<%BANNER%>

Web-based GIS to enhance the design of a statewide Trails Network as part of Florida's Greenways and Trails System

University of Florida Institutional Repository
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101130_AAAACA INGEST_TIME 2010-11-30T14:18:35Z PACKAGE UFE0010744_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 4919 DFID F20101130_AABLDR ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH schaller_l_Page_122thm.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
7568379706b5442ced5c600be223bd07
SHA-1
a2ae44ec64eff209c2f8521c7f93cc5beed8928f
1051962 F20101130_AABKYL schaller_l_Page_138.jp2
1e8b7db76f6078d740388da6765b7ece
7846f2c10339861a2168431a409e7def8c5c6402
104637 F20101130_AABKXW schaller_l_Page_095.jp2
33002d9cce0d0e90cc50cc4dbfe8def8
3d3947b7db4a54b50323687ab9786e9e7519dd90
6392 F20101130_AABLEF schaller_l_Page_095thm.jpg
493e0712c864cc18066ab79d4940787f
1208b1d4086af327db3804b6b7c25d4d0218d3ea
4655 F20101130_AABLDS schaller_l_Page_010thm.jpg
4e9e7eeae1d421079c225ce7f421a46c
875987fa0ceccfc7dbdfe10aed0141d2246bf424
14108 F20101130_AABKYM schaller_l_Page_139.jp2
25efbdcbd83e2180aaa9abf0219c35cd
7d37381888332531fcc4defe3825be42438da609
84409 F20101130_AABKXX schaller_l_Page_099.jp2
baef28defec50d900d7d43eb2093dc60
8ff54d3467b151da152f925c446a105503b5d33e
23343 F20101130_AABLEG schaller_l_Page_107.QC.jpg
e2aa208f8b5add931f48c0d6e6d7fe6a
fdba4fc2e5f4f1d59868b49a8346799d9a695d55
1053954 F20101130_AABKZA schaller_l_Page_039.tif
ff3f86afd909f9d0a2790f7a86b88747
c0d55598145656b8016fe05b74e57dd2e404542b
6520 F20101130_AABLDT schaller_l_Page_106thm.jpg
8a7462530cd14762faaae6bb0dcced08
7adb1422a41045b28936a614f5e8802a13add6bc
25271604 F20101130_AABKYN schaller_l_Page_009.tif
7116e50c1f2c61966ee9e369054d7790
7be6f7207aaeac3bac3620efee02f5b57a934efa
97180 F20101130_AABKXY schaller_l_Page_101.jp2
dc9676cc249bb30313cbf630967ce1ec
c9d4aad71aa789f4be1d52709153c76f67f9f131
3849 F20101130_AABLEH schaller_l_Page_124.QC.jpg
232fdca0b0f0af13066ce2c920d12834
af7b78894e16f6d3178314c00b21b1d9f5f9848e
F20101130_AABKZB schaller_l_Page_040.tif
81126c7c345b88866a073be1b04ee5c1
7caa2651d001ae250b94d8fb77bc95de577f2508
23236 F20101130_AABLDU schaller_l_Page_090.QC.jpg
079cd32ecddc5e8df3a5743214fcb781
a5b2ab2afaec83997d9acdf8fa0b44b5077aaf43
F20101130_AABKYO schaller_l_Page_014.tif
f496c87654a0ab12103071ec4454cf56
585c51e85d6558f37f520dc9ccbd93247f5d38e2
105847 F20101130_AABKXZ schaller_l_Page_103.jp2
4a8d51918683d70a44592aa5334019b2
babc6492bd83c56a1b4f3d225db5dff8f80e29bd
3354 F20101130_AABLEI schaller_l_Page_085thm.jpg
619dc928e9592a562a2f9c56460d9b74
a019c6274dbb6a1aa2d42b7b2d24cce3efeef617
F20101130_AABKZC schaller_l_Page_041.tif
99eaf03c3ffce3d7cdbad3600a59cd46
9e08dd5f9b0062ac092f883246ec6a8883e9349c
21548 F20101130_AABLDV schaller_l_Page_130.QC.jpg
e17ff330892e71ae48cb7983dff137e0
1fb6fdf0454e362acfd3b37b51f8003972bc1c25
F20101130_AABKYP schaller_l_Page_015.tif
194937daabc2c33da7c6696ee7cd4ec8
bedab51469c40993ba70212f3ef42bd86dc009f1
21303 F20101130_AABLEJ schaller_l_Page_076.QC.jpg
a4667b46f87190a63d1b3fdc4cc6075f
7b5c2aa7e86679bd49986858cec882b50216b05c
F20101130_AABKZD schaller_l_Page_044.tif
d170225572061c5630876cbdb9cb6b83
4a814514f934fbaa79aba17ab1b032341f552dca
6112 F20101130_AABLDW schaller_l_Page_060thm.jpg
11393c2e2d9bd91fa993434016a7d8e9
b7ea042316702d4c134e78f3e4b609b76a042051
5427 F20101130_AABLEK schaller_l_Page_078thm.jpg
86ba1986a1138d934877a0fd2dfb1fdf
90715aa550084c3b1a64c6fe03162d3f5c95a3d1
F20101130_AABKZE schaller_l_Page_045.tif
6ce84ad69a57950c67006241fb73eb7d
4895178e4437785e993df17ad87ba55411206bbc
6457 F20101130_AABLDX schaller_l_Page_053thm.jpg
35ed14990e37fe9ae42327321653d986
e4c631ca55a25458f459e3ab8dd18d567aa5abb1
F20101130_AABKYQ schaller_l_Page_017.tif
93f9720c16dfca64232ec4c14f7b8b64
0f29e79c08afa9cff35f0d0e569a066c99a05bb1
6669 F20101130_AABLEL schaller_l_Page_021thm.jpg
fe341a53114371adf8c827e1729fbbf9
7ec51d2b884be546398652233f2ddab12fa7b73c
F20101130_AABKZF schaller_l_Page_047.tif
1386857ccb65602e25fe0c28390abc0d
4a149e97b0043ab6cbbeef11445a8b076122e000
F20101130_AABKYR schaller_l_Page_018.tif
a289fbd5f9c36274193ee7449b2c5c8d
664b25e0e3f1204d6fb7ae2619d8c7f4c79b3ed5
23566 F20101130_AABLFA schaller_l_Page_051.QC.jpg
26381ec3a7c489ed3fb2c12511b9ff79
8456f4a734bace4f8ad34bfbbd2e2d20da277a8f
22910 F20101130_AABLEM schaller_l_Page_029.QC.jpg
138fc36ce2a6d2c8eaf52c1914c344e5
6e1aff92845b994fb11ebc906816481af4d30d14
F20101130_AABKZG schaller_l_Page_056.tif
f12d36449d62a29ffe718c5c41256c33
059f3782dad5a54a80be9de1b6e1966b2165980f
22896 F20101130_AABLDY schaller_l_Page_093.QC.jpg
9af0bc9ec9d7167dcf730eee0eb59c8a
b5cf5d579bbd4cf9f1d2e1983b085cb004ed1962
F20101130_AABKYS schaller_l_Page_020.tif
b4108005412e5c58fe5b732ca5cfbea2
4d29c196202257d008ff838ce04887f0e288e2bd
6684 F20101130_AABLFB schaller_l_Page_027thm.jpg
4ed814c55bb7baa8e231ec09a620097f
bbd0162b2711d8a398045101e2f673fb1431e7c3
22188 F20101130_AABLEN schaller_l_Page_043.QC.jpg
e4761882d7e9e891645831505d306e00
cfd7923a72ab8797b5f73a15a257bba6ea0929b5
F20101130_AABKZH schaller_l_Page_059.tif
2bacc58841753cd2c22064d5a6d8b605
745b55fc151155acf8abf96f5ec6ccd154661e7d
24031 F20101130_AABLDZ schaller_l_Page_042.QC.jpg
6ff8d0eda1350e620d9cc83cbdace61f
4b8f1407f936a233d745bbe4b4c59ef1b4a72938
F20101130_AABKYT schaller_l_Page_022.tif
1022b3c1d46b7a85837f710aeabbc676
a3047006b70f24b1bcc3bd3340defd4e04314e1e
1698 F20101130_AABKCA schaller_l_Page_058.txt
b1b28461d341e2bd3d0bf68241148947
5c8756266a3cc8a246523c7bfde17b67110a23fb
22040 F20101130_AABLFC schaller_l_Page_119.QC.jpg
b6880be13429f9aba842b84f55e08239
23c9dba6d208f87e9fde0ae0c615af4104af1982
21204 F20101130_AABLEO schaller_l_Page_097.QC.jpg
4ff5bf3eb50243c6d36fd22d5b599a51
b8dd31e110163d6fd26552371bb58a6ba7e8b31d
F20101130_AABKZI schaller_l_Page_060.tif
248565e4de83a529c2a97fdf68328d64
02e2d2f7794b9b80306af89ae9403f0e5fa03695
F20101130_AABKYU schaller_l_Page_023.tif
f6e4f0dd49c3ceaa79f5cb797b7c86a4
5a39d36ad9dae647d9c5609546966cc8862afcb9
82298 F20101130_AABKCB schaller_l_Page_102.jp2
756550eeb44b4c00a71f0350f733d3e6
3ffa679b1eb3d3b1e47cc48e332e30c88be23b1c
5612 F20101130_AABLFD schaller_l_Page_006thm.jpg
e4126b858a47a1d6e252a452eac81f85
9f2f0da6aeceaff1caca926aedb17e39f952c3a9
23607 F20101130_AABLEP schaller_l_Page_062.QC.jpg
8be52518e2ee4a5085a790d01f2c566d
ba8a6f4be699f7dc890953531b2e3db1e75ab835
F20101130_AABKZJ schaller_l_Page_061.tif
5c3b2824bf964b60a49d527af8ebb9df
1ad7ffd959be745b0718f5ddf12b0279d201d619
F20101130_AABKYV schaller_l_Page_025.tif
8010cd13930c775ea176acc7e6b1a11f
c5c6e4fbbbcc3ba860fadb795599dbf15fb631df
235 F20101130_AABKCC schaller_l_Page_009.txt
ab5e2225faeb284dee08e4c2c8ebc93a
3fb66017e5f0876d76524bc6ce5af56236d00a3d
6492 F20101130_AABLFE schaller_l_Page_084thm.jpg
99e470d3ad1b86ece667f8bd0b1655fc
cba0251fd6cfb0297f3b24b1fb47f15db0d44e58
6480 F20101130_AABLEQ schaller_l_Page_114thm.jpg
39ce824e64e94d4659709b3c8705bd2f
afd31efd939978f10978b95147f1d702d347bfbb
F20101130_AABKZK schaller_l_Page_062.tif
6ebd4d9a20b2c736b72b42b799167a49
9ec4bb2f3aa7eb665ba32996c4354b0e00529df6
F20101130_AABKYW schaller_l_Page_028.tif
0be7a1e81e69a2e816269aaadc288832
1833342f78816aa9ba3021f0a647c680fd26282c
51216 F20101130_AABKCD schaller_l_Page_140.jp2
abaf74b614cd454af9b893a960dc87a1
c87c42b8e631a78bf316ef548b46a9a9856f42de
23677 F20101130_AABLFF schaller_l_Page_016.QC.jpg
dd58e7cf832b0f3d4e87ca1bce83a9f9
2b8b02d0b76e84786bd784c769b9652e6c4eab4e
23184 F20101130_AABLER schaller_l_Page_053.QC.jpg
1e346ca0ac66cde62de5c75bf93c6ae8
983af0757cc0053db3fbc08b5bdb7ecaa145b547
F20101130_AABKZL schaller_l_Page_064.tif
5c5f5efb84e8e456fa052fd7097804b2
9d8403dd578941719a920000344e5562e33deae9
F20101130_AABKYX schaller_l_Page_031.tif
6d6444040d099b125e96c2089e373a5c
587b4d5392548670839409b8adb0e229f060cc13
6344 F20101130_AABKCE schaller_l_Page_043thm.jpg
fc2b22cf334ccd271131a31f617013ef
5e9dcd9ad3a82c9baa245e674a8c5965327c0fd2
1779 F20101130_AABLFG schaller_l_Page_139thm.jpg
09273caf646d608d70bc3a544c26228b
85cc6bd46fc784174314e0d30b1abaa22818d926
21318 F20101130_AABKBQ schaller_l_Page_056.QC.jpg
be72734ab5767edf761239283c4590bd
a75f040773afac8ee64acc3bab9a5b4c75fc9cd0
22392 F20101130_AABLES schaller_l_Page_034.QC.jpg
05a449400e62ed052184771f77c796f0
805f9e7658715196a553656a830ccd0deb5a0853
F20101130_AABKZM schaller_l_Page_068.tif
6d699eb2614e757e0f3a9bed2762c6c5
112454f1abe0517081008e698bc70994944b7ea7
F20101130_AABKYY schaller_l_Page_035.tif
dd4b46254327ad89c7e1afef3a7949d0
5e1536619646111fa3af1052d9a630cd58edb0d1
6062 F20101130_AABKCF schaller_l_Page_123thm.jpg
70be8633580073b09ed0b5ef2c346df0
0cfc8a2d2e67eeca4377a8a009f6d1cbffc65ac6
23521 F20101130_AABLFH schaller_l_Page_096.QC.jpg
1c9dcf3c0ba7405a9ecca2630809b85d
002f572bb58a94d3973178180e95109a72cacfaf
111301 F20101130_AABKBR schaller_l_Page_063.jp2
3560597d60a25e7f3e3dc37259bb7289
60bb865217e236628c483aa02b5d467656e8cda2
6297 F20101130_AABLET schaller_l_Page_116thm.jpg
e8f7f090ce11f37dcdaf9ee8245dfa09
21f3d134ca59b81c5e21c5e72b713ca40fd6580c
F20101130_AABKZN schaller_l_Page_070.tif
01bf523268d858f93bee90cb3415bdfd
b327cd8b52e04afb77084986aa0044d9de4e1c49
F20101130_AABKYZ schaller_l_Page_038.tif
6a91d9992577bc7151a2526201764a07
589642ad0745c06fbe59c920cb3d112ce3c98e33
69328 F20101130_AABKCG schaller_l_Page_070.jpg
daace3c151826c7c5555100ccd8c4356
fcadfc19c9a0ff1ed3eb299e70217bbf42bf42f6
5431 F20101130_AABLFI schaller_l_Page_125thm.jpg
b21a9c3d08a50663528ff7d113f68bde
d7d398904ad8ae9673f654a9ad3c5b11b2ec148f
124058 F20101130_AABKBS schaller_l_Page_125.jp2
0f06104a2ed3897ebd230628ebce7502
aa0c55b6747cf5e45fe7e8b06b1c5f9629a5b200
5145 F20101130_AABLEU schaller_l_Page_071thm.jpg
2618e064b0d87bcde6223977e52024b3
3bdb2d7ab11a7371d493ea69a716a719e67ccc90
F20101130_AABKZO schaller_l_Page_072.tif
cf91bb23582d0d0a874934486ffa2e73
dc2e26392c648a7403db26128f5072838d09f41c
1051982 F20101130_AABKCH schaller_l_Page_081.jp2
893802b8ddc51b3ab9942b95ea23e2fe
fc8ea10690e82b1ab1bc37251f4ae5ffeec8b2d0
21812 F20101130_AABLFJ schaller_l_Page_069.QC.jpg
a7b9bcd7ae02d36661104233d3a4114a
9c420d40b7309dfe04b7b7bdd9cc630a0cd62e19
F20101130_AABKBT schaller_l_Page_125.tif
27dff19443212da27f892e70949d65b1
66fa4d0f385d41f6e6bf535e27bdec7d63c354b8
2978 F20101130_AABLEV schaller_l_Page_004thm.jpg
822e3e0608de1479e5311bf1822c4e3c
47b07424161a31c0d8bf9f3b387120a3330bb577
F20101130_AABKZP schaller_l_Page_074.tif
a7419b6e9c6179579a236320bbaabb59
1542faaeb11ea4d6037c584a87fed8e55d6c7f1e
21267 F20101130_AABKCI schaller_l_Page_116.QC.jpg
89f7d5ce89fbc7e14e00bb2b381856d9
ec25d658629598fdc5190829173a9f1f5259311c
182136 F20101130_AABLFK UFE0010744_00001.xml FULL
339ec5abdd8d8fcd3b706806b33de40c
fd3f5872e47e7a26d136d736d1330c71e0be37aa
60673 F20101130_AABKBU schaller_l_Page_019.jpg
d25137938fa8d4b8050f2afc2d7e57bd
fb630b0f0eadf045be1f4b17ec5822d5fd14e151
20367 F20101130_AABLEW schaller_l_Page_098.QC.jpg
61a0e450cc038f841737e264d28286cb
af8b8da096c2a4f0fa739744b26796d0c3d56e87
F20101130_AABKZQ schaller_l_Page_075.tif
673565fdb3237e1c72baf1a8e7b39e3a
5265643301d67b95d9694cf4b1f045eb02003902
24126 F20101130_AABKCJ schaller_l_Page_114.QC.jpg
aa671b4b34d7a765429c9eb3262bf1fd
ca6cd3a5790ecd1d98841a857d2dc3f17978da57
1398 F20101130_AABLFL schaller_l_Page_002thm.jpg
f1ea4bb7b532f3745b969f919ee16ce2
bf0193c37ac1974199a8497f174b1174e81268cd
71456 F20101130_AABKBV schaller_l_Page_120.jpg
3ebfc936ac87a39e6d521e2782c43ac6
8c720c739f07e9eca4dd09990802f16bbf2d837b
24610 F20101130_AABLEX schaller_l_Page_015.QC.jpg
46063f7256395ffc101709e49ba86291
8156e9b2868f53e9b53beee4f834e34793bf180b
6499 F20101130_AABLGA schaller_l_Page_037thm.jpg
06a3a471190201fdf8c4f04d89684e79
c09dfa3d34b2ceb6adbd130a32c020c1d2de77f5
F20101130_AABKCK schaller_l_Page_122.tif
dce7048777be109d4a58299055223f0f
3d3c7cfec71b2fad7d39fffdd5d6c337dce2600b
18964 F20101130_AABLFM schaller_l_Page_005.QC.jpg
8983bd90a9de13d57505153d9fe11ab6
fcc5089c5fa35724f9a7c549179cc29dfd176130
4143 F20101130_AABKBW schaller_l_Page_082thm.jpg
7768ced054bb4cd8c134a47b23722ef4
66392c5698bbf66bcf3dc2d9466d246b60ec7458
6142 F20101130_AABLEY schaller_l_Page_101thm.jpg
ae5835738de970eef2d2d879b5bb655e
8a0f85bc4d9e8b1080520935c023f735539ed4e1
F20101130_AABKZR schaller_l_Page_081.tif
4d646efa4494d908572273c5016011e3
fef35203259c98714de988c8df7971d266e5ffd1
6178 F20101130_AABLGB schaller_l_Page_039thm.jpg
9b612d2f9d7b6877e601882e7c7112f8
c25b01d63d510d59bff9856e3ea95201e9b3079b
6559 F20101130_AABKCL schaller_l_Page_046thm.jpg
015ddd30cc4c7376ca5d8b339893504f
d989dea9caec2526805b9f540d5e709376bf6e6b
4956 F20101130_AABLFN schaller_l_Page_005thm.jpg
e68e4d52692a3703b281c266f1dadcb3
8895642c8f04301e8ae087117d9bcadaa1702dcf
F20101130_AABKBX schaller_l_Page_140.tif
798027a7628e0a1258bcac4b17630771
45fa18f0bbdcf7a280ecb3a4e30986ee83bce778
6221 F20101130_AABLEZ schaller_l_Page_070thm.jpg
944b05bb4de1f11c6ada9a3b9335b6f3
6dc532347c091e4f33cc309c2f3079442dc7d4ba
F20101130_AABKZS schaller_l_Page_084.tif
9261d2fa0f5b67d00adfc0c037200820
0562850423650800505b190283414acba44219a0
23862 F20101130_AABLGC schaller_l_Page_040.QC.jpg
761d4a72706aafec34dda8391c32e8b3
4597e9cdcb3e2fa97e435eda417ec8f6f7f617d8
6360 F20101130_AABKCM schaller_l_Page_031thm.jpg
09f20a12948dff43018d8b32d17fceec
ef5de89b00a68420e5a10cd27c285ca5500b5995
22477 F20101130_AABLFO schaller_l_Page_006.QC.jpg
f00dc4179425575f8fcc8098f949d3f4
b48c2a4f4b13a9817d8e2d144c034bb34babc303
3058 F20101130_AABKBY schaller_l_Page_130.txt
0658e92b3923eaaaf651786db4d3b9eb
3f5167097a35841f26d8c6cf09ac477e0001f10f
8423998 F20101130_AABKZT schaller_l_Page_085.tif
fdc0481a74a0af239083c70999c155fc
eefde3fe6fae73dda67a49d5caee2a648be7bf15
F20101130_AABKDA schaller_l_Page_083.tif
8ee5a0b0a908578a17a07410440da3a5
974b92326cdac5b46509f61852e78571cf37ea88
23225 F20101130_AABLGD schaller_l_Page_044.QC.jpg
b028114e22fe27a459f2d04e66827bd0
aacf05257692cb62abe427f171de1a0929127476
F20101130_AABKCN schaller_l_Page_136.tif
a7183ad5c5e3e776035435c275b7b50f
d1156adb9883259d5f8e3d3ec0a4127bfc0323f9
2407 F20101130_AABLFP schaller_l_Page_011thm.jpg
9de563aaaf55a6a265351c0e81d9c8b5
f413e97c0bd1d9a1a3284ad06d1fdcdf3c9e1f18
F20101130_AABKZU schaller_l_Page_087.tif
307513c5fb3acfe657a76f4b537769bd
717f09e4f57681805429862a5d1009bc2891ce13
F20101130_AABKDB schaller_l_Page_067.tif
5ec7c67d90d4f5fb08abaf17a06d6148
0d8bee1992f0d31dc10d812785de05cea9c95311
6313 F20101130_AABLGE schaller_l_Page_045thm.jpg
7209655f6dceeda621d5a607ad4c9db9
439adac188fa193be32de5fc19e180aa60476de7
F20101130_AABKCO schaller_l_Page_036.tif
b0977f03354c374dd4fc8c7566c24611
c66e53de99aac00d94a7a24441da87c8a3f5c856
4539 F20101130_AABLFQ schaller_l_Page_013thm.jpg
82277bc97e590346eb9791061d467a24
0ddda9f246a9a5ec9300d45959ccbc262803ce25
68823 F20101130_AABKBZ schaller_l_Page_039.jpg
d40272e2f450fd2750f8b4feb580aa33
8d2a34c42f11ae9f0226eedba41722af9c41b53d
F20101130_AABKZV schaller_l_Page_089.tif
7502f749b5cfed95870690713c0d910d
4109e1b693cb26ea9248e50df49ed3f649836d24
F20101130_AABKDC schaller_l_Page_002.tif
0596036029621067d29e4064dcb6099e
239fbd09ae0c92aa2542fd530f7ff2a61cbf1f5f
6276 F20101130_AABLGF schaller_l_Page_054thm.jpg
0290f5e72bd35a524d7cab97551b2ce7
0d82c15f18e1b88ac98d33c8249e07f927dbde11
F20101130_AABKCP schaller_l_Page_073thm.jpg
796c9e75c9fb8cad3416029858dd73c8
20bb85f21ffea830cc88816e774cf1469b17ed72
19946 F20101130_AABLFR schaller_l_Page_019.QC.jpg
a5bf37144538a8b09f7ccf8f0f2c6bed
5f9b04786f42f57a9ad8d3c6379bda16915dda6e
F20101130_AABKZW schaller_l_Page_095.tif
f1027c0edcc5ec43086626c461ec7d04
53ae919731a2ebb2ca0668b63bb0c0410026c973
6655 F20101130_AABKDD schaller_l_Page_096thm.jpg
d53316546cf4683a5caca56398ecfe65
ef97f9f252cc436942b6c919913fda34296a05fa
20290 F20101130_AABLGG schaller_l_Page_058.QC.jpg
ab0cc3642c515279e70e7632d18e0471
ba2207df572b24be157caa30f4a8f22140c6e052
23369 F20101130_AABKCQ schaller_l_Page_084.QC.jpg
d0028127a51dad5d147a755615ec2a2f
2ffa4049ce6331c269e3b7f97a27f8aa41d09eb9
6879 F20101130_AABLFS schaller_l_Page_022thm.jpg
5fc206e3d6dd014d9ec08948e43ffdf4
b8c3487027f2bca5bc04ebf77dfdb98480949e88
F20101130_AABKZX schaller_l_Page_096.tif
2c1111210b35605bb5b1afac248e8801
eb72e4ca6d83704c3c3767d5298bbad5f4b9aaee
720846 F20101130_AABKDE schaller_l_Page_127.jp2
921a0f1425a62cef805273270b346b40
99801a3ff168c36524216713332cdd7453bbcdb1
5811 F20101130_AABLGH schaller_l_Page_058thm.jpg
c95339a65d3c9d2f44ea12dd81cc064f
ef68336404e6de5343bc015ed2111d95618f7d5f
F20101130_AABKCR schaller_l_Page_077.jp2
938dfc76b26878b857d97cf09a4f6bb0
55f6fe06c2b56af5126749178213418bf82708f2
6490 F20101130_AABLFT schaller_l_Page_023thm.jpg
97625aa6ad79e1293a8f6bad6136cc28
fb8a87cd2622af94b5ee9c91137d899626d99dba
F20101130_AABKZY schaller_l_Page_097.tif
376da96bcae60b49204599baac8dfe7e
9956d5a63df1b576075878f41fa5e12468e0e1e7
24202 F20101130_AABKDF schaller_l_Page_115.QC.jpg
077e250fddefd1175a316f4843db2d1d
934de396f9f4f9589c1786c110765a15a81f76f6
24240 F20101130_AABLGI schaller_l_Page_059.QC.jpg
0a2f2a80c93c4cd8cefa146fa7eb482d
8a7b60bf23a470685f45117f2b8bb99d44fc6411
89227 F20101130_AABKCS schaller_l_Page_100.jp2
d548832c989103f707ce22627c6edfaf
af7ae3790697d4f9b5817282fc4b54d97b82fa8c
24278 F20101130_AABLFU schaller_l_Page_024.QC.jpg
2905a5f9c32e31eb7ee64e1fbddebc9b
8fe2e6e8c3da56c8575f6890d3107442329fab37
F20101130_AABKZZ schaller_l_Page_098.tif
99654c4375cd1cf04af9257d1cb751e1
db0e427447f8e45b0e63e121f71454543d6c2ef2
1580 F20101130_AABKDG schaller_l_Page_122.txt
04216e8fa6280b39617f2e7023675582
254f3c7bfdb9ae8804b181ec5431f8da506af85c
6777 F20101130_AABLGJ schaller_l_Page_061thm.jpg
7bfe26cb64ece97cca3d51c136a930e0
9f8a9f5d7bf0c72297ba7e15804b99216e810090
5627 F20101130_AABKCT schaller_l_Page_118thm.jpg
113f53084978124f9bf1683bb5de0fbb
880eb9252d509598a9f0ed93e776f46d3cd5ba17
24165 F20101130_AABLFV schaller_l_Page_025.QC.jpg
3a310096e1dc0b1af31518734c526935
d6726511230c85049bce5bb7b4c648da0ae54e5d
1962 F20101130_AABKDH schaller_l_Page_050.txt
e231ba64c763bb854e4d4d2943d746e8
326fbfdbb6e6c132a921cf77ea0b92bb571fa81c
6590 F20101130_AABLGK schaller_l_Page_062thm.jpg
bafac4db702639e91bb082dd63380647
4877a8e5e9c941b95b292a5833873059dec1538c
24098 F20101130_AABLFW schaller_l_Page_028.QC.jpg
920e3a728a6d145fbf5958f8a6394f52
a60f2fcb08ce54b7adf243ac7bbd7a79309ab9ae
1689 F20101130_AABKCU schaller_l_Page_075.txt
b8840cc7eaecba2b7c2cf84a1359425c
f49facdf9123c1b9dc3dfe63a008864d70fe244c
75761 F20101130_AABKDI schaller_l_Page_015.jpg
ef4e0cc6744306dace222eea76ee6f50
cf8e9193d4b41c233c089fcb28f95421113230ba
6422 F20101130_AABLGL schaller_l_Page_063thm.jpg
de7f78ff6b35f72e5a0d408210b2242a
12ee81cc968e7362f76d163413ab09261a433d6a
6583 F20101130_AABLFX schaller_l_Page_028thm.jpg
7f507153f6fa3b67ac7aecb94c92eb9d
309b0b9b0e90c5c069cd55e6b22ffc69640c996e
6667 F20101130_AABKCV schaller_l_Page_059thm.jpg
b25b71c583f4a193156ae6b2528b2858
e85f2d406ec1100cc0f25f84ada031b7baa2d703
6339 F20101130_AABKDJ schaller_l_Page_067thm.jpg
57944bb405204f6367a8ee5cad3c032e
c9f4c33d85d07d214d2e4109d0314f9c47672837
3755 F20101130_AABLHA schaller_l_Page_088thm.jpg
a46ff81a9388ea75fe51aa99fb2c8197
72b2a08e62020955ed7bc6fb9008d90f244cce5a
23041 F20101130_AABLGM schaller_l_Page_066.QC.jpg
fdeaf6d7fed6edd79d51c22d7d99d575
94601e406cb9f797c580650aa6ecc09a3f338497
6562 F20101130_AABLFY schaller_l_Page_033thm.jpg
af8be4e93384b14dadea52b58c37daac
1903f34f6067c5c7a2d90cf4f1601dfc15c5a09e
72021 F20101130_AABKCW schaller_l_Page_062.jpg
6720ce0e6cf3ae9bb611dc5218ef98be
845e6a0ae5c0b55f8f81df5191168a803eac8a87
1977 F20101130_AABKDK schaller_l_Page_051.txt
316e1552e6b8411726e65c218a3f9b47
6aa9b31ee3adfcbbb9eb4c82952b0baef2bd3c49
3962 F20101130_AABLHB schaller_l_Page_089thm.jpg
5f9fdae5264168d9163052b6b2868460
fc0e135e1a8e630059280ab54d332013a6dc6cce
6552 F20101130_AABLGN schaller_l_Page_066thm.jpg
630d9cae8ab7882de822626b0c688f05
3189d709054ac6249768dafd337023c8f150fc9f
6460 F20101130_AABLFZ schaller_l_Page_035thm.jpg
8cafb96a0465575581d1c0bedc86fc55
0f91b2ee26823616d8f558200ed273311d08bd43
6031 F20101130_AABKCX schaller_l_Page_097thm.jpg
e62ed95658fd524d13f4e853de0d307f
a0f33fcb559abe6252bc2f31a4e75feccabb2209
21618 F20101130_AABKDL schaller_l_Page_017.QC.jpg
916c2ddb33ff304a409f4414f370a748
d091a257cb5f0d12874acc04e1aaf011a66c83c4
6277 F20101130_AABLHC schaller_l_Page_090thm.jpg
65349e5d7ec566ec92aa21e5221f95b6
22b25c9bae67b4e4f32d672631627532e83a5044
5909 F20101130_AABLGO schaller_l_Page_069thm.jpg
896fcf73484592765ed233a0a67eb423
d763fc1c6ffdcd080814d99bb90ced760c479220
62456 F20101130_AABKCY schaller_l_Page_122.jpg
6949fcf93f5830b476818a49003edbfe
6ac973048e9ce83e294b4b95108f0d889b2b614f
F20101130_AABKEA schaller_l_Page_120.tif
0fab924fc30dd34b685e7fe6f7f2df0d
2bcf554a3edab4fe47b142da7045f590535ae3ff
F20101130_AABKDM schaller_l_Page_052.tif
3eb12faeb9f8d6a43bf0ab0bff21e96f
fbb22149d5045130f01b6cb8ad04ba5032c57af4
22695 F20101130_AABLHD schaller_l_Page_091.QC.jpg
507beff7bacd519d1e6ffe69b9305304
55363c08acb8cae3564705f746a362183f4dc924
17716 F20101130_AABLGP schaller_l_Page_071.QC.jpg
747553fc128fbbc2901730544d064825
e4033c5be29639de576123e627ba08743e863d9d
112119 F20101130_AABKCZ schaller_l_Page_114.jp2
90faa01ecd6cad5aa749e17d5e45c065
d9ab6bc5f4546caefa4edc8f1171c049324a9fab
1996 F20101130_AABKEB schaller_l_Page_053.txt
eb1fe527dad4e105bc9101f5699d73b4
7ca610891b017697b477a7b86dfc166dfc5b51ba
23939 F20101130_AABKDN schaller_l_Page_050.QC.jpg
4f10bef8af08a385a93ed9718faaeb6d
da3b45292f51d3f7954af3f07dd2590b8bb67dd6
6476 F20101130_AABLHE schaller_l_Page_092thm.jpg
55494d6b0c61bb1dd61b8c91a79d174b
fbe5683a0cdfecd1a92a2df1ad638a8e491aeb8f
6430 F20101130_AABLGQ schaller_l_Page_072thm.jpg
f5ca395a84c3d95ca470b30bc6ee1704
404361e0618dd8c5de12a5d7bd485925f7b5ab7c
F20101130_AABKEC schaller_l_Page_106.tif
0aafa37364e32276ff7b3a03d4f6b636
b5c1f0c966f79d963c53343b920900a75beb7986
54387 F20101130_AABKDO schaller_l_Page_071.jpg
429ca5b66e8569caffb3b70eba5ee7df
fa457d7a2e0b54abd6d3cea3252bda2ffcb71299
6443 F20101130_AABLHF schaller_l_Page_093thm.jpg
c183ced05913e02e2d234746da8d66bb
10e6a469db90c78af4fff5a47ca144aa33406f66
21551 F20101130_AABLGR schaller_l_Page_074.QC.jpg
551a7324b8945af7b4dd01a5cf8d48ae
734eb32332b3b843c5c3970cfa2af681b7a5d955
F20101130_AABKED schaller_l_Page_076.tif
a39a7a566d0ef68092e98549d4d983fe
5bdd82a37b7d98f612aa5da26b41322d918052a6
94103 F20101130_AABKDP schaller_l_Page_098.jp2
8768ed6ed0a413ba0c49b7129720e16e
ba0041dbc28616808759fe4dd3749ccbb3fa18a7
6708 F20101130_AABLHG schaller_l_Page_094thm.jpg
86cc3dab5e529fdcf2a40d2815a61c23
d0b3599da4a0fe3c526518eb734778a37f29143d
20827 F20101130_AABLGS schaller_l_Page_077.QC.jpg
2c09a6540d71196ed972252ee3061ce8
a49ae7a82cb4b83e35f76d3585bb4b430c438b11
F20101130_AABKEE schaller_l_Page_101.tif
365a3a1ff84e922d4dbf0ac954db206b
329d8d28e733973d5b2b236a4aba83847a395166
72228 F20101130_AABKDQ schaller_l_Page_051.jpg
9921af9b8e9a0b6145edff6d837bfa92
fd59a9ac657eeba172a4c1b10fb298a8b4ce18e0
22450 F20101130_AABLHH schaller_l_Page_095.QC.jpg
9b2c1a1c25be067044f5dfeb50810a3e
738bb59310df1baac11b59d2cc1906b531cbf284
5921 F20101130_AABLGT schaller_l_Page_077thm.jpg
72c83afc0521dc97b83fac3408559941
563e92c925576cbb3ee939c11dba5b5c6f8e81ad
5963 F20101130_AABKEF schaller_l_Page_074thm.jpg
f2486fd5ca0c9f907181418a88ecddc0
7f1657f855b26329737086dde747e2bb9ded1706
6298 F20101130_AABKDR schaller_l_Page_104thm.jpg
aa2a35f9b46962360ba5257a26b02201
71f7b6c377bd583be13c9d9ad25ff496f11e737d
21520 F20101130_AABLHI schaller_l_Page_101.QC.jpg
b12d1670c772630ff997b825c33dd466
f745f6e12a715c27d605198547e009a073778d32
18185 F20101130_AABLGU schaller_l_Page_080.QC.jpg
517e0bdcfcb35fd029bc5b318f9bca65
0c42fcc5b0fc2f62293ea10a33b897b01b66e429
32636 F20101130_AABKEG schaller_l_Page_087.jpg
01c237d54848111391cf94b075f43c26
69b43b56c4790393ddd5ff52aed8b66dffb8f470
69055 F20101130_AABKDS schaller_l_Page_108.jpg
d93ec3f927f612c31ed19f19600d97f5
c52be02782e7bf49c255a423136f434b1f26dbae
5911 F20101130_AABLHJ schaller_l_Page_102thm.jpg
503cc48715fff2a3847a1d6089dc4d96
961ed1d3147777ff87c42439fa3d3f1245beff85
19484 F20101130_AABLGV schaller_l_Page_081.QC.jpg
5202220057f8fea73c09f793a0dad656
ebe74aec1b0b6f953f3c50695e47ac0e149e2ed0
61720 F20101130_AABKEH schaller_l_Page_099.jpg
8311f3cdbeee2fad2570a4e2f88d1c72
9a5b77ec6f5bd2d105fce9e9237d78d0004aea1a
1051974 F20101130_AABKDT schaller_l_Page_076.jp2
a78059640f954201441f64e950e43e12
d5b6d91abbbbec3f356cc6f917a286b5aeb1adb7
22720 F20101130_AABLHK schaller_l_Page_103.QC.jpg
076977e8ee90c395f39dc949a66466d2
902ea97710fbcad30f6306a26350fafdb0b7338a
5634 F20101130_AABLGW schaller_l_Page_081thm.jpg
518326150428b400153ad93204a9198b
ed36698339946b32b52befe62116a6112a1eba5e
120923 F20101130_AABKEI schaller_l_Page_026.jp2
c827c8b260e975323759b55d0b19a93c
2d3506cac5efc26e6ddd351199076126bc6ee737
F20101130_AABKDU schaller_l_Page_034.tif
50c815ee8ebf8a5d86ccbd8fa13fbdaa
48a2657486e4c72bcd697c65d0b5ce1a0e34282a
6518 F20101130_AABLHL schaller_l_Page_103thm.jpg
34a98d7b9038324942bb4283331b62a6
b77f0be4b6c726facec692f754474375a37ac0b8
12939 F20101130_AABLGX schaller_l_Page_082.QC.jpg
bf902b0c94722ba128f6099d4fdf4640
79e0889d2d95d8da2060ad59e6dd44e7261a25e9
67599 F20101130_AABKEJ schaller_l_Page_008.jpg
07e73d0f811f894535506bd02cb39bb5
cbf284483ca40688f35598f4a69c5959ca33986c
2255 F20101130_AABKDV schaller_l_Page_077.txt
7afeb45f41e6baf61e8ea43cbe9e4bf1
99d1d4ab0ff41ea18fd42088cffd7e4e935ed726
6901 F20101130_AABLIA schaller_l_Page_138thm.jpg
326b03a6014a17079796abbcd4461a44
6915959c72f87da3ce638dade7b0ee4cb0665f47
6234 F20101130_AABLHM schaller_l_Page_105thm.jpg
0af699f469f908f9f1ee0869dbb2d43e
6f7d50cab4fd157fbb67c13a84aca38ce1b67121
21236 F20101130_AABLGY schaller_l_Page_083.QC.jpg
