker.
Google Fusion Tables is a powerful, easy to use and cost effective tool for the
preliminary stages of the Geopark initiative. This was demonstrated by the fact that
there was no software installation required to create neither the database nor the online
geopark map. However, due to its limited GIS functionality, it cannot be the sole
Platform for GIS and Database system for the project.
Google Maps API cannot be used for very accurate mapping as: the use of Mercator
projection in areas away from the equator, and changes in the scale, reduce the
accuracy of the resultant map.
5.2. RECOMMENDATIONS
Use of a proprietary or an open source web map service that offers powerful GIS
capabilities as well as mapping and management of spatial databases online, is
recommended for the Geopark project. Mashups have many challenges that need
addressing such as limited customization of base data, data ownership issues, Quality
and integrity etc before they can be applied to such a specialized data intensive project.
Being an API means that Google Maps application is open for developers/programmers
to customize and extend its functionalities and services. It is recommended that
developers should find a way of providing the vital ancillary elements (neat line,
legend, notes, North arrow, grid lines etc) in maps created on the Google Map
application since without these, interpretation of the map becomes difficult.
Organizations dealing with spatial data should take advantage of this easy to use, cost
effective tool and its leverage of web services, for visualization and management of
their spatial data. Examples of organizations that would benefit from this are: news
agencies (e.g. in relaying election results), Kenya Bureau of Statistics (in mapping
income levels), Tourism agencies and any organization that is prohibited from map
making by their economic and logistic situations.
Tertiary institutions that offer courses in GIS, Geography, Cartography or other related
studies (UoN- Geospatial Engineering, JKUAT- Geomatics Engineering, Technical
University of Kenya- Cartography, etc) should upgrade their syllabus to include Web
Mapping as a course unit. During the project research, it was discovered that a sizeable
number of employers are looking for qualifications in Web mapping, use of Open
Source software and proficiency in the related programming skills (as shown by excerpt
below) none of which are being offered at these training institutions as of yet.
Figure r: Excerpt from ILRI Job advertisement 2013
BIBLIOGRAPHYAfrican Geoparks Network http://www.africangeoparksnetwork.org/%5C%5Cimages/download/Proceeding_FV_Zohra%204_1_12.pdf
Akama J.S (1996) The Efficacy of Tourism as a Tool for Economic Development in Kenya http://www.dpmf.org/images/tourism-economic-devt-john.html in DPMN Bulletin [Accessed 20 March 2013]
Alesheikh et al, (2002), Web GIS: Technologies and Its Applications, Proceedings of Symposium on Geospatial Theory, Processing and Application, Ottawa.
Avraam, (2009): Google Maps and GIS
Borden D. Dent, Jeffery S. Torguson, Thomas W.Holder; Cartography: thematic map design, 6th edition, McGraw-Hill 2009.
Brohman, J. "New Directions in Tourism for Third World Development". Annals of Tourism Research No.23.
Cartwright W. (2009) Issues in contemporary mapping- http://beta.geospatialworld.net/images/magazines/gw-jan11-44-48.pdf [Accessed 17 April 2013]
Casolani (2007) Mt Suswa- Feasibility Study- Geo Tourism and Sustainable Development
Casolani (2010) A New Visitor Destination for Kenya
Checkely et al (2007), Mt Suswa Lava Caves, Kenya. A project to map and review the potential of Mt Suswa’s principal cave group
CNET News- Mapping a revolution: http://news.cnet.com/2009-1025-5944608.html [Accessed 1 April 2013]
Comparison of web map services: https://www.google.com/search?q=Comparison+of+web+map+services&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a [Accessed 1 April 2013]
Cormode G. & Krishnamurthy B (2008): Key Differences between Web1.0 and Web2.0 http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/2125/1972 [Accessed 16 April 2013]
Developerforce (2013): http://wiki.developerforce.com/page/Mashups:_The_What_and_Why [Accessed 3 April 2013]
Drumgole 2006 in http://blog.joedrumgoole.com/?s=web+1.0 [Accessed 12 March 2013]
Fundamentals of Mapping - http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/maps_intro.html [Accessed 12 Feb 2013]
Geospatial world, (2011): Africa Calling. February 2011, Vol 1, Issue 7.
Geoparks http://www.georgewright.org/271calnan.pdf
Government of Kenya (GoK), 2008) available at http://www.vision2030.go.ke/ [Accessed 23 March 2013]
GSK, (2012): Potential Geoparks sites in Kenya- 13 International Conference of the Geological Society of Kenya- 21-23 March 2012, Nairobi Kenya.
How Google makes its maps- http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/09/how-google-builds-its-maps-and-what-it-means-for-the-future-of-everything/261913/ [Accessed 12 Feb 2013]
Jiang (2010):Non-proprietary Web Mapping Solutions for Use in Corporations- a WSP Case Study. http://hig.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2:342940 [Accessed 16 April 2013]
K24-TV, (2012): Capital talk- Amina Mohammed http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcxokIOXuGE [Accessed 1 April 2013]
Kianji, (2012) communication via email.
Kraak, (2001): Settings and needs for web cartography, in: Kraak and Allan Brown (Eds), Web Cartography, Francis and Taylor, New York, p. 3–4.
Milewa, (2012) personal communication December 6 2012.
Mulaku (2012) Class notes: Land Information Systems
National Geographic (1996) http://travel.nationalgeographic.com/travel/sustainable/about_geotourism.html [Accessed 12 April 2013]
Newsome and Dowling (2005): Resources for Tourism. 1st edition Rutledge-New York. http://v5.books.elsevier.com/bookscat/samples/9780750662154/9780750662154.PDF [Accessed 20 March 2013]
Peterson M. P., 2008, Maps and the Internet: what a mess it is and how to fix it!, Proceeding of 23 the International Cartographic Conference, August 2008, Moscow.
Publication about setting up geoparks and geosites with many articles from different authors . 3 geoparks and geosites- Facultatae de biologie si geologie http://bioge.ubbcluj.ro/maegs16/volume/3%20geoparks%20and%20geosites.pdf
Programmeableweb (2013): http://www.programmableweb.com [Accessed 21 Jan 2013]
Rollen (2013): Redefining the language of Geospatial Industry: in Geospatial World Annual Edition (Thought- Leader’s edition)
Roy Aniruddha Web mapping [email protected] - http://www.gisdevelopment.net/technology/gis/techgi0037.htm [Accessed 20 Jan 2013]
Simons J(1972) Mt Suswa National Park or Reserve. Report to the Ministry of Tourism
Simons J(1980 & Reprinted 2003) Caves and Cave Associated Wilderness Areas of Kenya. Vol 2 Area Report. Mt Suswa Volcano and Caves.
SORALO (2008), A Feasibility Study of Potential Community Based Tourism in the South Rift Region.
UNESCO-GGN (2010) online: http://www.unesco.org/new/fileadmin/MULTIMEDIA/HQ/SC/pdf/sc_geoparcs_2010guidelines.pdf [Accessed 13 Feb 2013]
Wikipedia (2013a) Sustainable Tourism : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Cite&page=Sustainable_tourism&id=550487060 [Accessed 13 April 2013]
Wikipedia (2013b) Geotourism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geotourism [Accessed 13 April 2013]
Wikipedia (2013c) Webmapping: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Web_mapping&oldid=549697306 [Accessed 14 Jan 2013]
Yee (2010) Pro Web 2.0 Mashups: Remixing Data and Web Services http://mashupguide.net/1.0/html/ch01s02.xhtml