78e6aa8ea8ef701bb7fe6f979b0e3875
01da7a2d2cbf7d795b51f1efc3b845ffab3b00d2
1861 F20101130_AABKEK schaller_l_Page_047.txt
84aba978849e9467a1a43dcdb044e8d0
4db2333da4a54304d8512391d1e09d55abac05fd
19211 F20101130_AABKDW schaller_l_Page_078.QC.jpg
958d0c497a0f2b56065f13193210f1df
ef26d6f39428631987ce6af1139f52bf8f13c14d
12779 F20101130_AABLIB schaller_l_Page_140.QC.jpg
e387c16886bc299bac334d67a2c3b4ea
ae25d0125faa1cae1a5af34935991d01be7a942c
6542 F20101130_AABLHN schaller_l_Page_107thm.jpg
5ae4de878a31608265739f12bf0d2e59
751d060b6eda6f8e273958432b1254e24cb1816c
10721 F20101130_AABLGZ schaller_l_Page_087.QC.jpg
cc5fa86d7d594bd123b847910c9a48a7
cd68a1265b9d0e5e54dda0cb9edf27b6df8aaa41
F20101130_AABKEL schaller_l_Page_121.tif
9eeadfdd1feadad1e47120e9535e0df0
44b666145767e303df6bd4bd5f12f59d99e03cee
6309 F20101130_AABKDX schaller_l_Page_119thm.jpg
fc1e8c49c2ad4ef044e89e381648aea7
8ded557017d7b3ce22205d36e4e30705311a3d42
3774 F20101130_AABLIC schaller_l_Page_140thm.jpg
0c7d7e4314e5a3dc9f0ffc3014cd425d
69cd0ce7cd9f520a78da351cad4cdd5190019835
6101 F20101130_AABLHO schaller_l_Page_108thm.jpg
1cc9ddc4e55d8bcacf95097b397959c2
8f6c9b642f3feeee0a66d62b78d993fdaa79d295
6245 F20101130_AABKFA schaller_l_Page_047thm.jpg
8ea5f0c4540281d1e2ffb6abd8a7e1ca
886a57fc4dbacd1b8570c9b25f4dbac01955165a
7028 F20101130_AABKEM schaller_l_Page_011.QC.jpg
e7b6d3451931ef10ee9d56d818e39ddd
4693e881e5504525f75d0cc22a3e88183a9a6d84
96600 F20101130_AABKDY schaller_l_Page_108.jp2
522485ce8b13c05bd264e90182f2ad03
865a76d166050f186054d4c67998ce3b1e9c370f
6637 F20101130_AABLHP schaller_l_Page_110thm.jpg
7c2dca996066ebd20c9b88c2c4cab410
8cd104679e437d8ab5d381f0593aaa4451da22e3
6600 F20101130_AABKFB schaller_l_Page_052thm.jpg
dd788a3bdeaef9c8aab18c42419784bc
e64f50f19a9b9f895d2c4940013cbaa83de4dcaa
6524 F20101130_AABKEN schaller_l_Page_050thm.jpg
1545e05cf9cc0e30915e683c6df5ceb6
f14adf5a135fb8ac553635b960b357687c18c713
1565 F20101130_AABKDZ schaller_l_Page_124thm.jpg
e630c0b2d2f34b4917bfd481a625cba2
ab3c587d69fbc5b88fb2dd4488ca6c6dc4d2169c
22636 F20101130_AABLHQ schaller_l_Page_111.QC.jpg
186dc4261377cc13e212d85fec0dff98
367b78ffab6790b7e74cf832b928006c955d57b7
6437 F20101130_AABKFC schaller_l_Page_044thm.jpg
97c1fe4aface40ae8773de2481ccb5e8
66b2c04ee6d8816a1ac181de97343647d728d646
63722 F20101130_AABKEO schaller_l_Page_079.jpg
46eedcaa377bf597d47a5ace331968ab
2a3059395c9958c347ab2944db14660ecfaf7d9b
22874 F20101130_AABLHR schaller_l_Page_113.QC.jpg
16c9cfaa8489fc49411156d40f142902
f11f6d3517dd5170bb028f1ea7e6b9023798b018
24351 F20101130_AABKFD schaller_l_Page_022.QC.jpg
6cfca9d26277b4f1c21735c17d9b3569
ad74c49ac0af9737495f1bf5ddd25800ddef9819
392227 F20101130_AABKEP schaller_l_Page_088.jp2
83a5158625aa3ab35422720e19d3ca4c
26f468a37903b5559ca3d87a3b4200bda22fc879
10437 F20101130_AABLHS schaller_l_Page_117.QC.jpg
ca1f4ebe4b3416fe1ebf9508353ee9cd
fef7b38509ad6f0383fffe212adbfd3e066ba84b
2085 F20101130_AABKFE schaller_l_Page_094.txt
75376f537b676fe09f455332d89596a4
352f53071b4e6f6661deebf5323a4f1474d7334a
99399 F20101130_AABKEQ schaller_l_Page_056.jp2
83a09c1964d26946f5f5831dc133f909
ee7186bb5941c13b5712325ae4a9736fb7f349a9
19955 F20101130_AABLHT schaller_l_Page_125.QC.jpg
4ce0d4faf3ae494fd74638e35ed1211b
87b856780bcb457bb1a025d543e0daad748d1748
64539 F20101130_AABKFF schaller_l_Page_112.jpg
98f8b7b1d7c0ecf4e39cd73871d339cd
2d0916f9a86d6a856d62878b7c2adaf4fa97f405
2048 F20101130_AABKER schaller_l_Page_055.txt
7c79a96dfd3addfdd23fa8f5a43cddf9
7842c9050522ccde4446acb2f5129b127bc00964
17962 F20101130_AABLHU schaller_l_Page_126.QC.jpg
f8161db06b0071f619d24ae4d6f910b5
af1af729b6c8d0744fac335d08ff84cc8ea7ae3c
70184 F20101130_AABKFG schaller_l_Page_031.jpg
d2fd9642cf18ff7180d70e53ee253116
dd2ab748b1eb59ff356de2d2a1352e4894ec24a0
1935 F20101130_AABKES schaller_l_Page_016.txt
d24137db2f045f8e6273ca03761f4878
6360d98c74b024e6a4b893916a96b10f9f0656ac
5897 F20101130_AABLHV schaller_l_Page_127thm.jpg
3c314a2437ff89ecd735c99742a56b98
84ec504e7ee94cbe839db3f755daf290c6d07ac8
6676 F20101130_AABKFH schaller_l_Page_137thm.jpg
eb92aa6cdca282641f742344e418117e
f4f3734b236c5e176046474e96361669bb424e46
F20101130_AABKET schaller_l_Page_043.tif
2859cfb2aeb6227314bc21f26ac75a0a
ead1b249098664ea3d69871dd144b0c7133fc530
5649 F20101130_AABLHW schaller_l_Page_130thm.jpg
0100da3a37d80ac3790aa47511363540
2790fc51294e85efe197db8d7107337605754666
4731 F20101130_AABKFI schaller_l_Page_139.QC.jpg
c3787c53fb4fe6a06f427d33c5c307dd
2a41c57f5926f458e76fd9e512d7c3adfdd811c9
22601 F20101130_AABKEU schaller_l_Page_109.QC.jpg
31893f659b916cb4267960b8947ad2a4
7636df778c21406339f1cf271dc7012fecc95ca1
14829 F20101130_AABLHX schaller_l_Page_132.QC.jpg
871c49d518de0fb2f53543b0fdff3aed
234c7e851c04f2c55bca2695188fc96382cccc45
3266 F20101130_AABKFJ schaller_l_Page_002.QC.jpg
31da27d3d10147aa154348248e462d75
0f4f43e1b8cca21f5b0841e1e80176ef66a7a431
109567 F20101130_AABKEV schaller_l_Page_115.jp2
55a890ef6d148689c2c7b92d633eaa5e
ef552b72a5fab7bb78b3d93c0098f93ea820c627
6180 F20101130_AABLHY schaller_l_Page_134thm.jpg
294d81047c0d0e1d60c5dc83998db339
7747f05a0680419aff0f1abe15caf53e70e60ec6
F20101130_AABKEW schaller_l_Page_116.tif
6a8d8cbb38e92d50d7249372be278457
4c50d2aeef41bf863307434be8c8894c4433b90d
57885 F20101130_AABKFK schaller_l_Page_080.jpg
344ab76ad4f77a8f18ebd711e1779630
2094048c9fb9af8604c0cb0662902373cbd720b3
24978 F20101130_AABLHZ schaller_l_Page_137.QC.jpg
08b104a7a396786254fd148262d5fd46
1bffa0c170b812d8579feda71e999ccd98029840
76357 F20101130_AABKEX schaller_l_Page_061.jpg
43adb376585bbbe366d50a065a00bfbe
8d38e03aedbc66731f91f9f65d5a9462d9d8578a
22933 F20101130_AABKFL schaller_l_Page_065.QC.jpg
e2e347a44a65059f0e579dc59f071032
ddee8ee08fc560db5538f50fe9ab3d2553a14358
F20101130_AABKEY schaller_l_Page_019.tif
921f15f55efcb1e7e6fdcb5db6fdd39d
254d382f3cd55a984ecf5434166ea581e5a124d9
20919 F20101130_AABKGA schaller_l_Page_129.QC.jpg
d8d08ebd8c7521a1745cbda8229a4dc1
06668b123c0405189cf429f1c357f72d7974ebb3
74928 F20101130_AABKFM schaller_l_Page_054.jpg
f12042396830f4bb9a1e15b86d571a07
bca2fa7268534212db72cb9205242de0193e1c01
76579 F20101130_AABKEZ schaller_l_Page_071.jp2
3cc86d7a466a930196dc679a2ad6b273
c7f58d7c213f5b51fa280eef09c0005e5c2a232c
F20101130_AABKGB schaller_l_Page_055.tif
a84d08a13952d7275857289d4c77d17d
957fde028e0e89521b3068df88e777d558970993
22387 F20101130_AABKFN schaller_l_Page_134.QC.jpg
5e4bc61a948d5752514770e8e258e940
dfc7cfc1f667cde760938a1e22f431ce21915eac
38071 F20101130_AABKGC schaller_l_Page_140.jpg
181c9fc7057e32e48185eab6acea05c6
f8c975552fa14c9e6aa306aaaa882f3738902777
F20101130_AABKFO schaller_l_Page_099.tif
28333e59d7a873677369006b147b9534
29b47b003ae48016462b5a1b35c1e6a4ceabb013
F20101130_AABKGD schaller_l_Page_053.tif
2d5f001cd0f586e7661dc8d7d6a6e17c
c4b25862c26cb9424cc2f6daa32c334aa8dac6bc
21879 F20101130_AABKFP schaller_l_Page_038.QC.jpg
4dd77a61ca9e6e1635dda70fbe3d85f9
943d76f9347d3ac587c56529fe7fd76514f46dc2
61993 F20101130_AABKGE schaller_l_Page_118.jpg
a4065d49bd0e7a1a4bfcfdd914e96667
cbcd9468218f5271c920fa96553b6e4247a10670
72412 F20101130_AABKFQ schaller_l_Page_064.jpg
eedb395c2d65cc6f4fc95178c64841b2
ab6f5f321997821a257d2ba070df3fc9e8a85405
1051975 F20101130_AABKGF schaller_l_Page_010.jp2
81e60bb75b8be4bcbdb702c161804997
15b213f0d7995a83389a19bcf2925cb38a75bd17
16409 F20101130_AABKFR schaller_l_Page_133.jpg
ecea17fa5c724f2805a5e3a847f8db8d
2f99b9450f0eda63848dd761daa13ea864f81ba4
2427 F20101130_AABKGG schaller_l_Page_108.txt
59756b5f0706fa652281c0db10de9ddd
14146809ceea67824579070e68d7ac6fa92f5881
46296 F20101130_AABKFS schaller_l_Page_082.jpg
2c17a9c35ec35fc8193196b7ebc9b6a2
7e0a0f5a5e3a67bd65845c5831c2219fa3be69a7
2639613 F20101130_AABKGH schaller_l.pdf
d99d3d2df03377b241a8e4883aaf15ef
a3008ee1449714bb804f5631390da15b16175567
F20101130_AABKFT schaller_l_Page_093.tif
d7be16743994c4aa86ca079c3eb743dd
0ef50f5fe2367d971fe47ef002932b1ae8641bf8
11256 F20101130_AABKGI schaller_l_Page_085.QC.jpg
9003ef76cadcb403b2dc8dc79c5480e7
452e56413cc432c93e0170a208e75100d26392c2
76267 F20101130_AABKFU schaller_l_Page_134.jpg
0bf167035bc07cadd587c4697f2fcfec
4a49defcff4b2e3878c6f55f67b18e70f13f0da0
6624 F20101130_AABKGJ schaller_l_Page_042thm.jpg
b0bb400912197b9bb12341c6190163f0
5be885998102caa6ed0c284c6e32319405ae57eb
F20101130_AABKFV schaller_l_Page_114.txt
2ec3f5b3e8367762ddd5426d6e7e7c07
c17cfd191545cf4ee86a788f4a26693050032a61
87528 F20101130_AABKGK schaller_l_Page_112.jp2
f920d44ad505f120e5bf74f1e4cc0bc7
f49cdd6d65a7f8ba29ed6c0c1a0f556dcb0f0861
36566 F20101130_AABKFW schaller_l_Page_088.jpg
173a6bfc19901097dabeccab6dd9819f
e073962c84b4ac31a403c561acdb0d35fb3b7e7f
24445 F20101130_AABKGL schaller_l_Page_027.QC.jpg
d9ae868796b3c215ff77fb2aad6b6307
8e6345ff3ccb1cb8af90f573e1a0ebbf7f0c3c73
5953 F20101130_AABKFX schaller_l_Page_076thm.jpg
542899e5b61158a31c72d12478b37b7b
eaa2312143dff6a90cfa01cb9434b6b7ebca003e
5723 F20101130_AABKHA schaller_l_Page_049thm.jpg
4053280dc9e37fc939b83f237bc5ed48
4bb2f5d3449f60dd2c78c1ca28b22fdccec30381
17242 F20101130_AABKGM schaller_l_Page_010.QC.jpg
5ca932d782274c3f4abd9b31e7eca7a0
ac098d1ee3edacf8b6335a0f3943437a4ff1f437
13313 F20101130_AABKFY schaller_l_Page_131.QC.jpg
6be4ba411204bfe1d5ca46a7d9006066
e93f878033c98c89da83fa55ceee431570556337
F20101130_AABKHB schaller_l_Page_103.tif
b90a35acd2e3f71e870dca41c8de7d65
22daf0bf0c35235150865338285db650dbb2e66c
21499 F20101130_AABKGN schaller_l_Page_060.QC.jpg
3510241d2e926072ffdbaefd5d648855
7f42bf33455b57e1f2252a2340c8cda9e4a39d53
5152 F20101130_AABKFZ schaller_l_Page_075thm.jpg
1f9c8f902cc9c25b65de05666b3d1193
6a4c011611da0a024837a7a93f76e89d829da4fb
3347 F20101130_AABKHC schaller_l_Page_086thm.jpg
39a4eb5290cf9f979523cfa17fb15ee7
de941bb70b138e0eee92a0a574ecd79b6c855ba9
20061 F20101130_AABKGO schaller_l_Page_102.QC.jpg
867c939f26708984fb8b8b6869c534f0
7b2093d8da8585b673c43a37ecb395f40348dd06
104046 F20101130_AABKHD schaller_l_Page_047.jp2
9a09f2c6ca27f9f5030a92f2dfcf8848
b9cde60b7ef3a0d2ed3cea5280fbdb52b30084ca
19858 F20101130_AABKGP schaller_l_Page_012.QC.jpg
d4e66039fbc66a5ba7257a36526f0eb8
55fdacdbedbbbd54248b5b3cbaeba656156d2c26
23424 F20101130_AABKHE schaller_l_Page_032.QC.jpg
ecae9a6f536559ee01b1e46f6b08158c
1685384afa18d9ab838a2731f121a9e9709c19fa
22422 F20101130_AABKGQ schaller_l_Page_036.QC.jpg
d90a7d8776c82a5c2acbef636baaa977
a5855186454c08817e037998aa630f703aee2ce0
882 F20101130_AABKHF schaller_l_Page_048.txt
523e0c8523d51c7c9d075d612889fa9d
143659d51d7ce839562b710d1bdc43f39c292db7
106355 F20101130_AABKGR schaller_l_Page_120.jp2
c8cb8145d37ff73432984d3e6903f213
e57a9c4ffe644f040fc285165c7f0ba466c7438d
1895 F20101130_AABKHG schaller_l_Page_065.txt
05c8f20610346617e46fdab351a7fc14
31d569900604ac47237720ddcf7e7d38fb008ef1
F20101130_AABKGS schaller_l_Page_112.tif
1608641a817eb856603e26426740ec16
a0c795e078a6d6c382d8f5dd0090f52ec82255ce
22902 F20101130_AABKHH schaller_l_Page_105.QC.jpg
c47c422078038d9bb6ef632c8573de22
04cbf0fd09af48b991a123a0a51a10f5d283e3fd
1789 F20101130_AABKGT schaller_l_Page_098.txt
a47ac16e24fce27f85c6bb9b9ad8f2f8
43202e8eaa706b10e400df9590443dcfbbae2ca0
22503 F20101130_AABKHI schaller_l_Page_120.QC.jpg
4688f9118631c752b00b4493fa204c05
c8278d69ff75323195dd20e3556d0c6383a1087a
6608 F20101130_AABKGU schaller_l_Page_064thm.jpg
05ac4d73a1e45cbd2a6f986162974a09
9351f6a1722636ef7384481b173eb1d07c78324b
F20101130_AABKHJ schaller_l_Page_024.tif
6f73208eb5e79a0e7ec6492227c2d996
6f111cfddceae1f1116b824c4e017bf7bcf1389a
F20101130_AABKGV schaller_l_Page_079.tif
eaaa31737765fa516548fccdcc618a8d
210f1d8cfc8362626cd8ace34ca20ed19ec71393
F20101130_AABKHK schaller_l_Page_065.tif
09e794c6838681c9c146ecc283076840
6fb173b123d97974a89e5440cf08da008e27771b
F20101130_AABKGW schaller_l_Page_030.tif
5301b10903d4947337f1273be4be6992
d119611138245a15baefe749e177fc1133482dcd
93791 F20101130_AABKHL schaller_l_Page_049.jp2
5e2e230db7d2affe78cb84b590f97200
538df8b1d613f4fd0f2f78ee34d309b44e76f80c
2027 F20101130_AABKGX schaller_l_Page_024.txt
af18f77706bbc24ca5c52ec446ad5cc9
89b38a13202e913b39808bf4ed6eaf05ddee1cf7
6730 F20101130_AABKHM schaller_l_Page_026thm.jpg
aa9ac3f33e2abdb48776332f6fdac85b
b62bcd53e3fba49c4ea9db26ac993a7813135e0c
6537 F20101130_AABKGY schaller_l_Page_111thm.jpg
0627403bcf5d56fe28e1352606a85c8a
d5f83eb004113d09ee6b497477b7fbdb6e5bc264
12385 F20101130_AABKIA schaller_l_Page_089.QC.jpg
c9cb76941c3c7dd528703ed6b77da598
f48e9c04f7ce45af679e8ddc03a109e224810d76
6613 F20101130_AABKHN schaller_l_Page_115thm.jpg
f8275ef104e7b9d74fa76e9d2089e769
ed5da70a8912c13f496999b456c528c5e294d144
71197 F20101130_AABKGZ schaller_l_Page_107.jpg
56c80d0a89e2c143955cd9607ccefff1
6868d09a108f1295f7adf38965668e6075e2dafa
45859 F20101130_AABKIB schaller_l_Page_013.jpg
91691c678ce973bb183cae147bedae7f
4b6a0988a098b18fb33d2f35d4ef79ff57330477
1945 F20101130_AABKHO schaller_l_Page_105.txt
033df5b1250c5d666e8f50a94cc451ef
c652faa30854fc9e47a7707584e06e101175903f
F20101130_AABKIC schaller_l_Page_037.tif
584bd6c4a8197c85c0dad7dbdf8be903
6752a992e3ccca30ddce9326d2862651f7e09a4a
49244 F20101130_AABKHP schaller_l_Page_132.jpg
03315ab7684db68544d22c023766a75d
cb25b41151512bc349902f19d3643592eef3b435
110259 F20101130_AABKID schaller_l_Page_062.jp2
0976d2837a18e9cff8893279f63c1ab3
5978f47b6a74c2ff1e9e719c411ec9f056ed31b3
111246 F20101130_AABKHQ schaller_l_Page_021.jp2
a0023c28450e78862e47ccc9b97d8cc6
a370159b817a951004c580ff794fc3deaff4db99
3159 F20101130_AABKIE schaller_l_Page_005.txt
7bed8e95368a566f7b735b149efd2857
259617895daefaa143160657a9ce9946bee3f46c
F20101130_AABKHR schaller_l_Page_134.tif
9779322bcf56f2d56416de958aa852ec
9b5f4160ba7523176aa4f85de9d99c02926edd04
9729 F20101130_AABKIF schaller_l_Page_004.QC.jpg
72b51d5cc78fb89a8465a73c69927937
0895b5b98614777f4620e2ecee70965b073b7ff3
F20101130_AABKHS schaller_l_Page_048.tif
07de0e3d98b2b18fb7ebc89866759e6d
d7e990f053e679bc5302c056d08a2edbf2a24061
977466 F20101130_AABKIG schaller_l_Page_080.jp2
b9fc146d4eb20f6a62d26cbe0672274c
5429b484d5748eedd3dbfec42ea60d8d3a6567cd
F20101130_AABKHT schaller_l_Page_057.tif
265c480a3e78025c14942c0d6c552a02
49021a8e7d0a3049db5ad941f41ca8c2eb476bc7
2191 F20101130_AABKIH schaller_l_Page_099.txt
b3990ded18904d2ab89dd22db645efbe
1519425c1ba8ee389ab1ce17d062cea1a07d3236
6350 F20101130_AABKHU schaller_l_Page_036thm.jpg
96938c11996d9e583e3289a1c36592ea
a7125c1b297bac9ea9a5c366eea53af80d511eb0
F20101130_AABKII schaller_l_Page_066.tif
c3b39cf6909e40ebac45bfd99ddca6b8
359fd3d553c60f2e4cce804bf529040d99fc65a7
5391 F20101130_AABKHV schaller_l_Page_012thm.jpg
a78336bba3f5bd28fb049f7020f89891
6f966aba2662ca2164575a861fa9669c8cd7790a
F20101130_AABKIJ schaller_l_Page_001.tif
80f150fe40def7bd521c40c35815134a
debfd370406229dd2dd92cc7f70589fed769808e
103236 F20101130_AABKHW schaller_l_Page_043.jp2
677f12375d392cadd40605d78cbce6d7
37a01d43860d2408014d792b2ebe7f78f6b67bf5
866590 F20101130_AABKIK schaller_l_Page_130.jp2
d5e08e1aa0cb041da0ad4dc48b46ae9f
23dadd1f7021ecf8ce4990aa0e3624a3de0e68d8
1978 F20101130_AABKHX schaller_l_Page_044.txt
af56f0901138d5f57deb7ba200fd8b24
b4e1aba1b50d72c7ab2d471d562b648abc7ae614
65923 F20101130_AABKJA schaller_l_Page_017.jpg
0c4e6ebe0727bf1c9260c4ab444523a4
0fc02ae1dbe05e586c8d94a9dad2a8259567269b
2187 F20101130_AABKIL schaller_l_Page_113.txt
392bbf6468d1587fa315a1f504e2910c
a8dd6d3671fca77e096ed3b099ae8a1e62182abe
1667 F20101130_AABKHY schaller_l_Page_009thm.jpg
e427775c8ff5ca45e113aa62248f07f5
1fc62b515bd1311fa32a1c619b4f6ced45002b04
5669 F20101130_AABKIM schaller_l_Page_099thm.jpg
4aff698290b2d017a515bec0386caf77
cd58a1208b6063e8926feae80c738d6a60002f05
F20101130_AABKHZ schaller_l_Page_137.tif
02ac93a6bbbaf1df259ae8c79e79dfe3
3a09c448e61960c00ce400607c513dd96058323f
27032 F20101130_AABKJB schaller_l_Page_135.QC.jpg
c89fad87543392ee53fd479ca831cf58
644cc2a17a364ad18df99d9e1da5316a3a895517
5975 F20101130_AABKIN schaller_l_Page_083thm.jpg
260e171ebb5c9c2e1fc1fb8bcff3adfb
5472b962b0160870350dab84f40b22d1ee586af4
76847 F20101130_AABKJC schaller_l_Page_033.jpg
dbeedf1b57bd22a99f7fb529e46e5929
6e7eb1851b041f6773d5baff9876efb21126e345
65823 F20101130_AABKIO schaller_l_Page_060.jpg
aeb66590dfda73b00fd572f8dafcb12c
5ad3792db4120cf7cd27789f5c8b76d1a544d3c1
33037 F20101130_AABKJD schaller_l_Page_086.jpg
f890a1a2fd11f8a0679b09df35c687b3
61337bfd1fe7adce3ca6ba905dc118c5a5914baa
22271 F20101130_AABKIP schaller_l_Page_104.QC.jpg
0623a330c2e655a78c6bb3566eea2190
b5c6c7c1502a06c7da4e48fdd76bdf4afc489bb5
F20101130_AABKJE schaller_l_Page_086.tif
99836f356d257d60d060aedd310b9e80
724b40b026c4e45b26012e5edf0242e0d9b64648
101337 F20101130_AABKIQ schaller_l_Page_119.jp2
1f7c7fb4da3f2290d99e3fac83a2ffad
25aaab13faf64635fe93d8981307889bcb8693a2
F20101130_AABKJF schaller_l_Page_026.tif
3466f6a3b0040d72e74d0cdd9c1cd098
0c12de638de595cbf90cfe94e2341835fa30118a
F20101130_AABKIR schaller_l_Page_034thm.jpg
44cc45988155529fa917e41cf556d95d
f41ec704d72f3891f015188000026e949066ed71
17217 F20101130_AABKJG schaller_l_Page_122.QC.jpg
65f3902627d0c199321712d5d05e51a5
fa84706cc3de3c7296ebb44ddd606a6f9c365fb6
117953 F20101130_AABKIS schaller_l_Page_123.jp2
c3fab216eb9750ea93220d94bcb09ce1
9839ede8309782a0dc1e00ba594fdf00d2dfcefe
70046 F20101130_AABKJH schaller_l_Page_113.jpg
c4a4b46c978c30165a75b25ee7ee1c97
7f4afc0bcd819a643f8b054391392672252d3ddc
73218 F20101130_AABKIT schaller_l_Page_096.jpg
dd700a3900ba69ce95aba78434408a68
cfd9e2886ec213ff903c8f385ee8ec9fd8723e23
73900 F20101130_AABKJI schaller_l_Page_025.jpg
b232fe0e9236102eb652f2644580e88a
bf710033246685ad46103fc2430031bbac1284af
68649 F20101130_AABKIU schaller_l_Page_047.jpg
3e467a800cb438ef3e5146d393ebb64b
63cf6b0c6fe7d318a4f9dd9e0c8d5e0574cb06a2
1859 F20101130_AABKJJ schaller_l_Page_116.txt
103d52da636df01a162d89b5cfe8a3a4
ff32e39340b4527181770dfeed9b308d15583cdf
23501 F20101130_AABKIV schaller_l_Page_037.QC.jpg
9fd8f9e2d0c8ede818efc8fe5f4d7dab
cda7b07a90d97a0d0ed975d7261e4a68227cc1fa
1051940 F20101130_AABKJK schaller_l_Page_132.jp2
3baba5656a45c9d5f8a02b2e3d260027
2bd3f70e93e39e836bf0b47f6fed83da571fc116
F20101130_AABKIW schaller_l_Page_012.tif
c331d6c81aee66cb2900fd03988c799f
94be90ef382ad8372400cb001edf4826be0be9b3
F20101130_AABKKA schaller_l_Page_077.tif
0575a900eddbef00514f79fd8520bda0
a8ecab6575e7139d1092d98033055aebb0b94cd9
4332 F20101130_AABKJL schaller_l_Page_009.QC.jpg
ba764fecb89fbea17bc829c1474b5438
738cd827a4ed08d555ffce488fdead228bbc457b
95254 F20101130_AABKIX schaller_l_Page_058.jp2
d4277f61c948f3f23ade87b13e89e693
260c04ad64193144ff90aee14836e30787ce3521
F20101130_AABKKB schaller_l_Page_027.tif
4f5a0902b2fc0321a907b9025bbef9f7
300f09dd8ab07fbc6e6f3159e060d56ec65a12aa
6589 F20101130_AABKJM schaller_l_Page_032thm.jpg
2d1eb8e7b1ae02fcb7219c995bf3d149
5c0c781ca361221ff5e5430de993a0c0cf880653
1758 F20101130_AABKIY schaller_l_Page_012.txt
0f2fb2d0d2e8f49e7cc3d94d6a046867
aeb2e5db605864bdd100a8294720562969523bd0
110904 F20101130_AABKJN schaller_l_Page_050.jp2
c5220e57d25f8d72a224f086a1e09feb
abc2adee5e30f21d7ccb9207a8a46e8c39cc22ce
F20101130_AABKIZ schaller_l_Page_073.tif
1dbe13fbf5dc4d8bd648959d01bd0690
7db405871737a4293afe278b62950f7298c0205f
2126 F20101130_AABKKC schaller_l_Page_054.txt
b78d8e47f1e734925983d4826c63e92c
19936acd83138f12bbc1f435932694fec3b48971
F20101130_AABKJO schaller_l_Page_088.tif
224a486293dff031ea4f4e934dda9f6c
0efecd4c0f72a154c85737d32040d60aa7cde66c
F20101130_AABKKD schaller_l_Page_003.txt
d8169dc2b6d4db5fc730fa5bd22f0154
76c99809ad5406e8cb9d7716972456d07e16b5cc
37805 F20101130_AABKJP schaller_l_Page_018.jpg
176d53cd0a8c6f0d77ff30949e3fe378
5845101ecabb711bbef1e4b3fc2c4dc48c4d7a43
95190 F20101130_AABKKE schaller_l_Page_135.jpg
8ec8395412a1e3fc53fde8f211731438
4c26418006fc40a19143d2dce51ed2d68fc27734
100710 F20101130_AABKJQ schaller_l_Page_017.jp2
00b3b7394c3c271b62efae97739382d6
f4e65a5ea2e8c4ce41479d9f1e78569db6e8d2c3
1852 F20101130_AABKKF schaller_l_Page_038.txt
054c4ea3275013f619b0135e3d57a063
ec651abcaf8be0c1e6a23bea1f61e5ff0d1bada0
1965 F20101130_AABKJR schaller_l_Page_084.txt
3eeae8789ea8347cb198c35d4eb97607
5da78dd7ca1ddc643a1ea41ef93902b2c9639ef2
2249 F20101130_AABKKG schaller_l_Page_107.txt
770ca548ac7d22a4e7d05dd3a240249a
492d4b81f16e06016085e5a740b92dd7ab5305a1
24039 F20101130_AABKJS schaller_l_Page_046.QC.jpg
8b83b12b9d91c665125ac919964cdd62
82a4dce64e9783fbc62e6431c9db576e54c59a58
72436 F20101130_AABKJT schaller_l_Page_121.jpg
9a8aefc0f0ab0ae82b9ce90fdcee7c2d
9e608d30b3bc770ab13485f0eeeabfc42987fade
27596 F20101130_AABKKH schaller_l_Page_001.jp2
a493aae2c097ee732a22313a2594d8bf
60210d8f4791e3bbeb7b4daa4836736c9cf9acfd
16888 F20101130_AABKJU schaller_l_Page_075.QC.jpg
64aa4c39535846052551629c829df2c5
c723e0d7ce3257126c0a1610dbdb316737410855
20565 F20101130_AABKKI schaller_l_Page_100.QC.jpg
e409ce640070a3d3fd91bdf94c936f8f
78cc6190b561ac291fd1fcd41bb93309a554a543
62581 F20101130_AABKJV schaller_l_Page_014.jpg
807ada83ff02da2c0a7236b3c7f192ee
954065843dbad79474fc55c224646819ae83dcf8
F20101130_AABKKJ schaller_l_Page_029.tif
e816f3e9b3a93dfe98d958dee0d673cc
1c67ac3ad6bde06bd30179322bc0d3e75e8931b5
4243 F20101130_AABKJW schaller_l_Page_131thm.jpg
3d9d3f9531af08ff30d0335e6ec1a1f5
9033a08000e2fcea07391cda0d7f56d1649f4dd5
60250 F20101130_AABKKK schaller_l_Page_127.jpg
ab784f591cfdf924c0726838b2850251
d0cb983eba417c7fc5e76a01c929bf69d5d01367
F20101130_AABKJX schaller_l_Page_111.tif
c2d8105f51bd369d5c597c79b6539d6b
75e19876df1b4eb75233406d6af944f542e6d79c
2058 F20101130_AABKLA schaller_l_Page_022.txt
910b4e749932cd47931e4a15facd06eb
28b22db4bf89789d15d34c6540e2d7be2833ef92
F20101130_AABKKL schaller_l_Page_004.tif
2e29acaec4b73dc496b8b5f7e6ee58d0
ba3050d7b5643c23a00f1729d5b3886d1dce6a39
24110 F20101130_AABKJY schaller_l_Page_063.QC.jpg
19144a3d8d312b67b3b71c9b04c65a4b
72bf61b32211a2dd3b0eaf1720038f75df2217ab
103498 F20101130_AABKLB schaller_l_Page_036.jp2
4e754bd5c4179d89a8718d092e2c1510
fe3ecd9d7dc0620dd7463b6d32b843b5d55b4436
F20101130_AABKKM schaller_l_Page_008.tif
c18ea2b1db61955524d4a5b679c16fa7
54c092f2f21a2a6caea06e817242fc3ca1846b3a
70848 F20101130_AABKJZ schaller_l_Page_035.jpg
be1374b3192da694d03a78b58e679898
98471c2fb3b88f4302de6c3932c06423b29bbbd6
F20101130_AABKLC schaller_l_Page_129.tif
ac7f7c8fd08fd6d03e9bb95528edadb7
712eeaa77adc667b61851fc3090f39493e818b40
110080 F20101130_AABKKN schaller_l_Page_096.jp2
6696d5bf850a81ea12389734e0598113
5db2788aa09bcc828318b8f3e41ddd0791169b0a
106817 F20101130_AABKKO schaller_l_Page_091.jp2
6039716b930df3fcc4dd837ae905fb1a
09dbe11249801e4055db5cac1b24ad7a50c1625f
28994 F20101130_AABKLD schaller_l_Page_004.jpg
eeb5ba4c2a601cf06beb2eb2df982d57
c4ca6cd3b9e5e7993df81d608cba25a4b663b16b
780 F20101130_AABKKP schaller_l_Page_081.txt
5fef3023ace4f338527e750caadd26ea
84f9eb67823f5ca33d949871a09a1c254246952b
1664 F20101130_AABKLE schaller_l_Page_019.txt
68b3769104c48863bd02c9bd3dd1193b
1d7cce4a1762b35c1559fc7a96b473699ab884f0
54981 F20101130_AABKKQ schaller_l_Page_128.jpg
c1535f9ea7ef40fab362de7fef782fe8
0554bb51fea879d88ac3b97f7360aa339f044cfc
6400 F20101130_AABKLF schaller_l_Page_016thm.jpg
5ad657b09717827b99248940432c2732
ee7093c73e7cc5f4e5c21f723754b39255da3f68
4820 F20101130_AABKKR schaller_l_Page_132thm.jpg
52689ea5240e3bc53d0e06cbd9422790
78b2ed76c0046cec7b3816e2c818850ab976c683
20124 F20101130_AABKLG schaller_l_Page_073.QC.jpg
024053d337852682c168aaf3baba5051
d792067b18091316b8f9c3e99d2439a985a366d5
21534 F20101130_AABKKS schaller_l_Page_045.QC.jpg
bdf35fa15be6f6ec5b6efeb419668424
03a88f987b858cea348aef09f7417e6698fa195a
111 F20101130_AABKLH schaller_l_Page_124.txt
a3e629149dc028648d45c7961127b27e
631bf2b33d33e83bfe7a83d9500289f618517d73
22499 F20101130_AABKKT schaller_l_Page_067.QC.jpg
7cff353ea742c2015507c6b71062f352
d951b7ef44475014187aa99e991d93c730fffc59
2136 F20101130_AABKLI schaller_l_Page_027.txt
505c061cddfb643acab6d861ab55fa6a
152d0dff198109813e04d3ff9dc9d7344cd64271
111069 F20101130_AABKKU schaller_l_Page_028.jp2
a0da6c2afd84a287e22ec6f9faa5a3ec
30077d94a6201276eb140475a6fa770d24eee91d
89427 F20101130_AABKLJ schaller_l_Page_019.jp2
949e267db4161a4eed25ff7e1ec931e4
ee6eb4bbb2fcf6ff9321af01d38d5d13d91ce7ad
68356 F20101130_AABKKV schaller_l_Page_095.jpg
2894b1aca7301536f5829fc6bbf8aaac
8fc0ea9c8b9c10f07331d6b60aa638627c1f1afd
68554 F20101130_AABKLK schaller_l_Page_038.jpg
2429704b9ac78a817b4a108c0ce6f43a
dc81b05eb5fdb93f2f2ddde41e0c75141f07901a
1822 F20101130_AABKKW schaller_l_Page_043.txt
9a40f5d82570f5fa4a741d625022e1dc
621c49ed572dab1a1c3c93bd46db9fa4ac381f4a
1920 F20101130_AABKMA schaller_l_Page_032.txt
933255991c55c64b8d648c32132b64d4
ee73a7c6e889a45b6f2ad0764c366b5fbbe86bd2
15643 F20101130_AABKLL schaller_l_Page_068.QC.jpg
3684980c126090d6b199f4e2e53eff12
cf9465a12c0a9d4b17e31b7c326fa02d8968d609
1051903 F20101130_AABKKX schaller_l_Page_073.jp2
52cdd30ccfce08c238e369f674a2e302
ceaea75231b1007a768100966d9d1506d3a09e1d
11968 F20101130_AABKMB schaller_l_Page_018.QC.jpg
330c6f18121fda42e65bbcda43697ad0
2f7ad61782131735e18b2547a14ff1912e9414d6
F20101130_AABKLM schaller_l_Page_006.tif
bcd9167c68f78de239fd1dbd67f87123
30e972832ebaf247d3b1708503cecfeccfb5b78a
23944 F20101130_AABKKY schaller_l_Page_021.QC.jpg
8087aa798b52632bde87401dbe447eec
203cff2b768f45860df516ea07c7ecb975cb294e
6610 F20101130_AABKMC schaller_l_Page_113thm.jpg
717c955dbb605cda107eab9abbdaa8e0
cbf77f992393baeb1e709421911521e47e3d128f
5890 F20101130_AABKLN schaller_l_Page_133.QC.jpg
e7801ef92e0b24a9549d58b0560a849b
774c081001572f233ba023c0edfd174e7b54756d
F20101130_AABKKZ schaller_l_Page_082.tif
e43f3247b35702decef87ad0b59e01ec
9afd7ebe13d0f1d30c0079b6323255fa7f1aee25
89199 F20101130_AABKMD schaller_l_Page_133.jp2
6a13d6757367a33823aa87fc0f0eb9f7
c3119f2dc68e8ad87ba6ea0e5decdc4511db53bc
5815 F20101130_AABKLO schaller_l_Page_100thm.jpg
62b47c7f2316db7670a17170962e7c16
38cae071e4c5520fd6ee438e899b9cb7e2b5795a
F20101130_AABKLP schaller_l_Page_104.tif
8706e1105acb5eabafe4bd2418f36c2d
340100c4c5c4681716bb60ccaae7980a16f9e1c3
106668 F20101130_AABKME schaller_l_Page_084.jp2
fb7b26f9663ad896239b0f01e71fe649
3612918265b31f2095963ac61602e183510732b0
1837 F20101130_AABKLQ schaller_l_Page_069.txt
1590200df9ebbb78d7c35671a7843330
44a74bb3d29b51b0445cc0285ee50cbadcc943df
110154 F20101130_AABKMF schaller_l_Page_053.jp2
1f082e51dfbf5fb33b4e6efeec153ac9
ac96dc6823189d5a99890976d4bebc8180ca3fa6
21208 F20101130_AABKLR schaller_l_Page_121.QC.jpg
08c3105538ad695f40c75d936bcc492e
d02035750fe4a1934dc507eed7ec49c9e7d99264
233 F20101130_AABKMG schaller_l_Page_139.txt
7edb30589bda7498d306d8844506d427
c44900daa4721774e425a73438ad9fb79194cf96
105681 F20101130_AABKLS schaller_l_Page_111.jp2
9a0c550f4764b3eedb7851e5423c1a5c
66b3a16552cb6256f0ce5da3a9f7efd7f5c14537
24125 F20101130_AABKMH schaller_l_Page_033.QC.jpg
ba315798c10547ec453a076859edf022
c2c9eb86163755ee78121549bfdaece871d63de2
64419 F20101130_AABKLT schaller_l_Page_012.jpg
bb6be7359017b1070c1beb40d84eb2a6
37a1e59ae148f1375a3a80b71f6a0e9e4467e7ce
196949 F20101130_AABKMI schaller_l_Page_009.jp2
67f1e267fbce1ac45048de4ab5d97993
b2e4273cea18910541ee568a46591912c97b3f4c
1849 F20101130_AABKLU schaller_l_Page_119.txt
699462081b7b57b8f69de8ce957d93ab
3b5cd7f9ede303106e44f882140b37fe23647da1
6574 F20101130_AABKMJ schaller_l_Page_025thm.jpg
6d1a5f4bd5a2638c5300cedf4c442d31
d11b0245593731e979330850c8204702cf78981c
1910 F20101130_AABKLV schaller_l_Page_074.txt
88795b1622063f3075f7fa0b01395b10
d93412777f6789eef0afb52532b06ab9dfd05888
23316 F20101130_AABKMK schaller_l_Page_072.QC.jpg
e18960fb9c80739a4fbc5da9c1475f01
f0231cf8497d6f9b597c530adca1c699c5597340
70218 F20101130_AABKLW schaller_l_Page_084.jpg
30bfbc854c88e9f5144a460d5b0d6a18
3ca97f3440bf3699bf3f83b0e60fa321d055425a
914 F20101130_AABKML schaller_l_Page_140.txt
5f6b33cc401a3eee0041341cbab01ebd
d86e8a043580eb03199cc34a3834e2e37883188e
72766 F20101130_AABKLX schaller_l_Page_023.jpg
4e476ae6aaa97c2245dd9089d8a76e4b
3712b0c65d275e19e34468d07c5b3db36a282f00
1993 F20101130_AABKNA schaller_l_Page_096.txt
16e103ded969020a4f2df2b06bf1da11
c43c9a79e4c8a98932e96e07cb165ccd156155ee
2550 F20101130_AABKMM schaller_l_Page_010.txt
7d82a6f697bd4e5d5f87e2a92f3bdb11
c760447ee662aea3d86c015cb936e4a948a59e40
6160 F20101130_AABKLY schaller_l_Page_121thm.jpg
94b1a69db28898ace9b3ef552beb8e32
2efbfec3d3dbceb54b172a69352741249abce186
111060 F20101130_AABKNB schaller_l_Page_110.jp2
306a9fc75e7af6139725531851d74530
c983c71d0fb21f5affd5525915822cef711a4cb1
70175 F20101130_AABKMN schaller_l_Page_093.jpg
51565f2f7b6f178b1b6ae82e3288ae0f
10eca2ff62cd5ac3d8edf7d3d8d8a04857fd576a
24718 F20101130_AABKLZ schaller_l_Page_061.QC.jpg
cbe89c48f8a025632ffede0d35f00787
34b4b6916712dd758a0ae8b20f85724e83f0b3c1
F20101130_AABKNC schaller_l_Page_091.tif
1071dadfb2f592fd59c97ebefd678ddc
6898a52844ceac10e29bb402ec3fd1c5b6057f9d
5716 F20101130_AABKMO schaller_l_Page_129thm.jpg
58e72a2ef90283a82e6f16bbef980497
6252832b56801c2525072ddac2b519690d244dae
342417 F20101130_AABKND schaller_l_Page_086.jp2
512ec390a79a01c4e84c95ac73f3356f
f361446a46b88b1efb96a395e19af7c499bbf431
20052 F20101130_AABKMP schaller_l_Page_014.QC.jpg
6253df931d06f963ca3ea8df64e8aec6
39d5948c8fc52d1c4301d00b7bf8a526b2d604af
F20101130_AABKNE schaller_l_Page_107.tif
6e6e4c03c65a6d945bf37fe63800c44f
567202fba8eee1408e0f3a4b295ac563ca05be38
68220 F20101130_AABKMQ schaller_l_Page_119.jpg
5afe387648e632576addd23dcf9ca474
d9f351e5ee144cf03f320f72159500800017dafe
F20101130_AABKMR schaller_l_Page_058.tif
de5b1ea90db96d09ffed91c2bd3d6a02
0a6c0dc5ee2582c4d1f1ab4cbf11044e8483c5dd
113374 F20101130_AABKNF schaller_l_Page_094.jp2
42500378d604b03058265b945c3dd326
a4ed85c80051a1b0cfff3a94740249b68012acd9
F20101130_AABKMS schaller_l_Page_025.txt
403595247ed19e2c9622082ef2065c76
dd6e2a4415057e810cdfedfa6e5892d353df82db
6343 F20101130_AABKNG schaller_l_Page_020thm.jpg
7a802724461815982eec3f474a3ff177
2e773e92ed6d8dfbf2864c09f3ce4b3bdb32a90d
2389 F20101130_AABKMT schaller_l_Page_102.txt
34b7c1b695d187ce903254076854a4bc
7147ffcca2df7acc522a267d622a61db36e6f02e
F20101130_AABKNH schaller_l_Page_019thm.jpg
8588d5243eb4a86616d933074bea4c6a
192b866b106d85c6d902bd494a931eb39424e11f
F20101130_AABKMU schaller_l_Page_041thm.jpg
d8b8db41b6be6d1e1fb9acee3f9ac901
b0911e81b396012d248ebf0b48faa407606a274a
5731 F20101130_AABKNI schaller_l_Page_003thm.jpg
7fb0cffc6f42e73b894f29c57821686f
70f7cfc3d28715647e24373bf2f7b83284a2faa6
1051949 F20101130_AABKMV schaller_l_Page_005.jp2
2aa1e497dcd0a479f282079013d49ced
a3b8923b2095f6c0821c583c393c2878a5b907a9
70937 F20101130_AABKNJ schaller_l_Page_032.jpg
69c0e43fbab5d42f0c36bcacc388e831
db509cf273595b79f95eccc72f98dfcfe46f418b
7134 F20101130_AABKMW schaller_l_Page_135thm.jpg
122d2df9d336f3bcc5168e593f534761
ea7523433ea3f7619fbe70845cb7680b04578c8c
99621 F20101130_AABKNK schaller_l_Page_097.jp2
b30a7adb374880c1ac8e7af2916306e8
a295bad3c3ee8157426ac5e718a0e5d6a2e7e841
F20101130_AABKMX schaller_l_Page_135.tif
ba8e3f1950820fbebcfa01440cf2608e
8d1acc00c05f2eeddb1ba48f34aeb87c6ded35bb
2150 F20101130_AABKOA schaller_l_Page_115.txt
a67e671937b3d69d585cfa04f6f28d99
91eb15b8da5d291fb41ac61bb109704a33f9459f
112806 F20101130_AABKNL schaller_l_Page_025.jp2
40308185681e4b4360eb637448cec3ea
e09a6658adeac7d634f8c0b3865a2b2a8fd14552
72081 F20101130_AABKMY schaller_l_Page_125.jpg
91f9d22f79c42ab8e75e4ea29b1e9bf7
4b180741c07a208680c83c9ffa64197eefb348d1
23129 F20101130_AABKOB schaller_l_Page_054.QC.jpg
fc7dd20f25a2cc3be27b10e616a90b08
91ea0e852eba8dd84dab0d7a2cfd354d9130a764
804 F20101130_AABKNM schaller_l_Page_085.txt
93751871bb8c26fda6bbb5136b9f6e74
4c9010fd4fc9dd4027730b588a65c2defe7be4b9
84931 F20101130_AABKMZ schaller_l_Page_136.jpg
d4f63fb04857d17114687641805ae1f3
28f548caeb742651e898d339ef31f674fd8f151a
6599 F20101130_AABKOC schaller_l_Page_065thm.jpg
090d2ab38cb611c17ad9cbf634ca612e
7dd6d56d8df28d3c30a16bfdd5f908a1009ca75a
91380 F20101130_AABKNN schaller_l_Page_012.jp2
1d716f82fe1c9c6b3d030b6aec0a2c7f
9151fffc247e426c7f4fcd84423e6de97b52d06c
1051963 F20101130_AABKOD schaller_l_Page_136.jp2
1b7d5caed8013a4c8864889f6523f6e3
33a2b9a94a989dc446bd420db337d9aaa2732788
F20101130_AABKNO schaller_l_Page_092.tif
f1cfc9f1e9df3d2def1b1311ed686eeb
94acf66dc1e337ff812aa8f8f3007ddb03d591d9
68888 F20101130_AABKOE schaller_l_Page_081.jpg
c462f467a0467a95c13ae4fdabefd417
de2e910843ff0404cbe6affdfaf28d8748be0dbc
24913 F20101130_AABKNP schaller_l_Page_026.QC.jpg
49b5ac144d45f4e457c31cf9c2f2c256
ddb971624a7b70ce7a34829f054db8601b1b8238
F20101130_AABKOF schaller_l_Page_051.tif
6c4ecf4298bfa7db7a74abc73dc76794
bcfa53e99d5b925bdb253c176a3bee7b3ded66cd
1832 F20101130_AABKNQ schaller_l_Page_030.txt
644ca4311386639639022b177e90b68f
05925b8d0688df7adf3ade4026dac9cb227799a2
22691 F20101130_AABKNR schaller_l_Page_108.QC.jpg
89a0038c74f02756f21bb354d1d9b66d
5590266f3807a964eac40ce722bead3a0e13fe24
1803 F20101130_AABKOG schaller_l_Page_056.txt
e38229e5399f70177894875eceb6552e
57d6d5f483d749e1e6ff248d381fd9db6511fb1c
3456 F20101130_AABKNS schaller_l_Page_018thm.jpg
0ad4125b1b1eade87363031159c8ad74
dc0a13d804be993c719efa8cb64e47fbd2f95399
6193 F20101130_AABKOH schaller_l_Page_030thm.jpg
0370bafe368f6fb67378f38a0443c188
9caa0b316379be5fa2df1c07ec71c059f1a79447
F20101130_AABKNT schaller_l_Page_050.tif
1a01ba1ad435e6f927b901393fc35090
e1fd5df5b8ed49b057c6c67644c1474001e47574
114547 F20101130_AABKOI schaller_l_Page_022.jp2
1383eb1886c142f37e94eaa8b6427c60
1a8a1b04b17fcadf0a2c61f4e8b1ed171f6e40fa
10176 F20101130_AABKNU schaller_l_Page_086.QC.jpg
9b13701f4ff1fe308f04ac8aadc3efe3
11947c87716ca91e59797e390a65212ecae3c121
1051961 F20101130_AABKOJ schaller_l_Page_075.jp2
457fd9fd78c218db34764aca16ab9c84
0cfad239b172b4d372455b08beed7df91777e480
74644 F20101130_AABKNV schaller_l_Page_005.jpg
ac87003ada9d395cf9377e1046f03288
c91c707bcca2073f83d1d829ae95e1b6ce62d07e
22120 F20101130_AABKOK schaller_l_Page_123.QC.jpg
a1493274bfc7bffaabe0ef6e83f75c94
37c072f2b820783b2bc2eee0e30bc9a2a152232c
6310 F20101130_AABKNW schaller_l_Page_091thm.jpg
b917f97f83cc705afe2d6eda5bd6d415
7c65fcb652986ba6308b51a4ac9d6176e2787aa6
1860 F20101130_AABKPA schaller_l_Page_072.txt
71e3632502620c8819f8c77c3cc8c205
ddee7676a631e8cf08b29d087c4b6b4f04184e84
1951 F20101130_AABKOL schaller_l_Page_023.txt
be269e135e62267bbbb1cc60f4053807
0cd0b3e46c34ed10961613f7adfe10295a68b656
F20101130_AABKNX schaller_l_Page_090.tif
efc9ce7c601ef01b3ff35e04a3b438c9
935e3368392ea5bd7e77c794d6de0131b0c18951
22677 F20101130_AABKPB schaller_l_Page_047.QC.jpg
659ff096680097cc111ce2d679ec3a33
c04a4a3bd650817bd2b58b94acc90eae2ae9d2a9
F20101130_AABKOM schaller_l_Page_110.tif
8de5a7cec8caae3117338d841ed4523f
a21c79eec6421a3a7ffda2daac13b3f44b0fe46e
5898 F20101130_AABKNY schaller_l_Page_079thm.jpg
685beff4c8a4accaa40b907bc5e65fe4
8314fec335830dd43993bdd31804f3a5477b2356
1944 F20101130_AABKPC schaller_l_Page_091.txt
5d056cf3faf226a4e9149515500f0908
c89ec98979ce8dd0fc12b46df38ee0db5a2ebd45
F20101130_AABKON schaller_l_Page_005.tif
f0a13737e4840f57b0b639869697987d
7c45437f5e2d0efea3440a3d026ef4397f764f90
105007 F20101130_AABKNZ schaller_l_Page_057.jp2
bdc09c40ca2a51895f786f82d27d8228
1b163fafefd4408ed283e346240d47716a352320
6543 F20101130_AABKPD schaller_l_Page_051thm.jpg
6b6cd294177dd7931951a5566f1669c6
14a62d939a24b3177749fef4d2b8c7258c6f0455
8052 F20101130_AABKOO schaller_l_Page_001.QC.jpg
19e58a7bbb136002d8639cb92f82cd6e
f415eebfa05506ef400099ca7d2c6d525c6c890c
21276 F20101130_AABKPE schaller_l_Page_020.QC.jpg
a2b28cd9d32bea1d737c179dd6e6e7f6
cd36905d88d89949030b296c90f3ec78ca11a420
102222 F20101130_AABKOP schaller_l_Page_113.jp2
44876b0ec9dfe29018f795296498c0a6
edb4058940897aff50b287c39cdf236d74e265ea
109673 F20101130_AABKOQ schaller_l_Page_064.jp2
b463af9a79426f2aa0ad52a980093d95
556e79d907ed91a3ae61f931b19cc3c0fe6fa36a
71326 F20101130_AABKPF schaller_l_Page_016.jpg
cc1aac429b4af703d1851338ee7cc53a
4fc0737cc5b7cc89b51ab7a69e95ff91cc2f78a9
20475 F20101130_AABKOR schaller_l_Page_079.QC.jpg
688675c07c12b463a528c3c1cd666e97
ed9f53dffee2019fc4092ecbdcc5d3226dde02bb
F20101130_AABKPG schaller_l_Page_021.tif
013e85cfbce47a278f417bbf91ac1bfa
b7ba467bc3a5e3989baa433f5b12c47faa519cbd
21227 F20101130_AABKOS schaller_l_Page_112.QC.jpg
2d4e8fb1a228071bc93a6f832f8d3821
dc7add52de2b5717fe7425bf4ce4a2efdfd74246
98902 F20101130_AABKOT schaller_l_Page_074.jp2
c733da29601936c202b1cdd64c8ca8ba
688dcdd40f36c1db1bc48d9f8b9751e07902c1e8
F20101130_AABKPH schaller_l_Page_007.tif
4e852e5018bc78d7d39265ad293ac171
bdf59ba31268314b9aa92ca3f3974cae375b3d20
1828 F20101130_AABKOU schaller_l_Page_020.txt
6b9d18b374ed2bc1cfc7e23efb33216c
a8c4e074ebc6c66f9d51e845c823a28050c60a36
103624 F20101130_AABKPI schaller_l_Page_070.jp2
3e1913476b4a8b328a6a3ef1c7b54950
e3d93b2ada76ba8d55dc44825639a135088da672
20511 F20101130_AABKOV schaller_l_Page_127.QC.jpg
643e58e2ec0fe96f4fb7d9a24301e607
426199e63ea9215fb0da62d0e3b866c5d3e63c0d
103 F20101130_AABKPJ schaller_l_Page_002.txt
f492ed934d787aa0da054f3d5a95b7c7
250ca5bb915a51135c1e93b4cccf19acbb843a49
23661 F20101130_AABKOW schaller_l_Page_110.QC.jpg
858d3046ebca8d95f03e31adf28d7b29
4ac56d37e6d96544b22614a427e181f790c043d1
849132 F20101130_AABKPK schaller_l_Page_122.jp2
4bfa45aeea64bd2e23e9200bf6488b8a
0661df7bdb7a388379e84d6ce52f142cfd7fcf32
24430 F20101130_AABKOX schaller_l_Page_094.QC.jpg
a243715af0126c10cb1c102c99b91fcf
436aed531e5740bfcb915fa2c51ecbd6feee5f71
1051986 F20101130_AABKQA schaller_l_Page_008.jp2
fd97b281ce553db22f100aa17306ece5
19ce4722f238fc878241480bce70d16bc9e565a5
F20101130_AABKPL schaller_l_Page_133.tif
d3ec51fadb6c48990a8798531214ad52
133ccf0a12f6ac94f649c5b39c731ae4439fe7d3
23795 F20101130_AABKOY schaller_l_Page_023.QC.jpg
e10c88838cd4dfd6e43304768f44b371
e174a844e512097631c68e7d16459099fa4eefb7
F20101130_AABKQB schaller_l_Page_016.tif
185b50e245aa82e9636983a65dbdce32
9225073a6cbbfb0ae2ebd14810fad7126183f29f
F20101130_AABKPM schaller_l_Page_138.tif
371e5806c799be73219964e1fd2b5b2d
48da0289d5696c7d79b104ec762e337e697e06f8
F20101130_AABKOZ schaller_l_Page_013.tif
4bdde4053f63af165ea310ea166c3cc7
6beeef8ad745acacaf404a874761e7547c70391f
22079 F20101130_AABKQC schaller_l_Page_030.QC.jpg
b824bba3ea22109f0752baeb2049c79b
5fd95ba3fc2dccb438b3c54ab25fbff33415a08e
69556 F20101130_AABKPN schaller_l_Page_090.jpg
e3fa03a6db825319b3f1cb243f649da7
7ee506177803fd759b31f38e13c1b8c33a2b931c
20373 F20101130_AABKQD schaller_l_Page_003.QC.jpg
a89283059cd790b1b4ce384968d8ab5f
0721fb7044463de998dacade62f6112ee6c58e97
2628 F20101130_AABKPO schaller_l_Page_001thm.jpg
f3125394db429829e0357bbb5c9a2cfd
12a8ffa347e5a1d28b76f4983a155a23948424ab
F20101130_AABKQE schaller_l_Page_132.tif
236627d6a2707aac383bbd7de9a255aa
6220c42448a4b073bb207e8b6ed4a0adc290cc17
106193 F20101130_AABKPP schaller_l_Page_034.jp2
415faa1c2cb02d5bc67fb4fcabd5f15f
9b1d8cc0da58c522180865d8b76c6d6c63fce28e
2734 F20101130_AABKQF schaller_l_Page_007thm.jpg
5ad997fcc105bce98803e33f6312c05c
158679725b8161297dbd8e6f461cf4bffd35af2b
F20101130_AABKPQ schaller_l_Page_130.tif
e4ea25b8ba545c23879d04a6c51ecc8b
bd8e6201b675f59e4570b7ccfd19f6bd8f6baa9e
22827 F20101130_AABKQG schaller_l_Page_031.QC.jpg
3c71331eeb30731cf47d0d1c23a68157
7a5bc2c1e0b4e4205cb149c0df507d135b46c47f
68798 F20101130_AABKPR schaller_l_Page_034.jpg
b823f154c5b223a5d94b1b4baaa56f75
063ec34873a74dd40f006fd10ede4bb587e54fff
2137 F20101130_AABKQH schaller_l_Page_127.txt
c68aa7bf6d9c9ff847568f943cdbf928
325bead9e0db635abd978e6505441fd791ad5f8e
6459 F20101130_AABKPS schaller_l_Page_040thm.jpg
bb69dd9a8f904e22817f2e3dfdbda2a5
496f8f1ffcab876f3bd1545c214061e847d851f4
1870 F20101130_AABKPT schaller_l_Page_057.txt
638edaac90c7a819a375bc81fe2d4296
70bcc285b89e634d2103c2461a62ef4948aa6cf2
70035 F20101130_AABKQI schaller_l_Page_111.jpg
9afb17428a399c8c5194f31a321de329
c192a8b17532115e971a2b0f342c5424d1bfd474
F20101130_AABKPU schaller_l_Page_010.tif
6ae64f5c5d5bdf240d6c4aaae51a6d3c
c4ea882ed027592694fe07168dc8c6c6f4a9d595
1850 F20101130_AABKQJ schaller_l_Page_034.txt
c8ca02fe54d34d89478c54bb437e1348
cbb80459d128ddfe53c8e9f733f03f2379018a27
1723 F20101130_AABKPV schaller_l_Page_014.txt
08dd913b1a3ccc370a310ef556a09d0d
9d1271c5e7772e7779321da446440a4e35b0f454
636937 F20101130_AABKQK schaller_l_Page_128.jp2
9faa255895d1fe099e27003f20b39157
17080e114d2c2ae71f0a024780d66ae9c31e7521
F20101130_AABKPW schaller_l_Page_078.tif
db2de9957a1b6f29acf37d19e619980a
cdc225acce3f663193de364937fbf280d1dc949b
F20101130_AABKRA schaller_l_Page_003.tif
ef77d9fad27b79dc04667ad3b47e2733
fbbe650508210817410ca2d8b15dd7c43d63abda
105384 F20101130_AABKQL schaller_l_Page_090.jp2
a774effa3eef062ace2d52858fa4761b
bf7cad325d9113cf0b4f6359330c30ec623d6354
1906 F20101130_AABKPX schaller_l_Page_031.txt
6ec699ff734faf7fda228234435af2d4
4307160b12548ce6300869285f9ae2888e4c9b25
2376 F20101130_AABKRB schaller_l_Page_109.txt
c060add077cc66966001a4bfd077c6af
3127e02d5b1b09415e6ee7c06c780704bfb410b1
2460 F20101130_AABKQM schaller_l_Page_135.txt
8ff1595afa8f7fcad975d6380d98e7fd
4c5d9f4a9632240a3c10f84b9fceaad03eeff121
65852 F20101130_AABKPY schaller_l_Page_030.jpg
6f54a3354d3a0ffb4921a892d4761efe
a7a48f40f75f8b0bddddd7e995942f3f53c97cca
5945 F20101130_AABKRC schaller_l_Page_098thm.jpg
a541c48e0543ff0c7cf2a5d8b2c7818f
e29303746611f290f4ee250f8f0a8d5be2f7d929
102897 F20101130_AABKQN schaller_l_Page_039.jp2
9fbcdeda22faa631a0a3c69b04b55e18
13a758ad76c96c0880b5bf359d45b6dfca68e7a2
4495 F20101130_AABKPZ schaller_l_Page_068thm.jpg
d9f2356f4364cbd24c920a52d886e2f0
c1e067176c2cbf062bd3d41f8781573450d59174
24701 F20101130_AABKRD schaller_l_Page_138.QC.jpg
4e5655d04c639a31eeb050de7fea10d5
5fc3354dd6fe0606e7bca9fbaa5656b6d9cbe21e
F20101130_AABKQO schaller_l_Page_033.tif
d846e26ab575afe2dc6e9c58ae735700
dc69796f121e23e77171972937c84edb7f8f0d0e
64540 F20101130_AABKRE schaller_l_Page_100.jpg
24969a31ecc216f07e0814f5a5a2dc7f
00edd2fa621545fe16c31b2beb25966e740c90c6
F20101130_AABKQP schaller_l_Page_090.txt
0fda60ac74bcefd43ad4909b392b9027
11caf5a1ab2aa768609c48ce7d6f96c0742463c9
1834 F20101130_AABKRF schaller_l_Page_097.txt
571a2bde03d88cc70f0c893926d2e36e
07b4ac46b539f05881e32931d6b1a687309ef88a
43395 F20101130_AABKQQ schaller_l_Page_117.jp2
0d94ab7ac87af3ff621c37449a32cd08
0d7ace273a3cf057674922f6f33984aec91282c2
F20101130_AABKRG schaller_l_Page_049.tif
af03642f16757a64f83fb2eb05405269
da627073d951b64c14c0ba239fa7da4d21cd8721
100277 F20101130_AABKQR schaller_l_Page_060.jp2
e09460f94602b6328f8b9bbf582b23e6
1d974c0d4d9b57b97121314f5f93dbf649df97d7
F20101130_AABKRH schaller_l_Page_057.QC.jpg
866846d1308612501e5836d71773891e
a1ea3b954f80a767bc00ee5ce6e6c16ed66c4e48
41778 F20101130_AABKQS schaller_l_Page_131.jpg
2d640907703b0139f38fa757a55f33ad
e86bf3602ad63723dba17b02dcc214fa92ec5d97
F20101130_AABKRI schaller_l_Page_071.tif
d756dbabd90fd3fce8eb4db7cc32b0ad
8490f87b90b47bdf44ec6bf9ade43cba85ca1b14
20107 F20101130_AABKQT schaller_l_Page_099.QC.jpg
6d190c8fcab230d6903cc5cd7ed6da92
21a6707a636b7be1bf600d42c41a01a25ce7748e
F20101130_AABKQU schaller_l_Page_046.tif
672471fd9146b75981db8795b87de2ef
f372e37fc547873e215f7e1669df231d0bf8fb2f
15218 F20101130_AABKRJ schaller_l_Page_013.QC.jpg
f20e80c9bc8a104db4b91a8b78e28084
13118fc23eee638c35f01d13816047eca31865e7
6795 F20101130_AABKQV schaller_l_Page_055thm.jpg
b497a782bf87ae64c136a31153efe5e0
e421940e19fc8139abbf71168e8fbf3c881f28e3
379271 F20101130_AABKRK schaller_l_Page_085.jp2
7de43ca244eccd74ee620a6b1bde20c1
0d1290faa43c71c373b54fb1ff74608ef7d4360f
77489 F20101130_AABKQW schaller_l_Page_123.jpg
1a2706578edaf226871ad260be77b2fe
f855838ae197badb1a35e6a5bad28b019c0df4e4
991 F20101130_AABKRL schaller_l_Page_018.txt
a9df8d5fc86f97a3d9bab88777af0571
9a1684b579743791ea1e2f01c34a8834fead2dbe
6374 F20101130_AABKQX schaller_l_Page_057thm.jpg
104e466af96a5d67570374b75ee06f02
e07d00320cf03d5589697eaf82d5d1e581156c68
97469 F20101130_AABKSA schaller_l_Page_083.jp2
001a0b7b3254aaa2809b7ac91d97009a
d08de63a9650bef9369a2bb2e98b6e95ce954245
5784 F20101130_AABKRM schaller_l_Page_014thm.jpg
e473c2cadfb37bb4299ef25dc6deb364
614300ea5ff0287f21e591bd1860e7b750d79f14
107296 F20101130_AABKQY schaller_l_Page_041.jp2
616895ff04efd865e23f7773aa3f929e
cf33e7642784b4780be32d599c2e8552b85a4ca2
F20101130_AABKSB schaller_l_Page_094.tif
cd9a99ca12a95ae60b473a3fbeac08d5
0f0db53353e5c98bea553b3d36b1fec978d16cd8
93717 F20101130_AABKRN schaller_l_Page_118.jp2
a01f71f3c61af057a0ae002375f2602a
c5c50f50650c9005beae6756f8241de9eb1e7880
106912 F20101130_AABKQZ schaller_l_Page_105.jp2
1838604e6d562b4e5b0e330cc4e4d09b
88729803f5f1ed2ec0922eec600c2ef1a41ac3e7
11451 F20101130_AABKSC schaller_l_Page_088.QC.jpg
038daa3152777a5abd3dbd4d18f96ae7
de9239821ce6550fb7893d83bd2f90471ce61816
2246 F20101130_AABKRO schaller_l_Page_133thm.jpg
b757d14d0fdb8e8261b9de01facafe1e
9522b453eadedcd4f8ea0362da52c355b7ebec4d
5436 F20101130_AABKSD schaller_l_Page_128thm.jpg
a95d80f0682bb4b2deb92423ec43023f
74c8b15632943093478f9ec35545f8ff237916a6
F20101130_AABKRP schaller_l_Page_011.tif
6cf6a5b8d9b0aca34de26d446674caf8
198437deef9c1b6961f4d315d7c701ea5e2e7924
2309 F20101130_AABKSE schaller_l_Page_008.txt
ccc5d54ca187db0cee90d39fd1a2454e
078f0fed84c637608a8878d73960524e0a68fc81
6113 F20101130_AABKRQ schaller_l_Page_017thm.jpg
b781b5682f42fc7db1e36ee5b8b9f3f1
39c5e65739ab3cf2293e91bf8576fc1a8783c7e6
23552 F20101130_AABKSF schaller_l_Page_064.QC.jpg
ceacfc1a3d29aead7791f58312d5f967
1d6a3ba1d977c042bf640362ce66fa8eb0d35c83
112597 F20101130_AABKRR schaller_l_Page_055.jp2
6ecd7879f20b7e45eed784797f03c880
3d9d2926488facbcf8fe9eb6f54f4d8c21e5bfd7
112996 F20101130_AABKSG schaller_l_Page_054.jp2
13e233835cf645115c62461e6d6231ed
ba03e15afb71a912cfa243ae906ea122826ce4e2
F20101130_AABKRS schaller_l_Page_069.tif
241a3aa7b2a9aa4657b23b6903175885
078df0ac2672d0fd597c9ebb0193977433f73bd5
1051932 F20101130_AABKSH schaller_l_Page_134.jp2
49a00041781e7635912061e7c85f86c6
bbce8da567aaa0231202122a1e301d71e88f5f4e
6020 F20101130_AABKRT schaller_l_Page_112thm.jpg
40340b94cee1da69c438efab5e92f50f
a1f8dadd32178f2b5875e260da8214221ee7a1d3
5214 F20101130_AABKSI schaller_l_Page_080thm.jpg
179d83e4332034e43b58bf8d51d76600
2833143409cc597efeddd707276945f0e68e29ad
F20101130_AABKRU schaller_l_Page_054.tif
12c8b8fffdef1998f7b25a213cc69eda
27bcf8ba23ac7f17050fabc15ca521aa71a26b6e
11958 F20101130_AABKSJ schaller_l_Page_124.jpg
d723fab5586db3fc63a0bf4c57d26ecc
d3058f7bd654f2f2ea30f5df19272a3c5eab4577
5127 F20101130_AABKRV schaller_l_Page_006.txt
28aa89148a317600185b2104d2506212
e41dd1cf6222f94bdc5f73f990f0f43745d8678e
22549 F20101130_AABKRW schaller_l_Page_041.QC.jpg
7d4ff88669eaf956b40fee983904a2e9
f5439e688eb960ac50d7a676487c38a070ac0acb
6396 F20101130_AABKSK schaller_l_Page_109thm.jpg
a2a8ada851378563b82dbfd4a21bf7a3
673d03984f6b3c8704aeded00d602b10cd872741
104092 F20101130_AABKRX schaller_l_Page_106.jp2
54b0c441676cabcc3620020317caf513
be29a2c1e13b3e67567fab81bdfebc34520f502b
69881 F20101130_AABKTA schaller_l_Page_105.jpg
c09cb6be34d145b95b307d765b23cb75
17e9dc561efcad9186109236f657f50b18c048ba
1051979 F20101130_AABKSL schaller_l_Page_006.jp2
2297daa5054b99a6e81cc23ad61efd08
c2d0d7b1000bd8194df79f6087e8cd29eb642f24
706 F20101130_AABKRY schaller_l_Page_088.txt
d8b98a97605bf44a7fbdce24aa032009
ce83b44e230924d35f31b9cdec012a18d7606a1f
F20101130_AABKTB schaller_l_Page_119.tif
e9bed59095969bab84f5c8b8ec08b9ed
652aaf0f7e5255e386829a2a2aa4b9ecea3bd01c
1988 F20101130_AABKSM schaller_l_Page_070.txt
189aa5cc19da190ac8165c80f47a7f5e
d74290f8dda9a3c331ac1a16352ea80213a8dce5
5576 F20101130_AABKRZ schaller_l_Page_002.jp2
ff4302c8aa03915ff1429f1ccb5e6bba
2f5791167cad6d461b26579edc2a0ce8b4c12699
F20101130_AABKTC schaller_l_Page_080.tif
a15a060817d1a9ed970ee7a31bfd4314
b22d4dcdcddd803b49ef4316f9c3f41b3c9ea12e
23764 F20101130_AABKSN schaller_l_Page_106.QC.jpg
2ae36112dfb81df1054b11bc86bb99f8
37a57b7dc86ebcfe052442dddbe52dafaed3a137
20280 F20101130_AABKTD schaller_l_Page_118.QC.jpg
43d7d0ed6b4de3f0ea32501fca256c03
3a472022071b0dec88bb870b9d524430be7ed43d
F20101130_AABKSO schaller_l_Page_138.txt
410b33fa6cd3987fb3b4b1f653aa9113
2cd70ea2e73db202bdd971b96af4b99dc03dcfa1
633 F20101130_AABKTE schaller_l_Page_011.txt
c3b98d3322578c8c5134361f89c605b2
672661bec088e3ab7bbcaf7d5bc3d93bd01c1594
F20101130_AABKSP schaller_l_Page_032.tif
489d17c334c44a66bcf09a99a3cf5bc8
1a7c003dfbf7e938e30834d8721562522c9ff47b
5332 F20101130_AABKTF schaller_l_Page_008thm.jpg
b3366d38db75b40097285448df564205
993242856b66930fa6d9c81d3ccb0872d8483d58
9918 F20101130_AABKSQ schaller_l_Page_007.QC.jpg
9f02a60703ba7e76b931c7d79781dac9
4383e25acec4a3faaf8ba26e31535e256213d46d
5331 F20101130_AABKTG schaller_l_Page_126thm.jpg
ad20398da2fc5a8d662ad7a9992deeb0
434d6eab9f1e3b8c234ccef7dffcfce8c48fbe2d
6058 F20101130_AABKSR schaller_l_Page_056thm.jpg
9b8f91762a53c4d385ad6fd637fa9080
708bea635a4572dca3a59b95e39272498cc4447d
74542 F20101130_AABKTH schaller_l_Page_114.jpg
50a20a8fef2abaa47b44c2c2505ecb94
cc79e938b2ee819b9bfb54dd7367f0e3ac775a69
2293 F20101130_AABKSS schaller_l_Page_026.txt
f98a817325511094f5920b20d5d59a78
56514e4fa8e621c3fb3dc96759dccbad469b8751
80124 F20101130_AABKTI schaller_l_Page_026.jpg
c03416d0d8c4901df855aa1e6f5be865
c934d7c7c65a43cdc7c83f79f84d762f987983ec
2231 F20101130_AABKST schaller_l_Page_103.txt
091c45ab5593e2016dc7340069c92bf5
99b15b100b7bc0a9a9bc62139ba293f7108da54c
109665 F20101130_AABKTJ schaller_l_Page_023.jp2
f66bdc96c44676735ef73c2ab0f343ba
4d7b74045530c73dcfba486b4b8ab3f102757919
62157 F20101130_AABKSU schaller_l_Page_102.jpg
df54d813507a266a50475755ca09b513
5e56b58583f5d515545220386f27e4c2908acf61
F20101130_AABKTK schaller_l_Page_063.tif
a00e8f0717534e152ac9c8a54bde9983
733ec999d21f12ae803818774d429d92033c5a8b
F20101130_AABKSV schaller_l_Page_113.tif
f941682facbb5c2a3d3b095d8c8b1875
80d25da58f1d03ca52e1a1faf4f997b96a6bf873
F20101130_AABKSW schaller_l_Page_042.tif
7a1873f113a147b6967bb7ce625edf4d
73b6eb9b165b26e5f1bcb2174509228805c80e2a
73326 F20101130_AABKUA schaller_l_Page_021.jpg
ea1fc0af3188edd3e7c788423981aef8
d54b58ecb6fd85c839174b3b9e6b6fd5a4c1cdb6
F20101130_AABKTL schaller_l_Page_029thm.jpg
4dfb177a23272f223958cb665e77ec9f
894704783efcefdf50af0fd6e01bb23aba15b992
113370 F20101130_AABKSX schaller_l_Page_059.jp2
40037a35e3b3aaf122641ff981c5bf07
e4a8c998aee53d66d2d49fe63066ca5659eb5166
74797 F20101130_AABKUB schaller_l_Page_022.jpg
8b37b1e0fbbcaa6662b413a054e347fd
39da80b4a30b0b2d58b2c34c62d5aaf7213ae94b
109471 F20101130_AABKTM schaller_l_Page_016.jp2
bed88b20bea52323a479b3a24a465941
98b4cfed1dcebe7a0e806bbca194b828929a0950
108554 F20101130_AABKSY schaller_l_Page_092.jp2
2e366cff60de064652eaa489f3d4499c
f612b74979b5db7a9efe1ac097315f7135289f86
77084 F20101130_AABKTN schaller_l_Page_115.jpg
34c37e08ee2526ce682575b8e3418e4c
3239af7b8d61e11600a2fc9b57ccb294c5a8aa2e
12134 F20101130_AABKSZ schaller_l_Page_048.QC.jpg
a988817e682d77d241d74c3952f149dc
811ab4748ea7cfa67aa06045c0dc618b99c8ec7d
73805 F20101130_AABKUC schaller_l_Page_024.jpg
4aa49e48df8956888f172ef76097e4d1
5ed7f674dc3de06760812772ccf6bcb57a6020d8
133874 F20101130_AABKTO UFE0010744_00001.mets
f9f89d093397140121d90e915bb631e3
88b98b99bf7c34c72f921289ccf451da237e4a10
77343 F20101130_AABKUD schaller_l_Page_027.jpg
a4da9b0f6fa6ce446221aa095100170f
f177073263ec77e437e022f52ad96e59c1533c26
73940 F20101130_AABKUE schaller_l_Page_028.jpg
a20e18a48b23dec6e462c2733d89f7ee
dc8bf4598e476b44a37351ccf4765c862f4f4ff2
71142 F20101130_AABKUF schaller_l_Page_029.jpg
c0c0bc3f69805ba2d6249fcf6d3ea01a
b7fb9ee7b53a4f23c59a6965454144efd4d5ed6d
26160 F20101130_AABKTR schaller_l_Page_001.jpg
9a5624f907ebebdcd2566442bb00f3dc
527dbb6a979f3e4c76bc98655ad83c7b27caa330
F20101130_AABLAA schaller_l_Page_100.tif
ff68812f130302ffea1bd8eab1d9e0d5
0fb7808a0deca7e8d1159bea6a7f96a087a58a9a
69348 F20101130_AABKUG schaller_l_Page_036.jpg
ab1347954e9d4960e1eaf53003a56107
ecff85c7537d9934720f4cd91197d9fdbf07b5a2
10193 F20101130_AABKTS schaller_l_Page_002.jpg
9f6e52dd0c80f5a15d2ca715414a65da
cdcbbc59a07ae2f1e36322838eb0905466a645af
F20101130_AABLAB schaller_l_Page_102.tif
2e1587a4d7e4f9546a3adddb48338cd7
69b5c82d95236692c53fe84bf8e12e0d27d7277f
71835 F20101130_AABKUH schaller_l_Page_037.jpg
3e390912763f51356480ce8ebf100559
4aa11ff912c02e111b9004c77c40d8ac2ce4de42
61418 F20101130_AABKTT schaller_l_Page_003.jpg
9371c2b7552de008d147b820200d7ac6
1a90ef833b072605cd42a8bfbd65408419caec08
F20101130_AABLAC schaller_l_Page_105.tif
3d6148c7b27f2f281a2c25ee8658e8b8
a812b6a1366a07ddc7de029f2b25921bf9d067ee
73623 F20101130_AABKUI schaller_l_Page_040.jpg
011a4ac519b62b0f14e87b33c5ad8c70
74497d3485bdceaa614e48dc5253daa56aa73569
87449 F20101130_AABKTU schaller_l_Page_006.jpg
d318c27bf995307f82533635f84cdaf1
d72a476b72595ec36393599de835075d88ebd866
F20101130_AABLAD schaller_l_Page_108.tif
44ef50072ae7e06c5814ca5a991ab4a7
2cb88a421e02d448cba4bbd880fd0135999c401d
70369 F20101130_AABKUJ schaller_l_Page_041.jpg
07c266e6b8c2b4dd11e69b4d56bb1dcb
618b816683a7e89ea7771cd2fb6c807561e8d41f
34301 F20101130_AABKTV schaller_l_Page_007.jpg
4167063632f6ef1dd8e412541542f5d4
d52374026816e5719cc1e351acfa9d3c9ce1dfd0
F20101130_AABLAE schaller_l_Page_109.tif
e74e66cc2d375f677ed931ab9565ba51
5cf6f4f40cd69eab4fdb77bbe4f7fc02ee7fa285
73449 F20101130_AABKUK schaller_l_Page_042.jpg
6e09f7261c9e7024803ad19bcf5d6cd6
a083468ca01bcc9f6cd1159a1c13f35e7200b8cd
13883 F20101130_AABKTW schaller_l_Page_009.jpg
aa72f0a108002357593e049402112c11
97b15b54c2ad0b5bfe00073323c85cab7a3d27fd
F20101130_AABLAF schaller_l_Page_114.tif
9e1c206191b9959ba96a4d4e01b2a688
9494645a72406e7d436f9deab5278bc7d789a772
68687 F20101130_AABKUL schaller_l_Page_043.jpg
3b20d8453da882a6af63a40e0d45507f
7300fb5ddb51a4306904461014c9a4a0489e145b
58501 F20101130_AABKTX schaller_l_Page_010.jpg
a8ec98a312b04e0e555ff81d2a583750
4d82425c9e044899f795e5b49700ea63f01af246
F20101130_AABLAG schaller_l_Page_115.tif
44012c865a3c30d2450bb2bc11808584
cb400dfe0cafbfc20f13c3267b3d29bf38127955
69547 F20101130_AABKVA schaller_l_Page_065.jpg
c31d97c225398994e75df6c082486a5e
9872e4014a966f63ce86e18180815a2d365874e3
24421 F20101130_AABKTY schaller_l_Page_011.jpg
a119919670e9c1cb2ee1d9387e8190b7
4c28695905c0e94ccb7f7823dcc9ff05da40a55c
F20101130_AABLAH schaller_l_Page_117.tif
cf053db6ee50a52e2d42df6c94846d4f
b41ed4005589c8ce5c3c1c4e5a3843b114cfedeb
70319 F20101130_AABKVB schaller_l_Page_066.jpg
14519578ddd62075a9bad971cdc8ef55
2a64bcb4c59167d0b8f36e7040443d1243411d46
71564 F20101130_AABKUM schaller_l_Page_044.jpg
6f767fb481998f7739bcfac661134a78
30ef633440df68a4e19c3b23d56232d11261d9e0
67252 F20101130_AABKTZ schaller_l_Page_020.jpg
51ff5bd698bce987a1ecd50e14d678f5
2e2b598e488205f00cfbf0860c8331fc96fc88d7
F20101130_AABLAI schaller_l_Page_118.tif
3cc77af3e34e5dda4405be29539f84a3
9e7d9466bde664d1482833aa3a85ba67a7ca5c1a
69747 F20101130_AABKVC schaller_l_Page_067.jpg
ecaeae166372b14345b55d048b016e60
b248972fc3a0ddb3352730142458624825463e36
66141 F20101130_AABKUN schaller_l_Page_045.jpg
ca09584fc1ac0460a68a7d546daeacf5
02a46cf59aa11e3f915d38dffa54608bdecfedfa
F20101130_AABLAJ schaller_l_Page_123.tif
7c2f15356a2e81d7dd4b9c9c77340428
2bfaca597953f0b44dc96ed69c5e8244dd06a693
47615 F20101130_AABKVD schaller_l_Page_068.jpg
cc22d327005c2ff6285f4ba04d383ef1
9d3643070f676de7d7730ec60580b68aafdc2b13
73235 F20101130_AABKUO schaller_l_Page_046.jpg
e9eee30f5fbeacd82e04d3d6bf7453fb
1fddc244b881f813af8fff6e4ab069fc508dca12
F20101130_AABLAK schaller_l_Page_124.tif
f674c47dd0b9ca7d74caa61dbeb2d305
b6f090505fd092d4d4220902c00a78eb5787bd75
67208 F20101130_AABKVE schaller_l_Page_069.jpg
e1b2c85ab00363be26a45785e03186cd
1680595e23b8f83137ec286a44cc43777ab2c923
37343 F20101130_AABKUP schaller_l_Page_048.jpg
ce117eb8ed09de7b0d634036edca4233
44644086aec58828c2da9668d4190c9679dc7462
F20101130_AABLAL schaller_l_Page_126.tif
cbc8c4eab78f45f2226274e8a86d5a54
f65d57ee6b0e5a6fb3329c605e42ca4fab8c702f
68607 F20101130_AABKVF schaller_l_Page_072.jpg
da1d64e9d41e04190bfbe2719581a68c
387dd3ce6ab26d2b2641ee0a1c1533baca71aacc
63771 F20101130_AABKUQ schaller_l_Page_049.jpg
bd1310667dcd42a742127d6197334221
1963673adeeb487ca83516372ba53dc074cc83ea
F20101130_AABLAM schaller_l_Page_127.tif
ce93344aa07f684e26e849a9430d9de0
41d8c4a6b6dafca4900f4a811f71e9f2e2fc15e2
69950 F20101130_AABKVG schaller_l_Page_073.jpg
bfda119a9020fe36ea7854d310e209ab
9d156ccc6e14f9b856d111f4541a218419db46ab
72594 F20101130_AABKUR schaller_l_Page_050.jpg
0aa0300c27b5089452fcd3dfcce0df86
171fc0cf7d5c72341168e409a1d9479a060b9446
F20101130_AABLBA schaller_l_Page_035.txt
2656d94f9ddaad1f8e8c5218b75d5e32
b5855f74cc4719b575fe89b6834dd4151e79a054
F20101130_AABLAN schaller_l_Page_128.tif
336d93f2a7db0877e568e89bf5289eb6
096372c9172601e598f7b56d5e249d0d6b279e1f
66091 F20101130_AABKVH schaller_l_Page_074.jpg
e54035a6b594f2863d0b3a91f46d936c
2faa322cb8bdd5ceaba250e0a2af4942984a50ff
74171 F20101130_AABKUS schaller_l_Page_052.jpg
745ad372650c816b054b5640c807f5cb
2d09be4a9ce2e87d4cb644d23d430b93204b8419
1847 F20101130_AABLBB schaller_l_Page_036.txt
dabcb5cde0399b8c72d92526c951654a
fa39efe9df077c1f5ccbaf95943be93ba5a89692
F20101130_AABLAO schaller_l_Page_131.tif
16bc36d1c56745404cf8da3ec354b4f3
b5f89479af32c54e0cb105330389724d4ce77c3d
56733 F20101130_AABKVI schaller_l_Page_075.jpg
6149f33155263dc5c924727af16429d4
8d440f7a73d4f79cf1dc7953a8bc3f537062097e
71877 F20101130_AABKUT schaller_l_Page_053.jpg
2b2d2ee996bc4f719d80688851b11c08
ab9e9dbaa26a1b9297082263e19dc870aec0c549
1964 F20101130_AABLBC schaller_l_Page_037.txt
fe7d69293113bc931381295c43954f18
f55b63a55fa11e228fd841ccd314cd43e0f6fee1
F20101130_AABLAP schaller_l_Page_139.tif
74d0ea2f69229eabf24f17393a3bfb8d
9df53c962418b38e31d62d7a478f0ba6927c9223
69941 F20101130_AABKVJ schaller_l_Page_076.jpg
d59454401832388e30dc6789ca442cc3
f2d4afe625558b0af60dba1f0a77b4d90a77d9d0
73162 F20101130_AABKUU schaller_l_Page_055.jpg
431489167ca2bb4abcf5b7cd7ded4bd2
af258e22f9ba6732d115aa14a1baf91e241fd526
F20101130_AABLBD schaller_l_Page_039.txt
5500beba9e2d290082506b2603c5d4b3
2f76ef4fbdcc05aa9ad5e1e12f0d1b9eb9c8206f
501 F20101130_AABLAQ schaller_l_Page_001.txt
149c8011e6aa39d003ad0a2cf0884ad9
b2987b1354d046f994bddb5848f6b26b0ead5614
68319 F20101130_AABKVK schaller_l_Page_077.jpg
9a7ab61accd6a501078e44f142950613
b3c51eddd8d5fdf1275bdf1ba1c7944b21a13c61
65351 F20101130_AABKUV schaller_l_Page_056.jpg
c2841ce588e217fb57b91205602fe023
e954b8925137240386acba2c3525d235d30c561b
1997 F20101130_AABLBE schaller_l_Page_040.txt
78b0ff534ba6391acafcc88b8c4bc86c
8a534fd4b857ef99eb611ca581b34877eb774950
644 F20101130_AABLAR schaller_l_Page_004.txt
cfcd71c5cb24ae0c06577d51951c50dc
29533871713d24a89dde4d8a2cd103fb536630de
60575 F20101130_AABKVL schaller_l_Page_078.jpg
76b7fcd1df2eae75f2d76d2c1597d6e6
9c0422d23fdbfe08e4dc467d2cd1512bb5c6a93e
69206 F20101130_AABKUW schaller_l_Page_057.jpg
f0d5162f5b64d5b6a71b384b91109940
abb684f4903156bd16a378535c9373d5ece72ac4
1915 F20101130_AABLBF schaller_l_Page_041.txt
9a91f48aeff74ed45d8145f1c2bc4455
2c76c0b0512965ad930cb9af2bf7a8163c97078d
67991 F20101130_AABKWA schaller_l_Page_116.jpg
e1748289488d7a8c4aacefb8b6eb2c73
f78a7b3190caaf5768cc3eb279c94ac331935326
1239 F20101130_AABLAS schaller_l_Page_007.txt
00b3b4dbb4711381a0f0a4580a6c8ecc
eea6942826ccebafc93440de932a15d7868086a3
65276 F20101130_AABKVM schaller_l_Page_083.jpg
4ccbf1364ee0f2b8718924f0e4b24215
44be32b15888f6b9ac995b935340dd464810f6ce
62925 F20101130_AABKUX schaller_l_Page_058.jpg
b93e019f60876cc9e24c3e5eb5d83f50
8976e4a45493992245e9386291a34ce60e32347e
1948 F20101130_AABLBG schaller_l_Page_042.txt
afa8796abc3499bf864c8b7a57e428ab
8918013573f6b11fe0048139c4ddae223d1abb17
32151 F20101130_AABKWB schaller_l_Page_117.jpg
6f0ccf88296deb50916671eb37b9906d
ec3ef073f9b140ec368616351513c2ef4e54e356
1155 F20101130_AABLAT schaller_l_Page_013.txt
dcadd3de8bdede060682625aaa5e4d8b
0ee58ef1938656a4aad6f2ddd67fca7ae568a51a
74457 F20101130_AABKUY schaller_l_Page_059.jpg
7955c4c7fb40b075691c313feb8cc244
5e50cb23a5a0bb29eed65bf17e104796491b21ed
1748 F20101130_AABLBH schaller_l_Page_045.txt
92a62a99d97cdbbf1cf6ef5f03f24fae
7f35d65ec04931205c25458af189775ea5894139
59810 F20101130_AABKWC schaller_l_Page_126.jpg
10376fbaba18fdaafde4daf94fce3853
24b1a68c56e20e8c24609563655a2af1ff234985
F20101130_AABLAU schaller_l_Page_015.txt
301f6896a77349becd69c2e856c8b112
af970cadef049033af40b7f341bfba16981e48b3
36627 F20101130_AABKVN schaller_l_Page_085.jpg
c399b04aadfcabcb8b0bc92f7e4e78bf
9c9a243ffd99190c9204415edbd11115ff282533
73393 F20101130_AABKUZ schaller_l_Page_063.jpg
18775f50ac36d968a4254fe555bd9e95
4d48125bce7e9fef7864f7e9e913dbb36ed4b7ad
2025 F20101130_AABLBI schaller_l_Page_046.txt
eeea08879e1d4afef8922d4646e57521
bccb092042374a3ec59dcd8377c32b8eb547c352
67537 F20101130_AABKWD schaller_l_Page_129.jpg
54856a5850e5c54562d156c0f029b220
b71a6e82e61aedc23064788b83e602de902e360c
1867 F20101130_AABLAV schaller_l_Page_017.txt
0efeebd9ff4cf8de2edd6dd38328f413
8277a8c2b814f428a0b7b322608832f6a7bd20f9
38276 F20101130_AABKVO schaller_l_Page_089.jpg
3849ef50a2f50f2d18121d426370ebe3
5a05dc38b2488cd6942c9043a95d1acdee7ceb24
1760 F20101130_AABLBJ schaller_l_Page_049.txt
391cb5136e3235d9579ad4952d93c71b
c2861a61868166ab66b5e0b26eb9e5be707c2d22
69225 F20101130_AABKWE schaller_l_Page_130.jpg
68b6ad9c579daa153a581ce0f4f43125
62a12244c86346668a135b92a3e8d2b4fa2d1481
2006 F20101130_AABLAW schaller_l_Page_021.txt
76299104315f6a605e3892c4401aac97
80c1f68b2efa6557bc8c60d904f521c303226995
70985 F20101130_AABKVP schaller_l_Page_091.jpg
eda9a6ff735728730fb90a70972fd46b
24d253ac6675631911969adc59b5b13a90ffc4fa
2029 F20101130_AABLBK schaller_l_Page_052.txt
61543571f88c217795fd4dfdbd825d52
f56c32c8f6e563134931303329182e66482a241a
86775 F20101130_AABKWF schaller_l_Page_137.jpg
9f6b339c43600e9560ec960f6f69c574
92d8d387a3ac8ad573b1519c3f708579d0b41310
71697 F20101130_AABKVQ schaller_l_Page_092.jpg
6e9625039c893f968152e55ffa999df2
d089f03f97540070a46486f99ea944da9c28f9cf
2037 F20101130_AABLBL schaller_l_Page_059.txt
6a3514cbeed2b54ad3beb02f399ab5bc
977c8741b28b89031d3e8efc216643171a561179
87181 F20101130_AABKWG schaller_l_Page_138.jpg
602eff3e8741d0eba5144203f4bbacc9
2a64bcf0bf7d16f48a55569ac88101338b968cb6
1990 F20101130_AABLAX schaller_l_Page_028.txt
236aee382dfad6b23b8bb06a436209d3
286cb5a8fb879d8cc490905e0d3786877ad99d9f
75243 F20101130_AABKVR schaller_l_Page_094.jpg
d39c9191c50dc20e3e0ad4c572910bc3
9c7e1139e137f5dc5675e22b58732b7bbbdaf363
247 F20101130_AABLCA schaller_l_Page_082.txt
af0026aba997937c47703dcbc6f4f30f
aa2fac0ac017e5eba19fa9bd1065bd4ab4af233c
1797 F20101130_AABLBM schaller_l_Page_060.txt
b1db227d9f31d7216267069fd8f3a5c9
dcc589133acbcfe27db287c75fdfbc6fb4d18797
14306 F20101130_AABKWH schaller_l_Page_139.jpg
a19c205c1a609b161bae4c5e990a0cf5
038a7bd6a568874cc63d3e3e4bc0d52314efa561
F20101130_AABLAY schaller_l_Page_029.txt
435e79636246500b6e5a73b85aa063c3
88fc8d96a52338b3d5ac74eb1de5e3844d42efe7
65773 F20101130_AABKVS schaller_l_Page_097.jpg
b74f36730caad07daaf7ac8f05c9dc3e
1af72fe14be385832a464e7219ac0993ac28c154
1836 F20101130_AABLCB schaller_l_Page_083.txt
ec087eb0d667e0f74d3128d8f917e20c
05737267c5c1fa4dab07941928af90881ac6b9ea
2051 F20101130_AABLBN schaller_l_Page_061.txt
36b4061d9323e5197d1fae8de9b550c4
ec01cdb1035d20c39f3d71bed3ea521e051c7e97
90356 F20101130_AABKWI schaller_l_Page_003.jp2
1a3c19aaa8c1ddf32a622192e08b4c60
48395ab94d52e16f5b14f8b3dfa8760857d5a564
2210 F20101130_AABLAZ schaller_l_Page_033.txt
6f3e8c49794454779d0f904c6339f1d8
865289d068728cc489cf7a80127195c56076c61e
63696 F20101130_AABKVT schaller_l_Page_098.jpg
98c29897083f7b3b64af46f425e7c10d
0ee12223bd4dc0ca63e68496473cea399cfdbc12
815 F20101130_AABLCC schaller_l_Page_086.txt
55496f2436b75e9e98ce4a698ffba907
220f21ea4760bd8559ee155fccdffa910b05790f
1969 F20101130_AABLBO schaller_l_Page_062.txt
ec09257c04cffd0a992f8500e8ffb058
a13215f32c1705fbd9dde2f38c61153751ef5204
38480 F20101130_AABKWJ schaller_l_Page_004.jp2
8fdf3f0010715565da95ee35af49a045
56a3a800f1490f8cd59f433a10195a03d0bc6a2c
66677 F20101130_AABKVU schaller_l_Page_101.jpg
4acfe4a62338f03e732f79cd8204ad58
982f4200f02e3a674c9f5604f0bee1ecb10ed43b
902 F20101130_AABLCD schaller_l_Page_087.txt
28822e61f9b71cd95e9725ddccb671c6
6781d5bf19110e08c4badd78f19db0d597a2f650
2012 F20101130_AABLBP schaller_l_Page_063.txt
4e18452598da17e475c666df156523e3
5a83330a9b915c6f878ad4c5ebb1d402458073d3
803904 F20101130_AABKWK schaller_l_Page_007.jp2
e15a766e83e862199f1c07d3f313e955
a2b925eb0bf21f4f4ebd02e9ca781156fa1278fb
72105 F20101130_AABKVV schaller_l_Page_103.jpg
b5684c01f7449c3d19187e4f5e24e2c6
51cccd382da70210d40dba5a85415f8af4eb4183
620 F20101130_AABLCE schaller_l_Page_089.txt
d8e84aecd452717f57d8000d636ab220
7390ca203bfa416032ee6b13468d2397305961cb
1980 F20101130_AABLBQ schaller_l_Page_064.txt
854ebfa0386f38dbdda9e2522b7ec38f
2d6d885b893ab9ce709a1c86246b5a729bc2995b
531469 F20101130_AABKWL schaller_l_Page_011.jp2
317433af642fc4177630579ed11c861a
919c1a6c57183f6f0144e230c3ee45b772304bec
69258 F20101130_AABKVW schaller_l_Page_104.jpg
19307c9b91e3ab86d3eb9a832a1bbe83
e921cd239170e6dde471f21493de310031e00b75
1992 F20101130_AABLCF schaller_l_Page_092.txt
fb3067a763aea7a4ea82b2c8835c444f
d612af42f11291190df8fccb5db0506e44dc9c94
1930 F20101130_AABLBR schaller_l_Page_066.txt
2762772798195028d2d2248f9570dd3c
8dd71c856d21d65fee70c18bda481fbd494102f8
67359 F20101130_AABKWM schaller_l_Page_013.jp2
cd0e3f7996be62e5174f2462e7eb3735
2cc387ddb88f69687247a0370df1520d42797317
71202 F20101130_AABKVX schaller_l_Page_106.jpg
9ea1cdde755c9721d0fa41d01fd3cb33
c3af164ce6a6fc02f3f10ab11ca6608a02d6b794
1952 F20101130_AABLCG schaller_l_Page_093.txt
4ab576f1d47cad6a3fe26bb092e6fa8e
e42bef75494074c8e0aef01ecda37df1c1e0dea4
104428 F20101130_AABKXA schaller_l_Page_038.jp2
8aa72729361e87ff6c84c9b289d67fd8
f11527d7be6d30ccd269ddfaedcdf0afef93e7ce
1880 F20101130_AABLBS schaller_l_Page_067.txt
287f6af350719f889f887df9edfef423
f4aea0bc51d26212c5297805b94cc7bc05b04a55
93379 F20101130_AABKWN schaller_l_Page_014.jp2
98ff1c22a216931a0cbb6d35d51b55f3
856eff90161bf48de7ecd96e3972c07fd1421c0b
68977 F20101130_AABKVY schaller_l_Page_109.jpg
5c304e62d6f8b3a861da4f2accb9e402
51368f4978353bfe29842b26fc8ea370b8f775f0
1886 F20101130_AABLCH schaller_l_Page_095.txt
7d6fa6aba6293441215969b168a5f1b7
f4e90ea4a4b45edd860368a79a8417dd997e63e0
111725 F20101130_AABKXB schaller_l_Page_040.jp2
2add34394b625512b159d6740d449385
3c2a1a52afa2dac4912609563431392bcd957de0
1190 F20101130_AABLBT schaller_l_Page_068.txt
b0b82f3437a0e140876dbd5c3ba5e14f
5ce9702cd84b94b79c13498503331587f6158b89
72455 F20101130_AABKVZ schaller_l_Page_110.jpg
3155a2ae0ac5a2ddb2f793a3873e5876
e06d8e2cf4a20578b152a9d8202b9f0f3f885bb0
2247 F20101130_AABLCI schaller_l_Page_100.txt
9e1a587e1b7895234a39ab2568c76da9
913547c3d77db6fa32aab844e2e3371abedf1fe6
110251 F20101130_AABKXC schaller_l_Page_042.jp2
a5248d9149c53e4bd67497dd73f25de6
113fb4ea29effdc00e3b42bf48b5fc48cc9efde7
1516 F20101130_AABLBU schaller_l_Page_071.txt
566946338dbf4f0778922fc18bc9d47e
c5bc85a5d6577fd6cedbfc00abc9bebeac1579c1
113275 F20101130_AABKWO schaller_l_Page_015.jp2
94be37b2145c59ec64a267c5d6863ff6
faba4889e5645fdb4da263b12c5f0c9393ac1eeb
1974 F20101130_AABLCJ schaller_l_Page_101.txt
6e2c50da597b1d0c2b28f0b34ef617f8
1ddae9c604a7e7ac799e5dce89cd0a93a6b4de64
108860 F20101130_AABKXD schaller_l_Page_044.jp2
56eed9b52a0c84590944ffed8f20328b
277631318a3725265d58768cf9df1dafe9ba28f0
1566 F20101130_AABLBV schaller_l_Page_073.txt
5d38fd8fd1f22fd18d61d6397061bf87
73a4a2fbecbcb179d955df1da0e6b143d5359aad
52588 F20101130_AABKWP schaller_l_Page_018.jp2
3ce24f4fe0f25e057ceedd53267c4c3f
46c786e8a0733536003844d2f3c93f85467ac19a
2442 F20101130_AABLCK schaller_l_Page_104.txt
ff0450adb69c09580e1e1b024317a679
f3c9ce824d7d06197551aaa29142ad49c7d0efe7
99167 F20101130_AABKXE schaller_l_Page_045.jp2
78271e6e06c2385c25ef4ca035fd3166
c237b708e1857edefc6615809956c8c695fbc821
2039 F20101130_AABLBW schaller_l_Page_076.txt
e6242c185074df9eb8abc7d7ec8849f7
971764862f8005fcab0895a08d16029e3f4d9b45
101085 F20101130_AABKWQ schaller_l_Page_020.jp2
9c8ab4184a42725fe8b3f88934d535ea
e343d4e9eace2e0b12fde563ebf5b7f04b9fec16
2199 F20101130_AABLCL schaller_l_Page_106.txt
76ad5c5e34f669cbd6c91cbff54efc78
cb28884c203e2a3679c57b710ab0a59dfe024b1e
111028 F20101130_AABKXF schaller_l_Page_046.jp2
04f9b8f77a6da493c94cd9117492a987
68f9c25a27f217a82dcf1e0c9fa4f00a4347edcf
1262 F20101130_AABLBX schaller_l_Page_078.txt
06ff54f40a2bdb45d6a7b16572c7c58d
1dc192126b3b10fe0e4da77763df275e71b26bda
112867 F20101130_AABKWR schaller_l_Page_024.jp2
8443f19d288b4ce4f9ce8564ce3b8beb
dfd02685d8f345dcdb07362c24cc074da4cfcc1c
154 F20101130_AABLDA schaller_l_Page_133.txt
70e389431d2546981f24efa88f4646e3
4ae4683e0c6e9b89f3203c605cadfd688eaa82a8
F20101130_AABLCM schaller_l_Page_110.txt
5a3f64ce915dbde927f0b9f24130d636
cb9be95b05c24d741662fd4626cc04dded25532d
51331 F20101130_AABKXG schaller_l_Page_048.jp2
9c49e2de3987eb3166e9f9644975d141
c00567b1f5ede075fe3f72afc8450ae1598eee36
117457 F20101130_AABKWS schaller_l_Page_027.jp2
48ed015c501f92bd8920a5ae915793a6
6473657b8807a3358ccbb98519ba90e445b6c1a4
F20101130_AABLDB schaller_l_Page_134.txt
4afc3f6d944dab51424e6067a7052cce
b7982a624712a2eb69287e0bf4c1d2abb912c035
1874 F20101130_AABLCN schaller_l_Page_111.txt
a4314721103abdb9a68d8953b421b29d
63bfb96c66adbf90b7a97c761b5c54f23fb27993
109960 F20101130_AABKXH schaller_l_Page_051.jp2
103030d0c25f48d1687bd9768d8b085c
97374d98b943812ef16a41b35591c46b3d2d74c0
1757 F20101130_AABLBY schaller_l_Page_079.txt
cde60d3e7023cecb178dc1876f574209
b0a850fe60880a442933c497c75e092f54daa5b8
107788 F20101130_AABKWT schaller_l_Page_029.jp2
21e9d020ea416e7c235d3c19250db2e5
4e3c4e8f665706006cf2cd85b25e056d773fa5ac
2156 F20101130_AABLDC schaller_l_Page_136.txt
696e1b2e7f772a6eea32cebbfc7201c5
fa862395e2f50efaadca5ee2fe3696f06cebfa0a
2415 F20101130_AABLCO schaller_l_Page_112.txt
6c6be95da124413dad13dd4ba8232e71
db439797e06be1c96cc8c1ca26662c8061c96f4b
112957 F20101130_AABKXI schaller_l_Page_052.jp2
d92238a9ec4e8678f2c7e46c2eb79613
13575fd7c4a49c9ec9b0200bc6b7ad07b8bd3a4e
997 F20101130_AABLBZ schaller_l_Page_080.txt
7a6e79724479db26bd916487262a16e4
cf8215b1c4b9d338174fbba3088ff2fbccbac36d
97890 F20101130_AABKWU schaller_l_Page_030.jp2
3743ec71de65181147a1d5f40ad7f408
3c8189f15d814b4016e8cdc4167bb78718cead25
2116 F20101130_AABLDD schaller_l_Page_137.txt
0e095395134038e978ca8fadcf79fcbd
9905ea70b5253bc08b69c69b2aa72032738b6d23
761 F20101130_AABLCP schaller_l_Page_117.txt
5037c87424a5a4a7d11111c9ba5c3ee0
f8f55ed079cad4f10cf95d884f8d21b30510749a
115247 F20101130_AABKXJ schaller_l_Page_061.jp2
e49d77c8b64ef534154eac1411534b6d
101397658b06444b5b1644222800724cc25930b7
106302 F20101130_AABKWV schaller_l_Page_031.jp2
2ea60b2b190bb2926babba74351cd096
19b4e5dc7dfdd62dc404d2db5273a127881f5f08
7006 F20101130_AABLDE schaller_l_Page_136thm.jpg
523d91cc40c9c74554654641542a52d0
dfbf6995981ad25a3cc07b1cbeeb83febf3b9996
1702 F20101130_AABLCQ schaller_l_Page_118.txt
25f2d3e5849be32653aa09669dc3e0c5
8c6e831e519bf28a328a67bf277bebe18a4d1250
107170 F20101130_AABKXK schaller_l_Page_065.jp2
63a1919a18c51d4e0153788e32cac096
05bb9994c37db60fae02fe70f7a7d90d9040bbf0
107990 F20101130_AABKWW schaller_l_Page_032.jp2
088921d19076a229fcd6b57f616a8430
90f1587cb9261637a30a919fbec74b220f8d0d0b
22289 F20101130_AABLDF schaller_l_Page_039.QC.jpg
9670662668435675fe46db5a5f3f86d0
16e7b72d8c53ac000e4602c4e49b5fa594a01872
2005 F20101130_AABLCR schaller_l_Page_120.txt
cf9a7d28bcfc80a49a8782c4ad98f6a1
b4c466d49bb5a16c06f34a74c356e8b2032e2f82
107516 F20101130_AABKXL schaller_l_Page_066.jp2
d36b9cc44671f936d2cddafd2c08318b
5c08ee2194435d3c6289ef15aabfeb2cc0de065c
117373 F20101130_AABKWX schaller_l_Page_033.jp2
b7db308806dc8e1ff32a3340cec387d3
f6054030aa09f0cb77599f2ec29c1e47c283b122
6695 F20101130_AABLDG schaller_l_Page_015thm.jpg
ac010f818687beb0052ec9d037f77550
233f88ae79e3b45e7f1df2a0f479868514176d4e
98101 F20101130_AABKYA schaller_l_Page_104.jp2
6030c3004aa35f53c03b707f0e6d0dff
20ff61eca4473f52becb715c68aa52a9c2d4b74c
2200 F20101130_AABLCS schaller_l_Page_121.txt
6f4727615019e7db4972b9651d386801
1b450c5b26cdebfc2d9da875dceb5629e9af00c4
104089 F20101130_AABKXM schaller_l_Page_067.jp2
7826475b6a970ccbfd63be3226a95155
86afc11d2d4a073d7f4cf4def71e7fc82c406d3e
106708 F20101130_AABKWY schaller_l_Page_035.jp2
8877d79b468288b19899d09c18487d8f
bec8d0844506a3b5869b28880c6990de09eb3368
23602 F20101130_AABLDH schaller_l_Page_092.QC.jpg
a08de7832d75fc12ca38ddb61f4aa38c
d6c88a226f37ccd9f126ffdbc9827cfdb6e057ab
105644 F20101130_AABKYB schaller_l_Page_107.jp2
3515a035c5ee14e61ae48b764cabe516
b47e29d12cb2327c093a3223a4ec9fc4e73a3a33
2354 F20101130_AABLCT schaller_l_Page_123.txt
4a200e5cbc584571d25bb42a457accfb
7438b9deb4c4874c8bd5b27b03f2b76c1b57206f
69504 F20101130_AABKXN schaller_l_Page_068.jp2
b7ae32b357c6b0934ee7257275740471
d8c2742d9772e2742911751725dd7ba477ba7c9b
110852 F20101130_AABKWZ schaller_l_Page_037.jp2
c402af2dc417e34883c9d144e908ea42
3a9b192341f3700f43e5a4fb9bf88f333a92f296
21940 F20101130_AABLDI schaller_l_Page_070.QC.jpg
9cee8f0440fa193e757e93e9a0842461
8d1648940a63d9c301169e5eb8a17efeb33acb13
96772 F20101130_AABKYC schaller_l_Page_109.jp2
9be5c68aa29d4c177f63c357017df952
608b8595c3ac934cff667cdf707709110acb405b
3348 F20101130_AABLCU schaller_l_Page_125.txt
5bbba8a921ebe42bee130006050a4939
af57c69219662a25bee319c3afc68a28126be78c
99581 F20101130_AABKXO schaller_l_Page_069.jp2
22b4ad1cdf7caeebe4d78fb6a3fe0866
f9587e3d3a69395d29e995a70a824222d5333229
22943 F20101130_AABLDJ schaller_l_Page_035.QC.jpg
7f5b37e96ed7ad3ab27fca2dbbbed40b
20a0edf1fc134b4e79cdea6580d789057c66f2bf
101899 F20101130_AABKYD schaller_l_Page_116.jp2
fb68ec7bdf62ce1fecab778f3b825713
497a8c38d90fa01fec2d5057f3ac016c7985159a
F20101130_AABLCV schaller_l_Page_126.txt
30adf2b788faa7ff74ce806e7f0b0646
81272f9deaa36c00557ace582fcf3ae3f34dab71
6402 F20101130_AABLDK schaller_l_Page_120thm.jpg
bd21e341f81d0943494a0bb76b8c4b36
5102ffc3949ba834d0cf6e412df50cf9be5bef11
110819 F20101130_AABKYE schaller_l_Page_121.jp2
a492efa5e1f03a694f170973d8c26813
00eb626438612c9872e3397f5eb688e341fa5fff
2259 F20101130_AABLCW schaller_l_Page_128.txt
57f81303265334661f56b9acb39800d6
059c2b85356689c5e61a9ceb51f18f21690cb487
103717 F20101130_AABKXP schaller_l_Page_072.jp2
4aadaaaea1d64c68b64dfc2dbecc8099
620f1b49290196d8bc95ca6236e9e2050e5cf71f
3714 F20101130_AABLDL schaller_l_Page_048thm.jpg
3ad6668182af919bfce6f934b683dabc
c569d1f4d1456b31bcd0a397ffcd0044926e57a3
9080 F20101130_AABKYF schaller_l_Page_124.jp2
60c54dfae68d2c1d0f18f7880dc3242e
35dded125ab1c06f0cb0fb241097c8c963267b52
2826 F20101130_AABLCX schaller_l_Page_129.txt
4724745d8f272fd37b399bab794bea23
c23e46f0d2135fbc1f66b05fc83a31cc452816fc
1051938 F20101130_AABKXQ schaller_l_Page_078.jp2
5ead83d4064e5f8206896ef6e63cb78a
9240aa9bd28f422962b0eab9a006f845768ca32d
24459 F20101130_AABLDM schaller_l_Page_052.QC.jpg
e49b21546497d8fc4a02f2606e9ad4d6
c438a5ac5000c9dc04f6d01f35e0f3a0b2f1d0bd
730979 F20101130_AABKYG schaller_l_Page_126.jp2
919b1715bc43a8d5fd0bf844fc082bc1
50bd40513ee0d2bd8cdd38214299a6f68a523719
1117 F20101130_AABLCY schaller_l_Page_131.txt
3189e6fa4b02b0281b5d2ab3fe228664
c3b582346dc8b378538fd6dab00ba0d4e1087fb3
96535 F20101130_AABKXR schaller_l_Page_079.jp2
40353f80c135dd2e8b60325aa3a7ab42
c6108809600faee011bace711f1a7d817b824b25
6622 F20101130_AABLEA schaller_l_Page_024thm.jpg
d61e0034828eab146140e272cc020515
9ad439fb44fc332d249c371291a233141388e139
24164 F20101130_AABLDN schaller_l_Page_055.QC.jpg
a85be06faff5375eed3c6474ddacfa63
2ca053249e6594517ae17313636044066ca0156e
779896 F20101130_AABKYH schaller_l_Page_129.jp2
40ed8872dfaed519844fdf28f12a0693
d8d6998284a275dc368a92d77ff492e2c3dae941
1051927 F20101130_AABKXS schaller_l_Page_082.jp2
e7869882b8549786cea796feb324820d
1e7d578cb10e3400da81967d049166799265f037
3487 F20101130_AABLEB schaller_l_Page_087thm.jpg
c0c446484629361728ef852619b221d0
d6c3196ebbf51cc22c43f7644af41d2e5688f99c
6241 F20101130_AABLDO schaller_l_Page_038thm.jpg
5d4a867b87aed1f205075ac239d8436e
eeb79d092e9efd98722805aecf6e4d3a4df11e47
818844 F20101130_AABKYI schaller_l_Page_131.jp2
5e7635718c8d6e703b57bdab47179c53
16733e7aba2aff3bd45be37ccef7337844916edc
521 F20101130_AABLCZ schaller_l_Page_132.txt
f5d1b48170bc7b30c1a14d5f6ea957f9
e9067729637ab86afb9f07b5118292dda5438d86
325627 F20101130_AABKXT schaller_l_Page_087.jp2
7e42ab777a7150a5a55ce230d94c6915
5ad38037d9c39a785d3fe8ad371c9e8630d58c86
18248 F20101130_AABLEC schaller_l_Page_128.QC.jpg
27c2f761aff2e4e31c56a81666f1c1d0
3802ed79d042d72664be740961de301e14e10463
25338 F20101130_AABLDP schaller_l_Page_136.QC.jpg
fd8304941858cf7edcc3c2da620ce32b
64f07e5b890c987ec207d7ae30f72759d21e18ea
1051934 F20101130_AABKYJ schaller_l_Page_135.jp2
c4f20bcebc93a876e4d8af384fac39be
867698c00016bbdf78b0f806c94a63de4d324138
433572 F20101130_AABKXU schaller_l_Page_089.jp2
a9744e00ae75e20cea3c07c038c2dfdd
c3c4c3574af63f01a1fe64426c34be9a515d359c
3209 F20101130_AABLED schaller_l_Page_117thm.jpg
4e2b3359ebedddf1f3290678b98e5df5
c2ca23435109a5f4b72b6afd004e04c380797827
19641 F20101130_AABLDQ schaller_l_Page_008.QC.jpg
de698472c3f4018baed2cbcd219c4ede
a5d805378d682980d1a2f3e29549ec3adc7d3230
1051972 F20101130_AABKYK schaller_l_Page_137.jp2
147b0418d6d947bc2fd8b3aed42ebe4f
2df639500bba1e1b44fcfa818cdc9e2f04b81e53
104922 F20101130_AABKXV schaller_l_Page_093.jp2
4611985bb6bf9bd9454f6b262829e8d6
920705d1dc42d001354f1a994b4721a20acf1505
20422 F20101130_AABLEE schaller_l_Page_049.QC.jpg
3a0581cfa1ec5bec5d4a42768106a8e8
a7f367bffcaaaa77fcfcf596b9e65c43f34a38f3



PAGE 1

WEB-BASED GIS TO ENHANCE THE DE SIGN OF A STATEWIDE TRAILS NETWORK AS PART OF FLORIDAS GREENWAYS AND TRAILS SYSTEM By LILA M. SCHALLER A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2005

PAGE 2

Copyright 2005 by Lila M. Schaller

PAGE 3

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The collaborative efforts and support from many people were essential to the completion of this project. I would first li ke to thank my parents for their support and encouragement throughout my academic years. I would like to thank Kaleb Stewart, who provided continual emotional support during th e writing of this document, for his daily words of wisdom and his confidence in me. I would like to tha nk the members of my committee: Paul Zwick for his unending encour agement and focus; Margaret Carr for her guidance, immeasurable expertise on the subj ect, and dedication to quality; and Stanley Latimer for his advice and support throughout this process. I would like to thank Alexis Thomas for his tireless dedication to this proj ect and for his insight and wisdom that was essential to the success of this project. I would like to thank Ajay Mangalam, who contributed immensely to this project with his programming skills, for his dedication a nd work ethic. I would also like to thank Kate Norris, for her willingness to jump in at any phase of the project and complete the task at hand with ease, grace, and skill. I would like to thank Wesley Harrell and Christy McCain for their excellent teaching skills and patience as mentors as they helped me to learn new technologies. I woul d like to thank Crystal Goodiso n, who first inspired me to enter this program, for her continual support a nd guidance. I would like to thank Heather Hardester, who provided comradery and encour agement, for her endearing qualities as an office mate and a friend.

PAGE 4

iv I would like to thank members of the staff at the Office of Greenways and Trails (Jim Wood, Heather Pence, Karen Shudes, and Dean Rogers) for giving me the opportunity to work on this project and for providing me with such a positive experience with professional partnerships. I would like to thank the people at URS Corporation in Tallahassee, Florida and the GeoPlan Cent er, for sharing knowledge and resources developed for the Efficient Transportation Decision Making: Envi ronmental Screening Tool. I would also like to thank Mike Konikoff at the URS Corporation for his knowledge and helpfulness.

PAGE 5

v TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES...........................................................................................................viii LIST OF FIGURES.............................................................................................................x ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................x ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Introductory Background Statement.............................................................................1 Designing a Statewide Trails Network..................................................................2 Integrating GIS with the We b for Public Involvement.........................................3 Statement of the Problem..............................................................................................4 Research Questions.......................................................................................................4 Significance of the Study..............................................................................................5 2 BACKGROUND..........................................................................................................6 The United States Greenways Movement....................................................................6 Four Key Stages of the Greenways Movement.....................................................6 Early Greenway Planning from 1860 to 1900.......................................................6 Regional Greenways Movement from 1900 to 1950............................................9 Influence of Ecological Planning: 1950 to 1970.................................................11 Economic Downturn and the Naming of the Greenways Movement: 1980 to 1990..................................................................................................................15 Florida Greenways Program: History and Review of its Legal, Ecological and Economic Origins...................................................................................................17 3 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.....................................................................................36 Introduction.................................................................................................................36 Emergence of Public Involvement in Science and Technology Decision Making....37 Public Involvement Techniques before the Information Age.....................................39 Geographic Information Systems and Public Involvement........................................41 Spatial Decision Support Systems.......................................................................42

PAGE 6

vi Collaborative Spatial Decision Making...............................................................44 Web-Based Geographic Information Systems............................................................45 History of Web-Based GIS..................................................................................46 Framework and Architecture of Web-Based GIS...............................................47 Developments in the Field...................................................................................48 Future of Web-Based GIS...................................................................................52 Geographic Information Systems industry..................................................52 Environmental research................................................................................53 The public.....................................................................................................53 4 A WEB-BASED APPLICATION FOR PARTICIPATORY GREENWAYS PLANNING................................................................................................................56 Introduction.................................................................................................................56 Objectives...................................................................................................................57 System Architecture....................................................................................................57 Trail Network Update Utility......................................................................................59 Data......................................................................................................................59 Access..................................................................................................................61 Interface Customization.......................................................................................64 Submission..........................................................................................................65 5 METHODOLOGY.....................................................................................................70 Population and Sample...............................................................................................70 Research Design and Subject Recruitment.................................................................71 Instrumentation...........................................................................................................77 General Information............................................................................................78 Public Meetings...................................................................................................78 Training Seminars...............................................................................................79 Web-Based Tool..................................................................................................81 Comparison..........................................................................................................82 Statistical Analysis......................................................................................................84 6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.................................................................................85 Descriptive Results.....................................................................................................85 Public Meetings...................................................................................................86 Training Workshops............................................................................................89 Web-Based Tool..................................................................................................92 Comparison..........................................................................................................97 Analysis of Research Questions...............................................................................100 Public Involvement............................................................................................101 Training.............................................................................................................101 Potential Users...................................................................................................102 Design................................................................................................................103 Collaborative Spatial Decision Making.............................................................103

PAGE 7

vii 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................105 Recommendations for Future Study.........................................................................107 Trail Network Update Utility Enhancements...........................................................107 Design................................................................................................................107 Implementation..................................................................................................108 Training.............................................................................................................108 APPENDIX A IRB APPROVED RESEARCH PROPOSAL..........................................................109 B IRB APPROVED INFORM ED CONSENT LETTER............................................112 C SURVEY INSTRUMENT........................................................................................113 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................121 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................127

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF TABLES Table page 6-1. Greenways and Trails Planning Experience..............................................................86 6-2. Internet Comfort........................................................................................................8 6 6-3. GIS Comfort.............................................................................................................. 87 6-4. Location of Public Meeting that Respondent Attended.............................................87 6-5. Methods of Viewing Potential Trail Network...........................................................88 6-6. Ease of Access of On-line Viewer.............................................................................89 6-7. Ease of Use of On-line Viewer..................................................................................89 6-8. Preparation Using the On-line Viewer......................................................................89 6-9. User Satisfaction with Ma terials at Training Workshop...........................................90 6-10. User Satisfaction with Allocation of Meeting Time at Training Workshop...........91 6-10. Overall User Satisfac tion with Training Workshops...............................................91 6-11. Satisfaction Level with Online Documentation for the TNUU..............................93 6-12. Satisfaction Level with the Navigability of the TNUU...........................................94 6-13. Satisfaction Level with th e Ease of Use of the TNUU.............................................95 6-14. Satisfaction Level with the Technical Support for the TNUU................................95 6-15. Satisfaction Level with the Time Available for Submission for the TNUU...........96 6-16. Overall Satisfaction Level with the TNUU..............................................................96 6-17. Ease of Submission a nd the Least Travel Time......................................................99 6-18. More Complete Statewide Trail Network...............................................................99 6-19. Access to Spatial Data and was Ease of Use............................................................99

PAGE 9

ix 6-20. Submission of Trail Corridors...............................................................................100 6-21. Satisfaction Level with T NUU Based on Training Attendance.............................102

PAGE 10

x LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 4-1. System Architecture..................................................................................................58 4-2. Datalayers in Application..........................................................................................60 4-3. XML Code for Dynamic Map Display......................................................................60 4-4. XML Code for Layer Scale Factors..........................................................................61 4-5. Interface to Obtain Username and Password.............................................................62 4-6. Form to Collect User Information.............................................................................62 4-7. Record in Oracle Lookup Table with User Information............................................62 4-8. Oracle Trigger to Assi gn Username and Password...................................................63 4-9. Interface to Logon to ArcIMS Site............................................................................64 4-10. ArcIMS Interface.....................................................................................................65 4-11. Project Information Form........................................................................................67 4-12. Input Utility to Digitize New Trails........................................................................68 4-13. Final Prioritized Mu lti-Use Opportunity Map.........................................................69 5-1. User Scenario 1.......................................................................................................... 72 5-2. User Scenario 2.......................................................................................................... 73 5-3. User Scenario 3.......................................................................................................... 74 5-4. User Scenario 4.......................................................................................................... 75 5-5. User Scenario 5.......................................................................................................... 76 C-1. General Information Section of Survey..................................................................113 C-2. Public Meeting Section of Survey..........................................................................114

PAGE 11

xi C-3. Training Section of Survey.....................................................................................115 C-4. Web-Based Tool Section of Survey.........................................................................116 C-5. Comparison Section of Survey...............................................................................117 C-6. Graphical Representation of Web-Based Tool in Survey.......................................118 C-7. Graphical Representation of Input Utility in Survey..............................................119 C-8. Blank Page for Additional Comments in Survey....................................................120

PAGE 12

xii Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning WEB-BASED GIS TO ENHANCE THE DE SIGN OF A STATEWIDE TRAILS NETWORK AS PART OF FLORIDAS GREENWAYS AND TRAILS SYSTEM By Lila M. Schaller August 2005 Chair: Paul Zwick Cochair: Margaret Carr Major Department: Urban and Regional Planning The use of Web-based GIS applications ha s skyrocketed over the last decade for gathering information, faci litating public involvement and providing access to government programs. The purpose of our study was to determine whether using Webbased GIS technology enhanced the update of a statewide trails network. We examined various aspects of using Webbased GIS, such as the opportu nity for public involvement, difficulty of technology for general users, potential for reaching a broader audience, potential for collaborative group decision-ma king, and the quality of the final product. A Web-based application for participator y greenways planning, the Trail Network Update Utility (TNUU), was developed and im plemented at the GeoPlan Center at the University of Florida as part of a contract with the Office of Green ways and Trails. Its purpose was to allow as many people as possible to participate in updating the Recreational Trail Network for the State of Fl orida. Before the Web-based application was developed, the Recreational Trail Networ k was created and maintained using paper

PAGE 13

xiii maps. The Web-based application could re duce transcription errors, allow more individuals in various geographi c locations to participate in the process, and standardize the data submitted. To examine the efficiency of Web-base d GIS for statewide greenway planning, a survey instrument was created to investigat e the TNUU users degree of satisfaction and how they rated it compared with the origin al process of drawi ng potential new trail corridors on paper maps at public meetings. The survey also examined how frequently Web-based GIS is used to pr epare for public meetings, and examined the efficiency of workshops for training decision-makers in Web-based GIS. Results showed that using Web-based GIS enhanced the update of the Recreational Trail Network and helped the public to better prepare for public meetings. Findings also suggested that training can in crease a participants level of satisfact ion with Web-based GIS technology. Using Web-base d GIS can enhance the planni ng process in a variety of ways, and Web-based GIS need not compete or do away with direct participation.

PAGE 14

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The use of Web-based GIS applications ha s skyrocketed over the past decade for gathering information, faci litating public involvement and providing access to government programs. The first Web page with an interactive map was published in 1993 by Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (P ARC) as an experiment in interactive information retrieval (Harder, 1998). Since then, GIS technology and the Internet have been integrated to produce an expanding area of research, referred to as Web-based GIS. Web-based GIS facilitated the open use of GIS in three ways: (1) spatial-data access and dissemination, (2) spatial-data exploration and visualiza tion, and (3) sp atial-data processing, analysis, and modeling (Dra gicevic, 2004). Our study examined the effectiveness of Web-based GI S to enhance the design of a statewide trails network as part of Floridas greenways and trails system. Introductory Background Statement New information technology based on the World Wide Web (WWW) offers excellent means for bringing the public into the spatial decision-making process. Our primary focus was on a Web-based geographic information system (GIS) as a tool for communication among different stakeholders (planners, decision makers, and the public) for designing a statewide trails network. We hypothesized that a community-wide information network (like the WWW) is a new kind of medium offeri ng a real-time, twodirectional communication channel between different parties that enhances the quality of the final product.

PAGE 15

2 Designing a Statewide Trails Network The Florida Greenways Commission began an effort in 1993 to bring together public and private interests to create a visi on for a statewide system of greenways and trails in Florida. The concept for recreat ional linkages emphasi zed connections among urban areas and natural areas to form a networ k for the entire state. After a year of meeting with various interest groups and th e public, a vision of a statewide network of recreational trails was produ ced in a series of maps that included Hiking Trail Opportunities, Off-Road Bicyc ling Opportunities, Equestrian Trail Opportunities, MultiUse Trail Opportunities, and Paddling Trail Op portunities. Each set of opportunity maps was delineated into logical segments and prio ritized based on a set of criteria, including regional significance, ecological connectivity, local connectivity, suit ability for specific users, access/proximity, interpretive pote ntial, scenic character, management, and continuity. The opportunity maps were fina lized and approved by the Florida Greenways and Trails Council in 1996. The Department of Environmental Protection Office of Greenways and Trails uses these opportunity maps to evaluate grant applications for acquisition of trail corridors. It was understood that the opportunity maps would be periodically revised and updated (FDEP & FGCC, 1998). The first revision of the opportunity maps began in 2003. The Off-Road Bicycling and Equestrian Opportunity Maps were co mbined and integrated into Multi-Use Opportunity Maps to reflect their use as conne ctive corridors rather than statewide trails, so the three opportunity maps up for revisi on included Multi-Use Trail Opportunities, Paddling Trail Opportunities, and Hiking Trai l Opportunities. A We b-based GIS system was implemented to enable on-line recomme ndations for potential trail corridors, and participation of a greater nu mber of stakeholders. Reco mmendations were taken from

PAGE 16

3 representatives of non profit organizations, government agencies, and the general public from September 2003 to February 2004. The new opportunity maps were then approved by the FGTC and prioritized using the same pr ocess and criteria used for the original opportunity maps. Today, the Department of Environmental Pr otection Office of Greenways and Trails uses the updated opportu nity maps in their evaluation of grant applications for acquisition of trail corri dors (Duever, Conway Conservation Inc., Teisinger, GeoPlan Center and Carr, 2001). Integrating GIS with the Web for Public Involvement A Geographic Information System (GIS) is an organized collection of computer hardware, software, geographic data, and personn el designed to efficiently capture, store, update, manipulate, analyze, and display many forms of geographically referenced information (ESRI, 2005). GIS has been widely implemented in various planning problems. Together with the use of the Inte rnet, GIS could be furt her developed to allow many more people to have access to GIS functi onality and to enhance public involvement in decision-making. Public involvement is symbolized by dynamic two-way communication and encourages input from the public to guide the decision-making process in its early stages (OConnor, Sc hwartz, Schaad, and Boyd, 2000). Web-based GIS can be used as a tool for communicati on among different intere st groups such as planners, decision-makers, and the public fo r the design of a statew ide trails network. Rapid growth of the Internet has enab led a community-wide information network to provide highly customized, accessible, and interactive sources of public information. This new means of information transfer is changing the way that people capture and manipulate spatial information. Web-based GIS could provide a means to communicate,

PAGE 17

4 capture, and store complex spatial informati on with a wider audience (Kangas and Store, 2003) for enhancing public involvement and co llaboration in decisi on-making processes. Statement of the Problem Between 1994 and 1996, the original vision for a statewide ne twork of trail opportunity corridors was create d and maintained by using paper maps. These maps were hand edited at public meetings around the State, using Mylar overlays to trace over statewide maps of Florida. The database was later updated by a GIS technician using free-hand digitization. Various aspect s of this method were inefficient: It was time consuming (trail segments ha d to be drawn twice: once on the map and once on the computer screen). Transcription errors were possible. It was difficult to reach a br oad and diverse audience. This process was very successful at enab ling collaborative gr oup decision-making. However, we and the Office of Greenways and Trails wished to improve the process by using new Web-based GIS technology. Research Questions Our goal was to determine whether using Web-based GIS technology enhanced the update of the statewide trails network. We examined various aspects of the implementation of Web-based GIS, such as oppor tunity for public involvement, difficulty of technology for general users, potential fo r reaching a broader audience, potential for collaborative group decision-making, and quali ty of the final product. The primary research questions that we addressed included: 1. Does using Web-based GIS enhance the de sign of a statewide trails network? 2. Can Web-based GIS improve the opportunity for public involvement in designing a statewide trails network?

PAGE 18

5 3. Do training workshops improve a participan ts satisfaction with Web-based GIS as a planning tool for the design of a statewide trails network? 4. Is there potential for reaching a broader audi ence for the design of a statewide trails network with the implementation of Web-based GIS? 5. Is Web-based GIS sufficient in provi ding a forum for collaborative group decision-making about the desi gn of a statewide trails ne twork, or are supplemental activities needed? Significance of the Study Information gathered in our study could he lp the Office of Greenways and Trails and the GeoPlan Center at the University of Florida understand the needs of the people involved in greenways and trails planning. Results of our st udy could also help in the design and implementation of future Web-ba sed GIS utilities for statewide greenways planning and other spatial planning activities.

PAGE 19

6 CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND The United States Greenways Movement Four Key Stages of the Greenways Movement Succession of the greenways movement in the United States was explained by Fabos (2004). Fabos divided Greenways literat ure into four phases. The first phase was the era of Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr.; Char les Eliot, and Horace W.S. Cleveland, who pioneered the greenways movement from 1867 to 1900. The second phase of greenways literature came between 1900 and 1940, mostly fr om students of Olmsted and Eliot, as well as Benton MacKaye and Robert Moses. The third phase looks at the environmental decades of the 1960s and the 1970s and the work s of notable landscape planners such as Philip Lewis and Ian McHarg. The fourth phase is the naming and federal validation of the greenways movement, primarily by th e Presidents Commission of Americans Outdoors in 1987 and Charles Little in his popular book, Greenways for America (Little, 1990). Early Greenway Planning from 1860 to 1900 Frederick Law Olmsted is often referred to as the father of the greenways movement. He was born in Hartford, Connecticut in 1822 and dabbled in many vocations in his youth, ranging from an appren tice civil engineer, a journalist, a Staten Island nurseryman, a seaman, and a Connectic ut farmer (Little, 1990). Olmsted was a self-proclaimed social reformer and saw his wo rk as a way to promote social order. He advocated the newly emerging belief that the design of the physical spaces that humans

PAGE 20

7 occupy influences human behavior. Olmsted believed that large natural open spaces were essential to metropolitan cities, because they offered opportunities for quiet contemplation in nature. He felt so adamant about the provision of this service that he intentionally precluded more active uses in his parks (Schuyler, 1986). At the age of 35, Olmsted accepted an administrative job as the superintendent of an unimproved site that was intended to be a central park for New York City. This was the beginning of a career as a park builder and a fruitful professional partnership with Calvert Vaux, a British architect. Olmsted and Vaux won a competition to design Central Park, which was a remarkable success a nd was followed by many contracts to design other urban parks. Although Central Park was a high profile project for Olmsted, the landscape architecture work that he did in Berkele y, prior to the construc tion of Central Park, proved to be the Olmstedian source of the greenway idea when he proposed two greenway elements. In designing a plan for the college grounds, now the University of California at Berkeley, and the immedi ate neighborhood, Olmsted proposed to (1) designate public parkland for recreational us e and (2) create a scenic drive from Oakland to the campus (Little, 1990). Other successf ul greenway projects that Olmsted worked on include Prospect Park and Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn, the Emerald Necklace in Boston and Piedmont Way in Berkeley. Charles Eliot, a pupil of Olmsted, expande d on his vision when he created a park system for the entire Boston Metropolitan Re gion. Eliots plan connected five large parks on Bostons outer fringe with five shorte r coastal river corridors such as the Charles

PAGE 21

8 River Greenway Corridor to the ocean (Fabos, 2004). The con cept of using coastal rivers to connect open space became a forerunner of the current greenways planning approach. It is important to note that early pa rkways and linear corri dors designed during Olmsteds era were for pedestrians, carriages and horseback riders. Neither bicycles nor automobiles had been introduced into Am erican culture when Olmsted designed Berkeleys Piedmont Way and Brooklyns Ocea n Parkway. In 1910, there were less than 500,000 automobiles in the United States, a ratio of one for every two hundred people. As the mass-produced automobile gained popularity in the U.S., the nature of the parkway would change forever (Little, 1990). Much of the early greenways planning theory stemmed from concepts that were emerging in Europe at the time. Olmsted and a few of his contemporar ies had traveled in Europe extensively and drew many of their ideas from exam ples previously implemented there. In the United States, the term gr eenbelt conveys any swath of open land, but in Britain, where the original concept emerged at the turn of the century, the greenbelt served to separate communities to preclud e conurbation, as Lewis Mumford points out in The City in History The idea originated with Alfr ed Marshall, a British economist who made the point in an 1899 paper: We need to prevent one town from growing into another or into a neighboring village; we need to keep intermediate stretches of country in dairy farms, etc., as well as public pleasur e grounds. Marshalls concept of stretches of land that separated cities was rooted in Ebenezer Howards idea of a garden city, which he introduced in To-Morrow: The Peaceful Path to Social Reform Howard proposed an agricultural country belt around the garden city to maintain its urban integrity by maintaining the rural integrity. Howards concept of a garden city was

PAGE 22

9 unique because he was not concerned with creating a city of gardens but rather a city in a garden a city contained within a perm anent agricultural landscape. Cleveland, a contemporary of Olmsted, designed what some be lieve is the finest example of a network of open space in a metropolitan area with th e Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan park system, completed in 1895 (Little, 1990). Regional Greenways Movement from 1900 to 1950 Robert Moses (1888-1981) has been cr edited with creating more parks and parkways than any other person in the histor y of the world (Little, 1990). Moses created many public works projects during his time, including bridges, housing projects, dams, and a multitude of other side projects, such as the worlds fairgrounds in Queens and the site of the United Nations in Manhattan. Moses built many recreational trails and greenways during his career, but towards the end of his career he found himself at odds with conservationists. The automobile became more popular and highway design to accommodate an increasing number of vehicles tr aveling at much faster speeds started to take precedent over greenway design. Parkways began to overpower, if not obliterate the natural scenes they were meant to celebrate. The tensions over greenway versus parkway design culminated with the Richmond Parkwa y, which Moses intended to construct along a beautiful wooded ridge of the escarpment on Staten Island. In 1963, citizens mobilized to protest the construction of the highway and instead, proposed a Staten Island Greenbelt with a recreational trail, the Olmsted Tr ailway, running through the middle. The conservationists succeeded in blocking Moses s highway and the Staten Island Greenbelt remains one of the most politically s upported greenways in the United States. Four very influential landscape architect s in the early 1900s we re the two sons of Olmsted, known as the Olmsted Brothers, He nry Wright, and Charles Eliot II, the

PAGE 23

10 nephew of the first Charles Eliot. The majority of the works by these landscape architects would be considered greenways by todays standards. The Olmsted Brothers are well known for the 40-Mile Loop in Po rtland, Oregon they designed in 1903 to honor the Lewis and Clark Centennial. The 40Mile Loop now covers 140 miles and is described by Little in Greenways for America as, one of the most creative and resourceful greenway projects in the country (Little, 1990, p. 77). Henry Wright gained respect as a regionalist particularly for hi s input on the Regional Plan for the state of New York in 1926. He has also been recognized for work in community planning, which involved the design of an interconnected network of open space and greenways for Radburn, New Jersey. Charles Eliot II was th e first landscape architect for the Open Space Commission for the Governor of Massachus etts in 1928. During this time he drew up the first open space plan for the state of Massachusetts. Most of the land mapped out by Eliot II has been preserved and acts to c onnect major wetlands a nd drainage systems in the region (Fabos, 2004). Benton MacKaye was an important figure in the regional-planning movement of the 1920s. He is best known as the pioneer of the Appalachian Trail, which he proposed in a 1921 magazine article in The Journal of the American Institute of Architects MacKaye was also the cofounder (with Aldo Le opold, Robert Marsha ll, and others) of the Wilderness Society in 1936 and was an active member of the Regional Planning Association of America. MacKaye was a visionary because he saw the connection between greenways as a way to guide deve lopment as well as provide recreational opportunities to large me tropolitan populations. He combined recreat ion with the use of corridors that followed natural landforms to control urban growth, which added

PAGE 24

11 significant detail to the country belt id ea of Ebenezer. Howard MacKaye was a proponent of hiking trails provi ded in open spaces that encircled and connected urban areas (Little, 1990). MacKayes plan for the Appalachian Tr ail was an expansion of the open-way greenbelt concept, because it wa s on a regional scale rather than local scale. MacKaye did not design the Appalachian Trail to be a walk ing route; he envisioned it as the starting point for a giant dam and levee system for the entire Eastern Seaboard. The trail was originally intended to follow a wide belt of protected open land that would have lateral greenways descending eastward and connecti ng to coastal cities. Although MacKayes primary open-way concept for the Appalach ian Trail was never implemented, the two thousand mile trail from Maine to Georgia was completed. Interest in the original design for the open-way concept was reignited in th e 1970s, but the revis itation of MacKayes Appalachian Greenway never took off (Little, 1990). Influence of Ecological Planning: 1950 to 1970 The post World War II development boom can be characterized as a race between conservationists and developers to obtain tr acts of open space on the metropolitan fringe. As undeveloped parcels became increasingly scarce, many farmers, ranchers and owners of large estates on the urban fringe sold to developers, rather than passing their holdings on to the next generation. Uncontrolled growth began to take over the countryside, which lead to increasing taxes to c over the demand for new municipal services. In the spirit of conservation, people who were concerned with protecting natural areas began to apply for grants and raise funds to purchase the tracks of land on the urban fringe that were at risk of being developed. Some landowners were persuaded to donate their land as nature sanctuaries or open space. This type of conservation leads to fragmented open space,

PAGE 25

12 varying in size and shape and lacking any con tinuity. It also prompted criticism from civil rights activists, who charged that land conservation wasnt cons istent with social need and mostly benefited the well off who liv ed in estate country. Very little newly acquired conservation land was in the urban inne r city or even the older suburbs, leaving the greenways movement with few supporters (Little, 1990). In the 1960s, the ecological approach to greenway planning and design emerged in response to the disorganized conservation that was characteristic of the 1940s and 1950s. Ecological planners and landscap e architects recognized the need to protect corridors, mostly to mitigate the loss and fragment ation of natural areas (Smith and Hellmund, 1993). In the early 1960s, Philip Lewis Jr., a professor of landscape architecture at the University of Wisconsin at Madison emphasized the need to establish a statewide pattern of resource values so that im portant natural features were protected as man-made changes quickly spread over the landscape. Lewis and his colleagues took advantage of the 10 year $50 Million Resource Development and Outdoor Recreation Act to observe and inventory the Wisconsin landscape. The de tailed landscape analysis was possibly the first of its kind in the U.S. in terms of comprehensiveness and detail (Lewis, 1964). The first stage of Lewiss work was to compile data of the natural and cultural resources of Wisconsin, then map all features at the same scale. Lewis was then able to use overlay maps to evaluate natural resource s for the entire state of Wisconsin (Lewis, 1964). Drawing different data maps such as soils, vegetation, slope, and hydrology at the same scale then overlaying them creates an overlay map. The practice of drawing overlay maps can be traced back to Warre n Manning who used overlay maps in a study done for the town of Billerica, Massachusetts in 1912 (Steinitz et al., 1976). In Lewiss

PAGE 26

13 work, individual elements of the landscap e such as wetlands, vegetation, water, and topography were combined using overlays which produced a composite map. The composite maps revealed a pattern in the spatial distribution of valuable natural resources. Lewis discovered th at high concentrations of natu ral features were distributed in a linear pattern along waterways due to the elements and glacial action. These corridors were called Environm ental Corridors and are descri bed as the basic units of research for recreational planning (Lew is, 1964, p.104). The term corridor fringe areas was later coined to describe the ad jacent lands paralleling the environmental corridors. The purpose of mapping these natu ral resources and identifying a spatial pattern to their distribution was to encourage a holistic approach to environmental planning rather than piecemeal or ha phazard land conservation (Lewis, 1964). Ian McHarg has been described as th e best-known practitioner of ecological planning (Little, 1990) for his systematic appr oach to land-use planning according to the relative ecological value and sensitivity of each element of the landscape (Smith and Hellmund, 1993). McHarg was a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and published the seminal book, Design with Nature (1969). The premise of Design with Nature is that without a systematic, scientif ic approach to conserving land, we will quickly deplete the landscape of its ecological value. In the absence of any ecological planning, the normal expectation is that growth will be uncontrolled, sporadic, repr esenting short term values, with little taste or skill. Slowly nature will recede, to be replaced by growing islands of development. These will in time coales ce into a mass of low grade urban tissue, having eliminated all natural beauty, diminished rare ex cellences, both historic and modern (McHarg, 1969, p. 80). You can confirm an urban destination fr om the increased shrillness of the neon shrills, the diminished horizon, the loss of natures companions until you are alone, with me, in the heart of the city, Gods Junkyard or should it be called Bedlam,

PAGE 27

14 for cacophony lives here. It is the expre ssion of the inalienable right to create ugliness and disorder for private gr eed, the maximum expression of mans inhumanity to man (McHarg, 1969, p. 23). Yet, McHarg does not offer the country as the remedy for the indus trial city; rather he applies the ecological view to the selecti on of open space in the metropolitan area. He suggests that lands reserved for open space in the metropolitan regi on must be selected based on their unique natural processes and that they have intrinsic ecological value. McHargs basic method is to create overlay ma ps of areas that show the suitability or value of each feature. Each physiographi c feature the location of wetlands, for example, or waterways, forested valleys, or unforested plateaus is individually plotted with a transparent color on a cl ear Mylar sheet (McHarg, 1969). McHarg contributed his expertise to the Pl an for the Valleys outside of Baltimore, Maryland, a citizen lead movement to pr otect their community from becoming a no-place, somewhere, U.S.A. The Plan uses physiographic determinism which suggests that development is guided by the natural proc esses of the land. In this study, McHarg uses lighter shades to represent areas that have low ecological value and darker shades translate a higher ecological value. When the maps were overla id, the lightest areas depicted regions that were most suitable fo r urban uses, while the darkest areas had a high ecological value and were most su itable for conservation (McHarg, 1969). Great advances in ecological planning were made during the 1960s and 1970s. The key idea that emerged during these decades was that systematic analyses was essential for the study of ecological res ources and would encourage informed and responsible decision-making (Zube, 1976). The ecological planning approaches developed by Lewis and McHarg have been further developed a nd are now components of complex computer models that are used today fo r environmental decision-making.

PAGE 28

15 Economic Downturn and the Naming of the Greenways Movement: 1980 to 1990 The recession of 1982-83 greatly restricted the amount of money available for the acquisition of public land. F unding for numerous public programs was cut severely or eliminated; these included the open-space gran t program of the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Interior Departments grant-making Land and Water Conservation Fund. In the mid 1980s private money was restricted as well by tax reform laws that limited the deductibility of donate d land or money used to buy it. The GrammRudman-Hollings Act was passed in 1985 as a United States budget deficit reduction measure. This Act drastically reduced the number of open-space grants that would be granted from the federal level (Little, 1990). On January 28, 1985, Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12503, which created an advisory commission to review the st ate of Americans Outdoors and to give recommendations on the public need for out door recreation. Two years later, the Presidents Commission on Am ericans Outdoors released Americans Outdoors, a report that calls attention to the need for more re creation space. Accelerating development of our remaining open spaces, wetlands, shorelines historic sites, and countrysides, and deferred maintenance and care of our existi ng resources, are robbing future generations of their heritage which is their birthr ight (Presidents Commission on Americans Outdoors, 1987, p. 14). The Presidents Comm ission was very clear that not enough was being done to protect the remaining open spaces in the United States and even if only for the health of the American people, a consci ous and fiscal effort should be made by the government to protect Americas ecologically sensitive areas. At the beginning of the report, the Presidents Commission states th eir primary assumption, which is that the

PAGE 29

16 outdoors is a statement of the American condition (Preside nts Commission on Americans Outdoors, 1987, p. 9). A cloud of controversy hung over the Pres idents Commission from the beginning to the end, because environmentalists and c onservationists were underrepresented. There was concern that the Report would mostly stress private commercial development of outdoor resources and give littl e attention to resource protec tion. At the beginning of the report, it is stated that ther e was not complete unnaninimity and not all statements reflect the views of all members. The Chairman of the Commission was Lamar Alexander, the Governor of Tennessee and the Vice-Chairma n was Gilbert Grosvenor the President of the National Geographic Society. There we re thirteen additional members on the Committee, representing different interests in outdoor education. Many positive statements for the environment were made in the Presidents Report and a strong emphasis was placed on the importance of public participation. The published document shows a great deal of regard for the environment and an understanding of the research that had been conducted by proponents of the ecological view, such as McHarg and Lewis. We ha ve a vision for delivering outdoor recreation opportunities close to home for all Americans: a network of greenways, created by local action, linking private and public recreation areas and linear co rridors of land and water (Presidents Commission on Americans Outdoors, 1987, p. 14). The Presidents Commission called for a prairi e fire of local, community-based public participation. Charles Littles book Greenways for America (1990) was a very popular and comprehensive book that helped to rally s upport for the greenways movement. Little gives William H. Whyte credit for inventing the term, greenway in his 1959 monograph

PAGE 30

17 published by the Urban Land Institute, titled Securing Open Space for Urban America (Little, 1990). Little illustrates the power of local action in sixteen summaries of current greenways projects in the United States. This seminal book gave a name to the greenways movement and helped to motiv ate environmental planners and landscape architects around the country. Little categor ized greenways into five major types: Urban riverside greenways Recreational greenways Ecological corridors Scenic and historic routes Comprehensive greenway systems base d on the natural topography of the land Florida Greenways Program: History and Review of its Legal, Ecological and Economic Origins The Florida Greenways and Trails System has its roots in the Florida Trail Association, Florida Recreational Trails Syst em, the Florida Canoe Trail System, and the public parks, forests, refuges, wildlife ma nagement areas and water management areas created to protect Florid as natural heritage. The planning and construction of the Florid a National Scenic Trail grew out of the efforts of James Kern who, in 1966, founded the Florida Trail Association (FTA) to create hiking and backpacki ng opportunities in Florida. To advance the building of the statewide trail, the Florida Tr ail Association initiated the cr eation of the Florida National Scenic Trail (FNST) through the Florida Congressional De legation in the mid-1970s. The efforts of the Florida Trail Association volunteers attracted interest from the United States Department of the Interior. Their th ree-year study of the tr ail, completed in 1980, resulted in the enthusiastic endorsement of the Florida Trail to become one of eight

PAGE 31

18 National Scenic Trails in the United States. On March 28, 1983, the FNST was officially designated by public law 98-11 by the U.S. Congress. When Congress approved the Florida National Scenic Trail (FNST), they de signated the United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service as the administra tive agency for that trail (Florida Trail Association, 2005). The U.S. Forest Servi ce completed a comprehensive plan for the FNST in 1985 (FDEP & FGCC, 1998). The Florida Canoe Trail System, created by the Governor and Cabinet in 1970, consisted of 36 canoe trails on 949 miles of natural rivers and streams. In 1981, a managing agency was identified for each ca noe trail, which was designated by the Governor and Cabinet in accordance with the ad ministrative rule that existed at the time. The managing agencies that were identifie d included the Division of Recreation and Parks, the Game and Fresh Water Fish Comm ission, and the Division of Forestry (FDEP & FGCC, 1998). Their responsibil ities were: inspection of the en tire length of the trail, clearing to allow the passage of canoes at normal water levels, maintenance of existing canoe trail facilities, and enforcement. In 1979, the Florida Recreational Trails System was created by the Legislature. It was intended to provide the public with acce ss to and enjoyment of outdoor recreation areas; and to conserve, develop and use the states natural resources for healthful and recreational purposes (FDEP & FGCC, 1998). The Florida Recreational Trails System was influential in designating canoe trails. In 1987 the federal government deauthor ized the Cross Florida Barge Canal (CFBC), formally the Cross Florida Ship Ca nal. The Canal was a depression-era work project whose funding was discontinued in 193 6. During the building of the canal, large

PAGE 32

19 tracks of land were excavated (Thomason, 1999). The project was officially deauthorized in 1991 by the State of Florida and became known as the Cross Florida Greenways State Recreation and Conservati on Area (A Community Resource Guide for Greenway Projects, FDEP & OGT). In 1987, the Legislature amended Florida St atute 260 to allow the state to acquire abandoned railroad rights of way for conve rsion into trails (FDEP & FGCC, 1998). In 1988, the Florida Recreational Trails C ouncil was created by the Department of Natural Resources to advise the Department about issues related to the trails system, especially trail acquisition projects (FDEP & FGCC, 1998). In the 1990s, Florida greatly enhanced its ability to protect its remaining endangered and environmentally sensitive la nds. It created the Preservation 2000 program allowing the state to spend $3 billion over a ten-year peri od to acquire land (A Community Resource Guide for Greenway Projects, FDEP & OGT). Preservation 2000 was created in 1990 to es tablish annual funding for the Rails to Trails Acquisition Program and the Florida Greenways and Trails Acquisition Program. The program was expanded in 1991 to include acquisition for the National Scenic Trail (FDEP & FGCC, 1998). There were various ways to fund greenways and trails projects under the Preservation 2000 program. These sources of funding included, the Greenways and Trails Land Acquisition Program, which wa s funded by bonds issued from the sale of documentary stamps and the Florida Communiti es Trust (FTC) which was created to help local governments implement elements of th eir comprehensive plan which were related to conservation and recreation (Messersmit h, 1999a). During the 1990s, the Office of Greenways and Trails (OGT) received approximately $3.9 million per year for the

PAGE 33

20 purchase of land which met the definition of greenway or trail as defined in Section 260.13, Florida Statutes: Greenway means a linear ope n space established along ei ther a natura l corridor, such as a river front, stream valley, or ri dgeline, or over land al ong a railroad rightof-way converted to recreatio nal use, a canal, a scenic road, or other route; any natural or landscaped course for pedest rian or bicycle passage; an open space connector linking parks, nature reserves, cultur al feature, or histor ic sites with each other and populated areas; or a local strip or linear park designated as a parkway or greenbelt. Trails means linear corridors and a ny adjacent support parcels on land or water providing public access for recreation or authorized alte rnative modes of transportation (Messersmith, 1999b). In 1991, 1000 Friends of Florida and The Conservation Fund created the Florida Greenways Project, which later evolved in to the Florida Greenways Program. This initiative was designed to help create a statew ide system of greenways for the protection of natural ecosystems, wildlife and for human enjoyment (FDEP & FGCC, 1998). Under the umbrella of the Florida Greenways Proj ect, many people and organizations worked together to accomplish two primary goals, (1) determine the ecological, cultural/historic and recreational components of a statewid e greenways system and (2) identify which tools and techniques were available to impl ement a Statewide System. The four-year project was successful in rais ing support from private founda tions such as the Surdna Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. M acArthur Foundation, the Elizabeth Ordway Dunn Foundation, and the American Expre ss Foundation, as well as public funding through the Florida Department of Trans portations ISTEA Enhancement Program. One of the primary accomplishments of the Florida Greenways Project was the distribution of information about greenways. The Proj ect was influential in the development of the greenways movement in Florida by keeping the public informed

PAGE 34

21 about issues and projects re lated to greenways through a quarterly newsletter and by sponsoring workshops and roundtables related to greenways and trails planning. The Project directed a lot of it s funding towards four protot ype greenways projects: the Loxahatchee Greenways Project in north Palm Beach and south Martin counties; the Suncoast Greenways Project in Hillsborough and Polk counties; the Apalachee Greenways Project, in the six-county regi on around Tallahassee; and the Broward Urban River Trails Project in the intensely deve loped area of Ft. Lauderdale (FDEP & FGCC, 1998). The states trail designation program was transferred to the Office of Greenways and Trails (OGT) from the Division of Recreation and Parks in 1993 (FDEP & FGCC, 1998). In early 1993, Governor Lawton Chiles cr eated the 40-member Florida Greenways Commission (FGC) by Executive Order, giving the Commission a three-year period to develop a coordinated approach for prot ecting, enhancing, and managing a statewide system of greenways (FDEP & FGCC, 1998). Th e FGC began an effort to bring together public and private partners to create a stat ewide system of greenways and trails with recreational connections between urban and ru ral areas and ecologica l linkages between state and national parks, forests and other pr otected areas, and rive rs and wetland systems (FDEP & FGCC, 1998). Lt. Governor Buddy MacKaye was appointed chair of the Commission and Nathaniel Reed was the vice ch air. In late 1994, the Secretary of DEP Virginia Wetherell, was appointed second vice chair by Lt. Governor MacKaye. The Commission represented a variety of intere sts, with member affiliations including: conservation and the environment, recreati on, business and development, forestry and

PAGE 35

22 agriculture, educati on and the general public. Memb ers were also drawn from government agencies including: Floridas five Water Management Districts, a regional planning council and local governments. Mark Benedict was appointed Executive Director and also served as the Direct or of the Florida Greenways Project. An example of a public/private partnershi p that was coordinated by the FGC is the Hillsborough Greenways Task Force, which was designed to protect the resources of the Upper Hillsborough River Basin-Green Swamp Co rridor. The Task Force was initiated by the owner of the largest tract of privately owned land in the area, Hillsborough County, The Nature Conservancy and 1000 Friend s of Florida, but grew to include the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission, the Hillsborough River Interlocal Planning Board, phosphate and uti lity companies and transportation agencies (Florida Greenways Commission, 1994). When the Florida Greenways Commissi on met in September 1993, they created four working committees: Greenways Identifi cation and Mapping; Program Integration; Community Action; and Partners, Awarene ss and Involvement (Florida Greenways Commission, 1994). The Greenways Identification and Mapping Committee was charged with answering the question what is a greenway and with creating a state-wide map of existing and proposed greenway connections. This committee also developed greenway definitions and a classification system, disc overed where greenways already existed and what important connections were missing. The 12-member group was chaired by Florida Department of Transportation Secretary Ben Watts and had members from Florida Department of Transportation, Florida Depa rtment of Environmental Protection, 1000

PAGE 36

23 Friends of Florida, Universi ty of Florida Landscape Architecture Department and University of Florida Urban and Regional Pl anning Department. The formation of this Committee marked the beginning of a long pa rtnership between the Department of Environmental Protection and the University of Floridas Depart ment of Landscape Architecture and the Department of Urban and Regional Planning. The Program Integration Committee looked at how the states existing conservation and recreation programs fit into the greenways picture. Their goal was to look at both public and private greenways projects and put the pieces of the program puzzle together. The final product was a recommendation for an institutional framework to help state, regional and local greenway efforts (public and private) to work together. The committee was chaired by George Willson of the Nature Conservancy and included members from the Florida Department of Transportation, 1000 Friends of Florida and Florida Infinity, Inc. The Community Action Committee surveyed communities to find out which had greenways and what made their projects succes sful. It was chaired by Sally Thompson, a board member from the South Florida Wa ter Management Districts and included members from the Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1000 Friends of Florida and the South Florida Water Management Distri ct. Particular attention was given to the Pinellas Trail where organizers had orga nized and advisory group, acquired over $8 million in county government funds and $200,000 in private donations, and was ranked one of the top urban rail-trails nationwide. Many of the stra tegies used to promote urban recreational greenways were adapted and used to help gain public support for rural greenways.

PAGE 37

24 The Partners, Awareness and Involvement Committee identified groups and individuals interested in working on greenways projects. This committee aimed at distributing information to non-traditional groups like city-d wellers and minorities and was chaired by Margaret Spontak of the St. Johns River Water Management District and included members from the Department of Commerce, 1000 Friends of Florida and the St. Johns River Water Management Distri ct (Florida Greenw ays Commission, 1994). This Committee identified important obstacles or barriers to greenwa ys that would need to be tackled for a successful greenways program to exist in Florida. The primary obstacles to greenways at the time of the study include crime concerns, political opposition, development patterns, private prope rty rights, road projects, funding, and long-term maintenance (Flori da Greenways Commission, 1994). Then in December 1994, the Commission recommended to the Governor and Legislature that Florida create a statewide sy stem of greenways, a system that would link natural areas and open spaces, conserving nati ve landscapes and ecosystems and offering recreational opportunities acro ss the state (FDEP & FGCC, 1998). The planning of Floridas system of greenways and trails be gan in earnest in 1995 with the passage of Greenways legislation (F.S. 253.787 and 260.012) that mandated a five year implementation plan (Schaller, Norris, Hoctor, Thomas, and Carr, 2004). In 1995, Chapter 260, Florida Statutes, whic h was originally written in 1979, was amended renaming the Florida Recreational Trai ls System as the Florida Greenways and Trails System. During the 1995 session, th e Florida Legislature also created a 26 member Florida Greenways Coordinating Council (FGCC) comprised of business owners, conservationists, land owners, recreat ion, local and federal interests and state

PAGE 38

25 agency representatives and designated th e Florida Department of Environmental Protection as the states lead agency in the greenways program (FDEP & FGCC, 1998). The FGC was dissolved when the Florida Gr eenways Coordinating Council was created. The FGCC was created to promote greenways an d trails initiatives throughout the state with technical support, leadership, educa tion, advocacy, and other service-oriented efforts. In order to accomplish the initial goals of the FGCC, the Council and DEP created the Florida Greenways and Trails Seed Gran t Program. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) provided funding for the program in the amount of $60,000. Under policies adopted by the Council and DEP, gran ts of up to $5,000 were given to projects that stimulated support for greenways and trails initiatives. In orde r to meet the criteria for the grant program, an applicant had to be able to (1) match the amount requested in cash, in-kind services, or donated materials; (2 ) identify/propose a greenway with relative significance that would be affected by the proj ect; (3) assure the grantees administrative capability; (4) demonstrate the education potential of the project; and (5) demonstrate the value of the project and antic ipated economic benefits. During the first two weeks of March 1999, the Seed Grant Evaluation Committee met to review the 77 applications that were submitted. The program received applications requesting over $340,000 in funds, but only had $60,000 available to distribute. Clearly, there was a need for a greenways land acquisition program in Florida (Lippert, 1999). In the 1996 Legislative session, the Pres ervation 2000 program and the trails acquisition program was expanded to in clude greenways (FDEP & FGCC, 1998).

PAGE 39

26 In 1998, the Florida Department of Envi ronmental Protection (FDEP) and the FGCC completed their five-year implementation plan titled Connecting Floridas Communities with Greenways and Trails: The Five Year Implementation Plan for the Florida Greenways and Trails System It included a set of six maps representing the physical opportunities for an Ecological Ne twork and five Trail Networks: Hiking, OffRoad Bicycling, Equestrian, Multi-Use Trai l and Paddling. The report also contained specific recommendations, strategi es and actions to be used to set about capitalizing on the opportunities represented on the maps (Schaller, et al., 2004). At the end of 1998, Fred Ayer, the origin al Director of the Office of Greenways and Trails retired. His work began on the Canal Authority in 1987 and continued as he worked to gain support for greenways and trails in Florida. Deborah Parrish was named Director of the Office of Greenways and Trai ls shortly after Ayers retirement (DEP Welcomes New Secretary, 1999). The Office of Greenways and Trails experienced a lot of change in 1999, beginning with the appointment of David Str uhs as Secretary of the Department of Environmental Protection by Governor Jeb Bu sh on January 8, 1999. Struhs previously served as Commissioner of th e Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection from 1995 to 1999. Prior to Struhs employment at Massachusetts DEP, he served as vice-president at Canyon Group, Inc., a Los A ngeles-based management and consulting firm that specialized in the elec tric and gas utility industry. St ruhs also served as Chief of Staff to the Council on Environmental Qu ality under President George Bushs administration in 1989 (DEP Welc omes New Secretary, 1999).

PAGE 40

27 The Preservation 2000 program was drawing to a close at the end of the 1990s, which called for an evaluation of the program and a fresh look towards the future. During the Preservation 2000 program, over 1 million acres of land in Florida were acquired and protected including many greenways and trails. The program was seen as largely successful, and was superseded by an even more powerful program when the Legislature passed Senate Bill 908 in 1999, which created the Florida Forever Program. This authorized the issuance of $300 million in bonds each year over a period of ten years for the purposes of conservation, recreati on, environmental restoration, historical preservation, water resource development, and capital improvements to land and water areas. The Greenways and Trails acquisition program benefited from the new allocation of funds; OGTs portion of the funding in creased from $3.9 million to $4.5 million per year. Furthermore, the funding for DCAs Florida Communities Trust (FCT) program was expanded from $30 million annually to $72 million. No less than 5% ($3.6 million) of FCTs funding was allocated towa rd recreational trails systems. Significant legal changes were also ma de during the 1999 Legislative Session. The Legislature amended Florida Statute 260 to clarify the following issues: (1) waterways and lands could be designated as part of the Florida Greenways and Trails System; (2) all previously designated tra ils on public lands and waterways were automatically grand-fathered-in so that OGT did not need to go through the process again; (3) the Department of Environmental Protect ion was charged with the responsibility to carry out the five-year implementation plan for the Florida Greenways and Trails System which was adopted by th e Florida Greenways Coordinating Council in September 1998; and (4) the new Florida Gree nways and Trails Council was created to

PAGE 41

28 advise the Department in the execution of its powers and dutie s as stated in Chapter 260 F.S (Walker, 1999). As mentioned above, at the 1999 Legisla tive Session, the Florida Greenways and Trails Council (FGTC) was established to re place both the Florida Recreational Trails Council and the Florida Greenways Coordi nating Council (FGCC). This was a significant and controversial merger because the advisory groups for greenways and trails had not been joined before. There was fear between both advocates of recreational trails and ec ological linkages that their prior ities would take a back seat to the other interest. The new Florida Greenwa ys and Trails Council was composed of 21 members that represent all stakeholders and advise the Office of Greenways and Trails on greenway and trail related i ssues. The Council was intended to include ten government representatives, five representatives of the trail user community, fi ve representatives of the greenway user community and one member representing private landowners. The Council is expected to meet f our times a year at various locations around the state as provided in Section 112.061, Florid a Statutes (Rickman, 1999). In 1998 The Cross Florida Barge Canal was renamed in honor of the late Marjorie H. Carr an environmental activist whose opposi tion to the Cross Florida Barge Canal led to the creation of the cross Florida greenwa y. An important land management strategy was accomplished in late 1999 when the Offi ce of Greenways and Trails developed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Florida Division of Forestry to cooperatively manage the Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway. The Memorandum of Agreement was developed to balance the need for low impact recreation with the need to protect and enhance natura l resources (Mills, 1999, p. 5).

PAGE 42

29 By January 2000, all 21 members of the Fl orida Greenways and Trail Council were appointed and their duties were clearly defined to include: (1 ) Reviewing applications for acquisition funding under the Florida Greenways and Trails Program and recommending projects to be purchased; (2) Reviewing pr oposals for private and public lands to be formally designated as part of the Florid a Greenways and Trails System; (3) Making recommendations for updating and revising the implementation plan for the Florida Greenways and Trails System; and (4) Meas uring the overall success of the Florida Greenways and Trails Program. The FGTC held their first meeting in March 2000 in Tallahassee where they adopted bylaws and elected officers. Sally Thompson, who represented the Florida Water Management Di stricts, was elected Chair and Ken Bryan, who represented trail-users, was elected Vi ce Chair. Sally Thompson served on both the Florida Greenways Coordinating Council a nd the Florida Greenways Commission during the development of the greenways program and Ken Bryan previously served on the Florida Greenways Commission and was a l ong-time active member of the greenways community as the Director of the Florida fiel d office of the Rails to Trails Conservancy (Rickman, 2000). The 2000 Legislative session didnt ha ve a large impact on the Office of Greenways and Trails. Two bills were passed which affected the offices activities. The most important was the Environmental Re organization bill, which confirmed the existence of the Office of Greenways and Trai ls as a special office under the Department of Environmental Protection. The Office of Greenways and Trails was also granted the authority to administer grant programs, whic h allowed them to give out approximately $1.4 million in trail grants annually. The Fl orida Forever Glitch Bill was passed, which

PAGE 43

30 fixed glitches that were found in the previ ous years legislation. The bill was amended to allow OGT to use 10% of Florida Forever funds on capital improvements, whereas before, 100% of the funds had to be spent on acquisition (Weiss, 2000). The Florida Greenways and Trails Council held their second meeting in May 2000. The meeting was primarily used to inform Council members about the new procedures for acquisition, according to Rule 62S, Florida Administrative Code. The Council passed a resolution at the meeting th at supported Urban Transit Gr eenways as a way to connect metropolitan areas to the statewide system of greenways and trails (Pence, 2000). At the Florida Greenways and Trails C ouncils third meeting in July 2000 the Department of Environmental Protection reco mmended a process for pr ioritization of the ecological network within the vision for the st atewide greenways and trails system, which was approved by the FCTC (Schaller et al ., 2004). The Council also approved the following lands for acquisition (ranked in orde r): (1) South Brevard Trail Connector, (2) South Tampa Greenway, (3) Winder Springs Town Center, and (4) Texaco Service Station Site (FGTC Meets in Ocala, 2000). On September 30, 2000 the Office of Greenwa ys and Trails celebrated the opening of the Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway Land Bridge with over 1000 trail enthusiasts. The fourteen-month project from groundbreaking to grand opening was federally funded with transportation enhancement money. The $3.4 million project was a symbol of progress for Floridas greenways movement: it was Americas first land bridge (Berrios, 1999; Graves, 2000; Land Bridge Opens to Connect the Cross Florida Greenway, 2000-2001).

PAGE 44

31 In November 2000, the FGTC approved a process for prioritization of recreational/cultural features within the vi sion for a statewide greenways and trails system (Schaller, et al. 2004). The Univ ersity of Florida Departments of Landscape Architecture and Urban and Regional Pla nning carried out the prioritization study through a grant from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The study sought to prioritize the recrea tional and cultural features of the statewide greenways vision. The team at the University of Florida determined a Recreational Trails Opportunity Ranking Process that ranked different aspects of potential trail value. The broad categories that the study identified included: re gional significance, ecological connectivity, local connectivit y, suitability for specific users, access/proximity, interpretive potential, scenic ch aracter, management and con tinuity (Duever et.al., 2001). In June 2001, upon adoption of the prioriti zation process by th e Florida Greenways Trails Council, the Department of Environmental Protection prep ared a plan with specific recommendations for prioritizing green ways and trails for ecological and recreation/cultural significance. This plan detailed the decision making process that would be implemented in order to carry out the prioritization using spatial modeling with Geographic Information Systems (GIS). When the Florida Greenways and Trails Council met in Talla hassee in January 2002, they approved the designation of 120 st ate parks, adding 408,434 acres into the Florida Greenways and Trails System. Park s that were solely owned by the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund were designated under this agreement. The Council reviewed 20 applications for land acquisition at the meeting, where they recommended 14 projects for final approval. The four top projects were guaranteed for

PAGE 45

32 acquisition: (1) West Jacksonville Greenway C onnector, (2) White City Bridge, (3) East Central Regional Rail Trail, and (4) Heathe r Island Preserve (Fl orida Greenways and Trails Council Update, 2002). The FGTC discussed new directions fo r the Office of Greenways and Trails acquisition program at the meeting in Homo sassa Springs in April 2002. The Council agreed that the program should focus on acquiri ng critical linkages needed to complete the Statewide System of Greenways and Trails The Council also voted to designate the Suncoast Trail part of the Florida Greenways and Trails System. The Suncoast Trail traverses 44 miles through Hernando, Pa sco and Hillsborough Counties (Rickman, 2002a). The year 2002 was constructive for the Fl orida greenways movement in terms of grants awarded for greenways and trails. Th e Office of Greenways and Trails received 36 applications for recreational trails pr ogram, requesting a total of $2,984,920. By the end of the acquisition cycle, the Office of Greenways and Trails funded 22 of the 36 projects for a total of $1,970,971. A few of th e grant recipients included, Miami River Greenway, Lake Lizzie Nature Preserve in Osceola County, the Boundary Canal Trail in the City of Palm Bay and the Duval Count y Equestrian Trail (Recreational Trails Program Grant Awards, 2002). On May 15, 2002 the Florida Communities Trust (FCT) opened the first Florida Forever application cycle. Approximately $66 million was made available for grants to local governments a nd nonprofit environmenta l organizations to acquire lands for conservation, open space and outdoor recreation purposes (Florida Forever Grants, 2002).

PAGE 46

33 The Florida Greenways and Trails Founda tion, Inc., a non-profit, citizens support organization (CSO) was created under Section 20.2551, Florida Statutes in the spring of 2002. The main purpose of the Foundation was to help the Office of Greenways and Trails enhance the statewide system of green ways and trails in Fl orida. The fiscal amount allocated to the Foundation was not di sclosed, but Jena Brooks the Director of the Office of Greenways and Trails expresse d optimism for the program in stating a CSO is an invaluable asset. The Foundati on can provide additional resources and assist with special projects ( Florida Greenways and Trails Foundation, Inc., 2002, p. 7). By April 2002, the entire ecological networ k had been prioritized and the Florida Greenways and Trail Commission adopted the ten most critical linkages as identified by the study. The Office of Greenways and Trails immediately partnered with the Conservation Trust for Florida in an effort to obtain funds from the Florida Forever Program to acquire the most critical linkages (Wood, 2003). In the summer of 2002, the Office of Green ways and Trails launched the Online Florida Greenways and Trails Guide. The gui de was designed for general users to access quick trail information and view maps that id entified the locations of trails and detailed trail maps. At the Florida Greenways a nd Trails Council meeting in August 2002, the Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenwa y State Recreation and Conservation Area was designated part of the Florida Green ways and Trails System (Rickman, 2002). In 2003, significant additions were made to the National Trails Recreation System when Secretary of the Interior Gale A. No rton designated 23 new r ecreational trails, two of which were in Florida. The Fred Mar quis Pinellas Trail, in Pinellas County is considered one of the busiest trails in th e nation, was designated along with the Peghorn

PAGE 47

34 Nature Park Trails near downtown St. Cloud (Two New National Recreation Trails Designated in Florida, 2003). Another important addition was made to th e Florida Greenways and Trails System when a private owner designated land for th e Florida Greenways and Trails System for the first time in October 2003. The Plum Cr eek Timber Company designated a 17.6-mile hiking trail in Union and Baker Counties in exchange for the provision of liability coverage to Plum Creek Ti mber Company for the propert y (Private Land Designation, 2003-2004). The Office of Greenways and Trails con tinued to make headway when they took over the management role of eight of Florid as most popular State Tr ails at the end of 2003. These trails included, the Tallahassee-St Marks Historic Rail road Trail and the Lake Okeechobee Scenic Trail. This transfer of land management responsibilities from the Division of Recreation and Parks to the Office of Greenways and Trails added over 300 miles of recreational trails to the Florida Greenways a nd Trails System (OGT Takes On State Trails, 2004). In 2003, the Office of Greenways and Trails renewed their partnership with the University of Florida to update the Trail Network Opportunity Ma ps and conduct a new prioritization of the recreational trails and th e ecological network. To reach the broadest audience and optimize the efficiency of da ta collection, the Office of Greenways and Trails used a new web-based technology to update the Trail Network Opportunity Maps. This process and technology will be outlined and described in detail in the methodology section of this paper. The project was ve ry successful, allowing the submission of 223 potential new segments for the new Trail Netw ork Opportunities. The new trail network

PAGE 48

35 was discussed at three public hearings in January and February of 2004, where the public submitted an additional 302 segments for c onsideration. The Florida Greenways and Trails Council approved the new Opportunitie s at a meeting in March 2004. The new Opportunities were then prio ritized using the previous methodology and were approved by the Council in late 20 04 (Schaller et al., 2004) The greenways and trails movement in Fl orida has been very successful, growing exponentially in the last decade. The Office of Greenways and Trails has acquired large tracts of land and has ini tiated important partnerships with other state and federal agencies that have helped to expand the st atewide system of green ways and trails in Florida. The Office of Greenways and Trai ls currently has 34 full-time employees and continues to grow.

PAGE 49

36 CHAPTER 3 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Introduction This chapter begins with a discussion of how the framework for science and technology decision-making is evolving (C hopyzk and Levesque, 2004) and how the public involvement approach grew from soci al and political demand (Sarjakoski, 1998). There are three different practices for communicating with the public, (1) public information, (2) public relations, and (3) publ ic involvement. The public information process represents a one-way form of co mmunication between a decision maker and the general public about ongoing issues or de velopments. A public relations campaign differs from public information in that the emphasis is on the promotion of a particular policy or development but it still represents a one-way stream of communication. This paper deals exclusively with public involveme nt, which includes elements of both public information and public relations, but it is distinguished by dynamic two-way communication which encourages input from the public to guide the decision making process (OConnor, Schwartz, Schaad, and Boyd, 2000). Spatial Decision Support Systems (D ensham, 1991; Armstrong, 1994) and Collaborative Decision-Making (Armstrong and Densham, 1995; Coleman and Brooks, 1995; Schuler, 1994) have emerged as powerfu l models to develop customized and flexible spatial decision-making tools. Th e widespread availability of Internet connections has further enabled decisionmakers to communicate complex spatial information to a wider audience (Kangas a nd Store, 2002). The integration of GIS

PAGE 50

37 technology and the Internet has lead to th e development of Web-based GIS, which focuses on disseminating and processing geogr aphic information by means of the World Wide Web. Web-based GIS emerged in the early 1990s (Harder, 1998) and has played an important role in making GIS concepts mo re open, available, and mobile for everyone, thus facilitating the democratiz ation of spatial data (Kanga s and Store, 20 02), effective dissemination (Chen, Wang, Rishe, and Weiss, 2000), and open accessibility (Dragicevic, 2004). This chapter provides a discussion of the history of Web-based GIS and the architecture and functionality that have b een engineered to serve geographic data and services on the Internet. Various implemen tations for Web-GIS are then presented to illustrate the variety of ways that Web-GIS can be used for complex societal issues. Finally, the future of Web-based GIS is discu ssed to show its potenti al in the fields of spatial analysis and modeling, wireless and m obile services, public involvement, and 3-D data visualization and query (Dragicevic, 2004). Emergence of Public Involvement in Sc ience and Technology Decision Making The framework for science and technology decision-making in the United States is shifting from a top down, three-prong form of government, industry, and university to a participatory approach that in tegrates the public in the de cision making process. The traditional model for science and technology decision-making emerged in the United States following World War II. The United States prevailed as the leader in scientific and technological innovations from the 1940s to the 1970s. An informal social contract between science and society emerged dur ing this time, which placed research responsibilities in the hands of university based researchers and was funded by the federal government (Chopyak and Levesque, 2002).

PAGE 51

38 During the 1970s and 1980s, the United Stat es experienced incr eased competition from Europe and Japan and the research co mmunity was under fire for allegations of scientific misconduct. This threatened the insular relationship between government and universities and the realm of science a nd technology decision making opened up to include industry. Legislati on was passed to secure a pl ace for industrial activities, including the Stevenson-Wydler Technol ogy Innovation Act of 1980, the Bayh-Dole Patent and Trademark Amendments Act of 1980, and the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986. These amendments allowed for technology transfer a nd opened the door for university research to be patented fo r commercial use (Chopyak and Levesque, 2002). Greater access to educational opportunities ha s played a role in moving science and technology out of traditional inst itutions. More people in soci ety are educated at graduate and post-graduate levels and are working outside of univers ities and government research institutions. These highly skilled professi onals are working in commercial areas, public interest and non-governmental or ganizations. The movement of experts out of typical research institutions and the greater number of educated individuals has lead to a more informed citizenry, which calls for great er accountability in science and technology decision-making. Scientists are no longer truste d to work in the interest of the public good due to the nature of thei r profession. This has prompted government leaders and policy makers to find ways to effectively co mmunicate scientific a nd technological issues and to incorporate the pub lic in the decision making pr ocess (Chopyak and Levesque, 2002). The idea of involving the public in deci sion-making is not new. There was substantial interest in pub lic involvement practices in the 1970s and 1980s, which arose

PAGE 52

39 out of a heightened climate of activism. Over the last three decades, new methodologies for including the public have been develope d and refined (Chopyak and Levesque, 2002). Many researchers have argued that the value of public involvement has increased since the Equal Opportunity Act of 1964 due to the m aximum feasible par ticipation clause. But, there has been considerable debate over whether the eff ectiveness of public involvement has been measured effectively to make such claims (King, Feltey, and Susel, 1998; Carver, 2001; Rosener, 1978). In Citizen Participation: Can We Measure Its Effectiveness Rosener argues that a standardized evaluation research methodology must be established to make it possible to anal yze the effectiveness of public involvement programs. Rosener contends that when we ask the questions who, where, what, how and when, the seemingly simple concept, public i nvolvement, turns out to be rather complex (Rosener, 1978). Public Involvement Techniques before the Information Age Various approaches to public involveme nt in the decision making process were proposed by Burke, in A Participatory Approach to Urban Planning The 1979 Burke publication was among the first literature to deal with the growing pressure to decentralize the decision making process. Acco rding to Burke, there are five roles that the public can play in the decision making pro cess: review and comment, consult, advise, share decision-making and control decision-ma king. Burke also addresses the unique characteristics of power in communities, st ating that planners must assess the power dynamics of a community to appropria tely serve their needs (Burke, 1979). Many techniques for public involvement we re implemented in the early 1980s, including public opinion po lls and other surveys, refe renda, the ballot box, public hearings, advocacy planning, letters to editor s or public officials, representations of

PAGE 53

40 pressure groups, protests and demonstrations court actions, public meetings, workshops or seminars, and task forces (Sarjakoski, 1998). Among the problems encountered with these techniques were low partic ipant numbers, tight schedules, scarcity of resources, the existing conflicts, management of the feedback received and the possibility that the views of the participants did not re flect the opinions of the genera l public (Kangas and Store, 2002). Public involvement was given greater importance with the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficien cy Act of 1991 (ISTEA), which federally mandated early, proactive public involvement with sustained citizen input into the decision making process, particularly for tr ansportation projects. ISTEAs message was reiterated by the passage of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). ISTEA and TEA-21 evolved from the growing tr end in American politics over the last 30 years: the general transfer of power from the federal gove rnment to state and local governments and the emergence of the general public as a key player in the decision making process about issues affecting their communities (OConnor, et al., 2000). Major conflicts arose in the early days of public involvement, particularly in transportation planning, because the public wasnt involved during the early stages of the decision making process, and th at resulted in project delays lawsuits, and public outcry about the lack of public input. But, th e succeeding trend, to thoroughly involve the public in the decision making process, began to overload the publics ability to respond. Decision and policy makers have relied heavily on public meetings to involve the public, but it has been shown that the concentration of resources on public meetings has lead to the overweighting of the voices of activists who attend and a misrep resentation of the

PAGE 54

41 community voice. As articulated by the Committee on Public Involvement in Transportation in State of the Practice: White Paper on Public Involvement, decision makers must be prompted to look to new t echnologies to more effectively involve the public in the decision making process: Improved techniques must be devel oped to respond to stakeholder time constraints, provide information to help people accurately asse ss the importance of their issues to their quality of life, a nd attract and communicate effectively with a broader audience (OConnor, et al., 2000). The Commission specifically points to we b-based methods to improve communication with the public. In an age of sound bites and limited attention span, public involvement practitioners must develop ways to capture and maintain public attention and convey complex information, as well as re ceive complex feedback. In particular, the Internet and new multimedia programs present promising options to communicate complex information effectively and widely (OConnor, et al., 2000). Geographic Information Systems and Public Involvement A geographic information system (GIS) is a system for management, analysis, and display of geographic knowledge, which is repres ented using a series of information sets. These information sets include, maps and globes, geographic datasets, processing and work flow models, data models, and metada ta (ESRI, 2005). GIS supports planning and the public participation proce ss with planning support systems. Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) can be defined as incr eased public involvement in th e definition and analysis of questions tied to location (Banger, 2001). Th e use of GIS as a part icipatory tool raises critical technical, social, and theoretical i ssues that interest both researchers and practitioners who are concerned with the social consequences of its use. The first PPGIS conference was held in 2002 at Rutgers Univers ity to discuss the issues of intersecting

PAGE 55

42 community interests and GIS technology (URISA 2005). This conference was a notable landmark in the research and development of GIS technologies fo r public involvement. There are conflicting theories regarding the effectivene ss of public involvement through the use of geographical information syst ems. Carver asserts that the heightened attention to public involvement through geogr aphical information is a waste of time, based on the false assumption that the general public want to be more closely involved in decision-making, and that those in posi tions of decision-mak ing power actually value and therefore would like public input (Carver, 2001, p 1). Ineffective methods of participation are the key barrier to effectiv e, two-way channels of communication with the public, with public meetings topping the lis t as the least effective (King, Feltey, and Susel, 1998; Carver, 2001; Kangas and Store, 20 02). They are considered ineffective for a number of reasons, that include, meeting scheduling too late in the decision making process (King, et al., 1998), m eeting participation by only the most vocal members of the community and meeting times that are often inconvenient for the ge neral public (Carver, 2001). Spatial Decision Support Systems In an attempt to integrate the public at an earlier stage of the decision-making process, new frameworks for interactive, two-way communication are being developed. Due to the complex nature of spatial decision-making, problems require numerous, conflicting objectives be met to find solutions There are a variety of techniques that have been developed to assist decision makers with complex issues, but they require that the problem statement and objectives be well ar ticulated and well structured. Often, this is not the case and decision makers do not star t the process with clea rly defined goals and objectives, which hinders their ability to articulate the issu es to the public (Densham,

PAGE 56

43 1991; Armstrong, 1994). For these reasons, Dens ham suggests that GIS is not always adequate to answer complex spatial questions. He asserts that, to assist decision makers with complex spatial problems, geoprocessi ng systems must support a decision research process, rather than a more narrowly de fined decision making pr ocess, by providing the decision maker with a flexible problem solving environment (Densham, 1991, p. 403). Due to shortcomings of GIS, Spatial Deci sion Support Systems (SDSS) are proposed to offer a more customized and flexible decisi on-making tool. Two benefits of SDSS, as described by Densham are (1) exploratory to ols empower the decision maker to further refine their level of understanding and defin ition of the problem, a nd (2) the ability to generate alternative scenario s enables the decisionmaker to weigh the possible tradeoffs of different objectives and fores ee unanticipated and possibly unacceptable characteristics of solutions (Densham, 1991). The framework for SDSS is modeled af ter Decision Support Systems (DSS), which are primarily for business appli cations. The six distinguishi ng characteristics of a DSS, as defined by Densham citing Geoffrion, They are designed to solve problems th at the decision maker cannot clearly structure or define. They have a user interface that is easy to use and powerful at the same time. The system provides a flexible framework for the user to combine analytical models and data. The design allows users to e xplore possible alternatives. They are easily adapted to provide new f unctionalities as the needs of the user arise. The systems allow problems to be solved interactively.

PAGE 57

44 Each of these six principles also describes SDSS, but a few additional functions that must be integrated: They provide a framework for the input of spatial data. They allow accurate representation of comple x spatial relations that occur in spatial data. Analytical tools specifica lly designed for spatial a nd geographic analysis are included. They provide for output in a variety of forms such as maps and shapefiles. SDSS were an exciting new framework to e nhance spatial decision making in the early 1990s, but they came with intrinsic shortcom ings because it was difficult to reach a broad audience (Densham, 1991). Collaborative Spatial Decision Making Collaborative Spatial Decision Making (C SDM) was designed to overcome the limitations of a single user GIS. CSDM has enabled the collaborative production of digital maps and digital data (Coleman and Brooks, 1995) and has provided a mechanism for a bottom-up approach to planning that reco gnizes the needs of a ffected people in local communities. CSDM has been widely used in conservation planning and ecological problem solving ( Proctor, 1995) because it enables compromise and consensus building (Bennett, 1995). The benef its provided by CSDM includ e, simultaneous viewing and manipulation of the same file by two or more users in different locations, streamlining data submission (Coleman and Brooks, 1995) an d consideration of a greater number and diversity of opinions during the formation of public policies (Armstrong and Densham, 1995). In Community Networks: Building a New Participatory Medium, Schuler describes how web-based computer applications can be used to address community needs by fostering a sense of community cohesi on, by providing timely information to an

PAGE 58

45 informed citizenry, and by promoting and s upporting participatory democratic activities (Schuler, 1994). There are many emerging collaborative GI S-based tools that can be used by different members in the community during the decision making process, but there are concerns with making GIS available to a wi der audience. The drawbacks include: the limitations of GIS data including lack of sp atial resolution and currency of data, the limited availability of high performance comput ers, the difficulty in using computers, and the case of creating maps that distort the facts (Armstrong and Densham, 1995). Web-Based Geographic Information Systems Generally speaking, Web-based GIS fo cuses on disseminating and processing geographic information by means of Internet and World Wide Web. The Internet is a network that enables dynamic two-way communi cation between two or more parties that are not constrained by geogra phic location (Cartwright, 1998). GIS combined with the Internet has proved to be an effective medium for involvi ng the public in the decisionmaking process about spatial issues. Ho wever, Web-based GIS is not a single technology, it is, in fact, comprised of a number of components including, Object-Oriented Language, GIS software and programming language, HTML, Java, Common Gateways Interface (CGI), and theories about PPGIS. There are currently five different types of web-based GIS applications: Map Generators Spatial Database and Libraries Graphic snapshots of pre-generated images Real-time Maps and Images Real-time Browsers (Banger, 2001)

PAGE 59

46 These Web-based applications have been widely used in the GIS community to facilitate greater involvement in the decision making process. History of Web-Based GIS In 1993, the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) publis hed the first Web page with an interactive map as an experiment in interactiv e information retrieval. At this time, there were no inte rnet specific programming langua ges such as Java; the page was purely HTML with links that allowed th e user to zoom, pan, and identify (Harder, 1998). In 1994, the first distributed library service for spatially referenced data was established by The Alexandria Digital Li brary Project, funded by the US National Science Foundation (Dragicevic 2004). In 1995, Batty was among the first to envision the possibilities of Internet technology to facilitate city planning in his landmark publication, The Computable City (Batty, 1995; Sarjakoski, 1 998). Over the last ten years, GIS technology and the Internet have be en integrated to produce an expanding area of research, which is referred to as Intern et GIS, Web-based GIS, On-line GIS, and Internet distributed GIServic es. The earliest implementatio ns of this technology were mostly static maps, and then, interact ive maps with pan, zoom, and identify functionalities. Web-based GI S has facilitated the open use of GIS in three ways, (1) spatial data access and dissemination, (2) spa tial data exploration and visualization, and (3) spatial data processing, analys is and modeling (Dragicevic, 2004). The most popular types of early web-mapping applications were location services, routing and direction services electronic atlases, and pubic notification utilities. The Service Corp of Retired Executives (SCORE) contracted Geographic Services Corp to develop one of the first locational on-line ma p services. The onlin e application, Chapter Locator, allowed the user to t ype an address or a street in tersection into a simple form

PAGE 60

47 and a map of the closest Score Chapter w ould pop-up. Among the first routing and directional services, Zip2 offered point-topoint routing for any location in the United States. Public access websites were also popul ar in the early days of Web-based GIS. The government of Cabarrus County launched a website called, e-gov, that allowed tax payers to communicate with elected local officials and tax funded agencies via an interactive map in 1996 (Harder, 1998). Framework and Architecture of Web-Based GIS The two primary components of Web-based GIS are the server and the client. The server/client system is comprised of tw o programs that communicate over a network using an established communication language ca lled a protocol. The network can either be the Internet or a secure closed network equivalent called an intranet. The common protocol for communication is Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP). The client program is typically a web-browser, with the most popular commercial products being Internet Explorer, Netscape Navigator, or Mo zilla Foxfire. When the user types a Web address, called a Uniform Resource Locator (U RL), into the web-br owser, a request is sent to the server computer. At this point, the server lo ads a file from its disk and transmits it over the Internet to the client web-browser (Harder, 1998). The server is comprised of many technologies working togeth er to provide information and services. The components include a database that st ores the raw data, th e Web-server, which handles requests sent by the client browse r, and middleware, which can be employed with a number of different technologies, but th e basic task is to pe rform the job sent by the Web-server (ESRI, 2001).

PAGE 61

48 Developments in the Field Development languages for an interactiv e Web-based GIS have enabled complex Web-based applications to be deploye d. Common Gateway Interface (CGI) was developed by the CERN research center in 1992 and Java was developed by the Sun Corporation in 1995. Both languages can accep t user input in the form of HTML document components, which enables the server to store user preferences, and allows the user to update the database. However, th e two programs have different methods of processing data. CGI has less in teractivity than Java, but can be executed much faster. Java has greater flexibility than CGI, but due to the slow processing time, applications with a large amount of information often use CGI to deploy an inte ractive web-based GIS (Chen, Hong, and Jeng, 1999). The following ca se studies exemplify the multitude of ways that Web-based GIS applications have been developed and implemented. In Evolution of a Participatory GIS, researchers from Germany describe how they integrated two software tools that were or iginally developed independently to create a web-based GIS that facilitated both visual data analysis and decision support tools for selection, prioritization, and in tegration of spatial data. The first tool, CommonGIS, was based on Java technology and could be used on a stand-alone Persona l Computer (PC) or on the Internet using Java a pplets or plug-ins. CommonGI S provided a combination of GIS technology and tools for visual data analysis and decision-making. The Java application, Dito, was developed for knowledge transfer through text based discussions. Dito was basically an on-line fo rum that users could contribute to via the web or e-mail. The two applications were combined to produ ce an on-line map viewer that allowed users to add annotated text about the map. The annotated text that users added was then integrated into the decision-making process. The research showed that complex spatial

PAGE 62

49 problems could be solved using on-line media to involve multiple stakeholders (Voss, Denisovich, Gatalsky, Gavouchidid, Klotz, Roeder, and Voss, 2004). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Water used a different approach when they moved from a static website to a web-based GIS to enhance access to water quality data. Previously, the EP A had a static website displaying Avenuegenerated jpeg images that were created fo r each state, with a separate jpeg image generated for each water bodys designated use and the data was distributed on CD-ROM every time it was updated. The EPA quickly ou tgrew the static application, with issues such as maintenance, frequent updates and inad equate detail due to the size of the jpeg images. When the EPA decided to implement a web-based GIS approach, they chose to create the applicati on using MapObjects 1.2, MapObjects Internet Map Server (IMS) 2.0, Visual Basic 5.0, and SQL Server 7.0. The robust application offered an on-line map viewer and the ability to dow nload the data in shapefile format for further review. Benefits of the web-based GIS included, a more user-friendly way to view the data, enhanced currency of the data, elimination of CD-ROM distribution, and users can query the database and zoom to an extent that is appropriate for their i ndividual needs (Miller and Ilieve, 2005). In Britain, a group of researchers explored the ways that users of a web-based decision support system responded to spatial da ta for the site selection of nuclear waste disposal The Web-based GIS allowed a group of st akeholders to designate a potential location for radioactive waste disposal and use spatial an alysis tools to assess the suitability of the site. A detailed user profile was collected to determine how the participants responded to the inclusion of sp atial data, whether their decision reflected a

PAGE 63

50 sound understanding of the spatial data, if the spatial data inflicte d a bias, and how the participants responded to the opportunity to pa rticipate in the decision making process. The user profile was also used to address the Not In My Back Yard (NIMBY) issue, to determine whether the inclusion of spatial data lead the participants to propose sites away from areas where they live. The study found that although the particip ants misinterpreted the system to a minor degree, their outlook on the issue was direc tly influenced by the spatial component of the data. The participan ts responded positively to their inclusion in the decision making process, made rational proposals for potential nuclear waste sites based on the data and analysis, and did not ex ibit the use of NIMBY principles to make their decision. The study ultimately showed that when spatial decision support systems provide an avenue for stakeholders to l earn about issues and experiment with the consequences of their choices, the tend to ma ke informed and realistic choices (Evans, Kingston, and Carver, 2004). Chen, Wang, Rishe, and Weiss discuss the development of a high-performance system architecture to provide Web-based GI S access to the genera l public. The highperformance application, TerraFly, was desi gned with a specific emphasis on system architecture, data structures, and networ king to improve the functionality and the response time for users with litt le knowledge of spatial data TerraFly allows users to explore spatial data and perf orm advanced semantic queries, such as Find all schools within 20 miles. The resear chers developed a model to op timize server CPU and other resources called, Internally Distributed Multithreading Model (IDMT), which compartmentalized and distributed each query based on the type of query being executed. Queries were divided into two types, range queries and neares t neighbor queries. A range

PAGE 64

51 query was used to find spatial objects in a specific area around a location determined by the user, for example, find all rental car companies around Miami International Airport within six miles. A nearest neighbor query wa s used to find the nearest spatial object to the location specified by the user, such as, f ind the nearest rental car company. Once the user sent a query via th e client, the middleware on the server would parse the query based on query type and return a response. This framework was achieved through a distributed model, which incl uded, the Java client, a databa se server, a proxy server, an information server, and a framework for sema ntic queries. This project provides an example of the architecture that can be depl oyed in order to offer web-based GIS to a large audience that has littl e to no knowledge of GIS (Chen, Wang, Rishe, and Weiss, 2000). Web-based GIS has been helpful in tran sportation decision-making as well, which has been exemplified by a pilot project for the Florida Department of Transportation, called Efficient Transportation Decision Maki ng (ETDM). The project was spearheaded as a result of the Streamling provisions in TEA-21 that mandates early NEPA reviews and approvals, timely decision-making without compromise of environmental quality, public involvement, and meaningful dispute resolution. ETDM implements a web-based tool, called the Environmental Screening T ool (EST), which is used for planning transportation projects, conducting environm ental reviews, and developing permitting projects. The EST integrates geographic data from multiple sources into one standard format and provides timely and standardized an alyses of the effects of the proposed road projects on natural a nd cultural resources. The primary GIS functions of the EST are, data entry, GIS analyses, project review, and summary report (URS, 2000). The project

PAGE 65

52 started in 2000 and has been highly effective and flexible as users articulate the functionality that is needed. Future of Web-Based GIS Web-based GIS has enhanced the potential for research in the fields of spatial analysis and modeling, wireless and mobile services, disa ster response and 3D data access and query. Future implementations of Web-based GIS will have the greatest impact on three main groups, the GIS industr y, environmental resear ch, and the public. The following section will detail how each of these groups in the GIS community will be impacted (Peng and Tsou, 2003). Geographic Information Systems industry The further development of Web-based GI S will have three major impacts on the GIS industry. First, the adop tion of dynamic, distributed GI S services will enable the reusability of GIS software and data. The current heterogeneous software and database engines have not been successful facilita ting data sharing or mitigating impacts of software incompatibility. Future technologi cal innovations that support software sharing and reusability will generate higher producti vity, increased efficiency in software development, and provide a model for so ftware prototyping when developing a new system or technology. Second, the GIS indus try will have more flexibility when migrating to new GIS technol ogies. Using an incremental approach, small components of GIS architecture, such as the database, user interfaces, and core GIS programs can be migrated to adopt new te chnologies. Finally, as We b-based GIS becomes more widespread, the current monopolized GIS envi ronment will gradually shift to an open, competitive environment. Whereas traditional marketing of GIS technology has always targeted GIS professionals, consulting comp anies, academic institutions, and government

PAGE 66

53 agencies, future marketing of GIS technology w ill be directed toward the public and end users. This transition coul d lead to a stronger commun ity of small GIS software companies and program developers. GIS users will have greater flexibility in their choices of GIS platforms as the market opens, due to a more competitive marketplace (Peng and Tsou, 2003). Environmental research Web-based GIS provides many opportunities for data sharing. While most people involved in environmental research are prim arily interested in complex analyses to further explore data, they are undoubtedly goin g to spend a great deal of time collecting and processing spatial data. Traditionally, the most expensive part of GIS implementation is data input and conversion. Most environmental research requires the integration of numerous datasets, which necessi tate costly generation procedures such as, digitization, re-projec tion, classification, and image sca nning. Web-based GIS provides a framework for data sharing which would reduc e the amount of time and resources needed to generate and standardize spatial data (Peng and Tsou, 2003). The public As Evans, Kingston, and Carver presented in their research on the use of web-based GIS for site selection of a nuclear waste disposal locati on, the general public tends to make rational and well-informed decisions when presented with spatial data and analysis tools. This presents potential opportunities for using web-based GIS to involve members of the general public in the decision-making pr ocess. It would seem that to have the input of a broad and interested (but not self interested) group of people into the decision making process is to the benefit of all res ponsible for managing the publics environment and risks, and would enhance public intere st in the democratic and decision-making

PAGE 67

54 process (Evans, Kingston, and Carver, 2004). But there are also negative impacts that might result if Web-based GIS becomes more ubiquitous in society. Both the positive and negative impacts on the public will be further detailed in this section. There are two main aspects of daily life that would be greatly enhanced with the implementation of Web-based GIS for public services. As Peng and Tsou describe in Internet GIS Web-based GIS could be integrated into society in a very transparent way. For example, there could be a display board at every bus stop with detailed information such as, when the next bus is coming, if it wi ll be delayed, and the real-time location of the bus. Another very importa nt contribution that Web-base d GIS could bring to daily life is real-time services for emergency ma nagement. Real-time natural hazard reports and evacuation/rescue plans could be relayed to the public for a more convenient and safe way of life (Peng and Tsou, 2003). A major problem with implementing Webbased GIS for public services is the inequality of access to technological services such as the personal computer and Internet access. This has been described as the Digit al Divide, which according to the National Telecommunications and Information Admi nistration (NTIA), is one of Americas leading economic and civil rights issues. NTIA released a report in 1999, stating that the Digital Divide was widening over time, predominately among Black, Hispanic, and female-headed households in the inner city a nd rural areas (NTIA, 1999). As Web-based GIS becomes more integrated into the social fabric, governments will need to make an effort to provide facilities for the public to access this information at schools, libraries, and community centers (Peng and Tsou, 2003).

PAGE 68

55 After the four hurricanes that hit Flor ida in the summer of 2004, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) asked The URS Corporation and the GeoPlan Center at the University of Florida to adapt the ETDM-EST model mentioned above, to provide spatial decision suppor t to emergency response pers onnel investigating potential facility location, such as staging areas, te mporary and permanent housing, and any other site-selection needs. The model, which was easily adapted within weeks, provided detailed, dynamic maps with buffers around the paths of all four hurricanes and an analysis of potential impact s. The Web-based GIS provided detailed imagery and access to hundreds of statewide data layers from th e Florida Geographic Data Library (FGDL). This application exemplifies the three ways that Web-based GIS will change the way the GIS community operates: a pre-existing Webbased GIS application was proven to be reusable and easily adaptable, the level of research and access to hundreds of datasets and detailed analyses enhanced FEMAs em ergency response, and response times for hurricane relief efforts were reduced.

PAGE 69

56 CHAPTER 4 A WEB-BASED APPLICATION FOR PA RTICIPATORY GREENWAYS PLANNING Introduction A Web-based application for participator y greenways planning was developed and implemented at the GeoPlan Center at the Univer sity of Florida as part of a contract with the Office of Greenways and Trails (OGT). Its purpose was to allow as many people as possible to participate in the update of the Recreational Trail Network for the State of Florida. The utility was developed during th e summer of 2003 and tested by OGT staff. The web-based tool was desi gned to allow representative s of non-profit organizations, government agencies and the general public to log onto a website, review relevant geographic data and input their suggestions fo r additions and deletions to the previous opportunities maps. The application integrat ed geographic information systems (GIS), relational database management systems a nd Internet mapping technology to provide online tools for submitting potential recreational co rridors in Florida (Schaller, et al., 2004). Prior to the development of the Web-base d application, the opportunity maps were created and maintained using paper maps. These maps were hand edited at public meetings around the State and the database wa s later updated by freehand digitization. The goals of the application were to impr ove the efficiency of the update process by reducing transcription errors, allow more individuals in va rious geographic locations to participate in the process, and standardize the data that was submitted. Real decisionmaking power was not granted to the particip ants, but they were encouraged to submit their suggestions for consideration.

PAGE 70

57 Objectives The specific objectives of the project were to: Develop a Web-based utility that allows any Internet user with access to a Web browser to acquaint him/herself with the planning area and to support data input. Provide relevant geographic data at various extents. Set up a utility for OGT personnel to appr ove potential users of the application. Collect all user information in a database. Customize the ArcIMS interface to allow users to automatically zoom to the geographic region of their interest. Customize the ArcIMS application to allow users to submit spatial and attribute data on potential new trail corridors in Florida. Provide an on-line utility fo r users to upload shapefiles in -lieu of using the digitize tool. System Architecture To meet the objectives listed above, th e system was designed using an Oracle database, Apache Web server, J2SDK JavaVM, Jakarta-Tomcat servlet engine, and ArcIMS internet mapping software on a Linux Redhat platform. These components provided the foundation for a working ArcIMS site. The database server stored and served the data using an Oracle relational database management system (RDBMS) and ArcSDE software. An Oracle database is comprised of an instance and a collection of files stored on disk. The Oracle instance is made up of processes and memory structures ArcSDE is an Oracle client, designed to work with server processes. ArcSDE is used to acce ss large multiuser geographic databases stored in a RDBMS. Each ArcSDE service listens for requests from the user application and cleans up disconnected user processes. ArcIMS is a client applicati on of ArcSDE, and is assigned a process when it connects to Ar cSDE. All query and edit requests are submitted to the Oracle database by ArcSDE.

PAGE 71

58 Figure 4-1. System Architecture The Web server handles requests sent fr om users with an Internet Explorer browser. The Web server forwards the reque sts to ArcIMS and sends a response back to the requesting client. JavaVM provides th e basic application programming interface (API) for ArcIMS. The servlet engine is an extension to the JavaVM and provides support for the servlets through a servlet API. The servlet engine plugs into the Apache Web server and provides the link between the JavaVM and the Web server. ArcIMS uses multiple components in conjunction with the system architecture to serve maps, which includes the Application Servlet Connector, the Application Server, and the Spatial Server (Figure 4-1). A single request is ma de to ArcIMS by the client browser every time an image is requested. Fo r example, when the user zooms to a new extent, pans to a different ar ea, or selects attributes in a map, a new request is made. Each time the user sends a request, it is fi rst handled by the Web server, passed through ArcIMS Spatial Server ArcIMS Application Server ArcIMS Servlet Connector Jakarta-Tomcat Servlet Engine Apache Web Server Client Side Server Side Internet Explorer Client Browser Oracle/ ArcSDE Database

PAGE 72

59 the ArcIMS Servlet Connector, and then forw arded to the ArcIMS Application Server. The Application Server then dispatches the request to the ArcIMS Spatial Server for processing. Trail Network Update Utility The Trail Network Update Utility is an ArcIMS application designed to provide access to geographic data pertinent to greenwa ys planning and a tool to submit spatial and attribute data on potential new recreationa l trail corridors to a broad audience with little knowledge of GIS. Many components of the Trail Network Update Utility were built upon tools previously developed by the GeoPlan Center and the URS Corporation for the Environmental Screening Tool (EST) for FDOTs Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) model. Data After a series of conversations with OGT staff and the project leader, Margaret Carr, a list of necessary data was compiled fo r the project (Figure 4-2). This included: Existing Recreation Trails, Ex isting Trail Network Opportun ities, Brownfield Areas, Superfund Hazardous Waste Sites, Points of Inte rest, Roads, City Limits, Military Lands, Water Bodies, Existing and Proposed Conser vation Lands, and Digital Ortho Quarter Quads. The data were first loaded into an ArcSDE database. Th e ArcSDE database was chosen because it allows hundred s of ArcGIS users to be co nnected to a single database through an ArcIMS server to acces s spatial and attribute data. The contents and graphic presentation of the dynamic map were defined using Arc Extensible Markup Language (XML), which creates an ArcXML (AXL) file. The AXL file points to the location of the networked data, defines map properties, and lists the layers to draw with specific rendering prope rties (Figure 4-3). In this example, the

PAGE 73

60 ENVELOPE property tag indicates that the ma p will open at a specified extent based on x and y coordinates and the MAPUNITS propert y tag indicates that the map units are in meters. The SDEWORKSPACE tag points to th e location of the database. Each LAYER tag in the AXL file represents one featur e class with detailed rendering properties. Figure 4-2. Datalayers in Application Figure 4-3. XML Code for Dynamic Map Display Since the map is dynamic and we want it to have an appropriate amount of detail at any scale, each layer is assigne d scale factors. The next ex ample shows two scale factors, (1:70000 and 1:2000000) for one layer, which indi cates that the layer will be visible between a scale of 1:70000 and 1:2000000 (Figure 4-4). H y dric Soils Militar y Lands

PAGE 74

61 Data were organized into folders in the Ta ble of Contents to provide a logical and systematic way for users to find the data. Th e folders in the Table of Contents include: Sites, Historical Resources, Political, Tr ail Recommendations, Off-Road Biking Trails, Equestrian Trails, Hiking Trails, Multi-Use Trails, Pa ddling Trails, Transportation, Imagery, Natural Resources, and Landuse. Many datalayers were not visible by default, but where available if the user chose to make them visible and to use them for reference. Figure 4-4. XML Code for Layer Scale Factors Access The Utility was initially available to repr esentatives of governmental agencies and non-governmental organizations in Florida. All potential participants received notification of the project and were advised to visit the Office of Greenways and Trails website to obtain a username and password to have access to the Ar cIMS application. A username and password was required for this project because users were able to write directly to the database when digitizing new trails; therefor e detailed information about the users was pertinent. When the user requested access to the Tra il Opportunity Maps, they were asked to fill out an on-line form (Figure 4-6) with th eir user information such as, name, address, phone number, e-mail, and organization. If the user chose Other, they were prompted to enter the name of their organization. The entry would update the database and the

PAGE 75

62 organization name would appear in the dropdown menu. All users were assigned a unique username and password that was stor ed in an Oracle lookup table (Figure 4-7). Figure 4-5. Interface to Ob tain Username and Password Figure 4-6. Form to Collect User Information Figure 4-7. Record in Oracle Lookup Table with User Information

PAGE 76

63 When the user filled out the form with their information, an e-mail was automatically sent to the Office of Greenways and Trails using an Oracle Trigger. A Trigger is a block of code th at adds functionality to a de fault application, using one or more SQL statements. When the User Information form was submitted, an event occurred which executed the code in a trigger, thus firing the tr igger. The purpose of the trigger was to send an e-mail to OGT st aff with the User Information, so that a username and password could be granted. It mu st be noted that, duri ng the course of the submission process, no request for access was denied. Figure 4-8. Oracle Trigger to Assign Username and Password The user typically received their username and password by the end of the business day, and was guaranteed to receiv e it within twenty-f our hours. At this point, they were able to log-on to the ArcIMS website in or der to view GIS data and digitize potential recreational trail corridors.

PAGE 77

64 Figure 4-9. Interface to Logon to ArcIMS Site Interface Customization The ArcIMS interface was customized using JSP, JAVA, and HTML to give users functionality that wasnt available out-of-the-box. A series of drop down menus were designe d from needs expressed by OGT staff. The drop down menus allowed users to zoom to a Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) district, a county-wide extent or to the jurisdicti onal boundary of their organization. The minimum and maximum x y coordinates for each geographic region were stored in an Oracle lookup table and usi ng an SQL statement, the user was able to zoom to the respective coordinates. Using an SQL statement, the utility checked to see which organizations had obtained a username and passwor d. The organizations, which were using the application, were the only names that showed up in the ORGANIZATION drop down menu. This Office of Greenways and Trails also used this utility to check which organizations were participating in the update process. The last customized drop down menu allowed users

PAGE 78

65 to toggle between maps of datasets relevant to multi-use trails, pa ddling trails and hiking trails (Figure 4-10). Many tools for viewing and analyzing spat ial data were available to the user, including Print Map, Pan, Zoom In, Zoom Out, Zoom to Previous Extent, Show Imagery, View Metadata, Identify, Query, Buffer, Select Measure, Set Units, and Clear Selection. These tools allowed the user to navigate in the map and pe rform detailed queries as well as analysis on the data. Figure 4-10. ArcIMS Interface After the user viewed all relevant data and got familiar with their area, they clicked Digitize New Trail, which opened a new ArcIMS site at the same extent that the user was zoomed to in the viewer. Submission Once the user clicked Digitize New Trail, they were prompted to enter attribute information about their proposed trail corrido r (Figure 4-11). The attribute information

PAGE 79

66 and spatial coordinates were stored in multiple tables in an Oracle relational database. Once the form was submitted, the user was ab le to digitize a new trail, with aerial photography in the background to assure accuracy (Figure 4-12) The attribute data and the spatial coordinates were comb ined on the fly so that the us er and all other participants could see the new trail immediately. This helped prevent the s ubmission of identical trails. In September and October 2003, two training workshops were held in Tampa and Ft. Myers. At each workshop participants we re introduced to the web-based application and given assistance submitting trails. Some participants used this time to submit potential trail corridors, while others logged on to the site at a later date to use the webbased application. Techni cal support was provided throughout the course of the submission process. During the course of the web-based applic ation, 90 people acquired a username and password for access to the website and 24 i ndividuals submitted a total of 223 trail segments for consideration. If the user already had data in GIS format we provided a utility for the submission of digital data. The user was asked to provide attribute data using the same project form as the digitize tool, to provide uniformity of data. Then, the user would send the spatial data in GIS format. The spatial information wa s then joined with the attribute data that the user previously entered. Eleven sets of digital data uploads were submitted totaling approximately 500 segments (for example a county recreation department submitted its entire set of local trails already in GIS format).

PAGE 80

67 In early November 2003 staff from OGT a nd GeoPlan met to review the suggested additions and deletions to the multi-use and paddling opportunity maps and to prepare draft updates to be taken to the FGTC for re view and approval. The FGTC meeting was held on November 21, 2003 and the drafts we re accepted as final by the FGTC with only slight modification. Figure 4-11. Project Information Form Then the draft updates were posted on the website and a period for public review was widely advertised. Three public mee ting were held in early 2004 to collect suggestions; February 3rd in Ft. Myers, February 4th in Orlando, and February 9th in Tallahassee. These meetings accommodated pa rticipants who did not have Internet access or who preferred the group collabora tion provided in a public meeting. During these meetings staff from GeoPlan and OGT were available to record the suggestions

PAGE 81

68 through a customized ArcMap application, which was available on multiple laptop computers. Altogether, 40 individual s submitted 302 new trail segments for consideration dur ing this period. OGT staff reviewed these additional drafts of multi-use and paddling opportunities and a final version of each was prepared for review and approval by the FGTC. Approval was granted by the FGTC for the multi-use and paddling opportunities at their March 8-9, 2004 meeting with only minor modifi cations. The final opportunity segments were then prioritized and ranked based on th eir potential significance to completing the continuous statewide network of r ecreational trails (Figure 4-13). Figure 4-12. Input Utility to Digitize New Trails

PAGE 82

69 Figure 4-13. Final Prioritized Multi-Use Opportunity Map

PAGE 83

70 CHAPTER 5 METHODOLOGY The following methodology was designed to ex amine the efficiency of Web-based GIS for statewide greenways planning. It in vestigated the degree of satisfaction that users of the Trail Network Update Utility ex pressed and how they rated it in comparison with the original process in 1994 of drawi ng potential new trail co rridors on paper maps at public meetings. The study also explored the use of Web-base d GIS as a tool to prepare for public meetings and the efficiency of training workshops to train decisionmakers in Web-based GIS. This chapter will cover the survey population, type of respondents, instrumentation, and statisti cal analysis for the present study. All procedures, methods, and analyses that wi ll address the goals of examining the effectiveness of Web-based GIS for stat ewide greenways planning are described. Population and Sample Recommendations for additions and deleti ons of the Trail Network Opportunities were taken over a five month period from September 2003 to February 2004 using a variety of methods, which included, on-line su bmission using Web-ba sed GIS at training workshops or from any location with Inte rnet access, the submission of existing datalayers on CD-ROM, and the submission of information to a GIS technician at public meetings. The variety of submission methods allowed a participant with any level of experience with GIS or the Inte rnet to participate and contri bute their recommendations. During the five-month period, over 110 people participated submitting over 700 new trail segments. Due to the relatively small number of participants, all pe ople who participated

PAGE 84

71 in the update of the Trail Network Opportunity Maps were sent a survey to evaluate their satisfaction. Therefore, a sa mple of the population was not taken, rather the entire population was asked to participate in the study. Research Design and Subject Recruitment Due to the diverse nature of the s ubmission process, not all respondents participated in every aspect of the proj ect. The survey was broken into four key components: public meetings, training work shops, the web-based tool, and a comparison of the web-based GIS tool to the manual submission method implemented between 1994 and 1996. The survey was designed to accommod ate a respondent who participated in any combination of the update process. The potential survey respondents were conceptually broken into five different user categories, which will be outlined below. The first potential respondent, from here on referred to as User 1, participated in each step of the update process. User 1 attended a public meeting, went to a training workshop, used the web-based GIS utility, and was involved in the original process for the 1994-1996 Design (Figure 5-1). The sec ond potential respondent User 2, attended a training workshop, but was not involved in any other portion of the project (Figure 5-2). The third potential responde nt, User 3, did not attend a public meeting or training workshop, and was not involved in the origin al process, but used the Web-based GIS utility (Figure 5-3). The forth potential respondent, User 4, did not attend a public meeting and was not involved in the original process, but went to a training workshop and used the Web-based GIS utility (Figure 54). Lastly, the fift h potential respondent, User 5, attended a public meeting, but did not attend training or use the Web-based GIS utility and was not involved in th e original process (Figure 5-5).

PAGE 85

72 Figure 5-1. User Scenario 1 represents how a respondent would be directed through the survey if they attended a public m eeting and a training workshop, used the Web-based GIS tool, and were involve d in the original update process.

PAGE 86

73 Figure 5-2. User Scenario 2 represents how a respondent would be directed through the survey if they only attended a training seminar, but did not participate in any other aspect of the project.

PAGE 87

74 Figure 5-3. User Scenario 3 represents how a respondent would be directed through the survey if they only used the Web-based tool.

PAGE 88

75 Figure 5-4. User Scenario 4 represents how a respondent would be directed through the survey if they went to a training workshop and used the Web-based utility, but did not attend a public meeting and was not involved in the original process.

PAGE 89

76 Figure 5-5. User Scenario 5 represents how a respondent would be directed through the survey if they only attended a public meeting. In each diagram of potential respondents, the shaded boxes represent a portion of the survey instrument that the respondent completed. The yes/no directional questions

PAGE 90

77 are intended to direct the re spondent only to the parts of the survey that pertain to activities they participated in. The white boxes represent questions they did not answer, because they were not involved in that part of the update process. The survey was designed to guide each Us er through the questi onnaire with ease, regardless of their level of participation in the project. The primary researcher gave the participants an introduction to the topic, a li st of all benefits a nd risks, the expected length of time for completion, and who to c ontact with questions or concerns (Appendix B). The survey was sent in the mail in booklet format with graphics of the web-based tool. Participants were given three to f our weeks to complete the survey and an addressed, paid postage envelope to return the survey. Ji m Wood, Assistant Director of the Office of Greenways and Trails sent an Email to all survey participants to show the Departments support and encourage participation. Instrumentation The survey instrument (Appendix C) consis ted of 36 questions, which were broken into five subject sections, (1) general information, (2) public meetings, (3) training workshops, (4) the web-based tool, and (5 ) comparison questions. There was an additional blank page at the end of the surv ey for additional comments. The instrument was revised three times over two weeks after careful examination and lengthy discussions with the primary researchers thesis comm ittee. Special attention was given to the phrasing of the questions, to assure that l ittle to no bias wa s introduced. Before circulating the survey, it was pilot tested using five mock participants who met the criteria of Users one through five. Due to the complex nature of these individual questions in this instrument, they will be discussed for further understanding of this study.

PAGE 91

78 General Information The first background question was the partic ipants number of years involved in greenways planning. The results from this que stion were used to analyze the respondents experience with greenways and trails pla nning. Next, the responde nts job title was requested, to understand what ro le they played in the gr eenways and trails planning process. The third and forth introductory quest ions asked the user to rank their level of comfort with the Internet and GIS on a s cale of 1 to 5, with one being the least comfortable and five being the most comfor table. The answers to these questions provided the participants base le vel of comfort with the technical aspects of the project. Questions 5 and 6 were directional questions, intended to guide the survey respondent to the parts of the survey that matched their ex perience. Question 5 asked if the respondent attended a public meeting, if so, they were directed to the next section on public meetings, if not, they were directed to the next question. Question 6 asked if the respondent participated in a training workshop; they were directed to the training workshop section if they answ ered yes, or to the webbased tool section if they answered no. The first question in the We b-based tool section asked if the respondent used the tool. This enabled all potential respondents to quickly go to the section that applied to them. Public Meetings Questions 7 through 12 assessed the effectiv eness of the public meetings and how well the web-based tool prepared the res pondent for the public meetings. Question 7 asked which public meeting the respondent attend ed as a general reference. A major part of the study was to examine respondents resi stance or acceptance of web-based GIS as a planning tool. Therefore, the respondent was asked in questio n 8 if they chose to attend

PAGE 92

79 the public meeting rather than use the Web-based tool. Th e results from this question were used to examine if participants were avoiding the Web-based tool. It was followed by an open-ended question regarding why they chose to attend the public meeting rather than submit trail corridors us ing the web-based tool. Prior to the public meetings, the FGTC approved draft opportunities were posted on an on-line ArcIMS site for anyone from the general public to view query, and print. Paper maps of the draft opport unities were also available fo r download as were data in shapefile format. Question 9 asked if the re spondent viewed the dr aft opportunities prior to attending the public meeting and which met hod they used. If they viewed the draft opportunities using the on-line Ar cIMS site, they were asked to rank its effectiveness in preparing for the public meeting in questi ons 10 through 12. These questions consisted of statements about the ease of access and ease of use of the on-line ArcIMS site and whether the site helped them to better pr epare for the public meeting. The respondents had the following choices: Strongly Disa gree, Disagree, Neither, Agree, Strongly Agree, and I do not have enough info rmation to answer this question. The last questions in the public meeting section were directi onal, sending the user to the training workshop section or the web-based tool section, depending on the respondents answer. Training Seminars Questions 15 through 21 examined the effectiveness of the training seminars. The questions in this section inquired about the participants level of satisfaction with the training and whether they used the Web-based GIS tool to subm it a trail after the training. Question fifteen asked which training semi nar the respondent attended, Ft. Myers or Tampa, as a general reference and to identify issues that were rele vant to a particular

PAGE 93

80 workshop. The next question, question 16, asked, Did you use the on-line Trail Network Update Utility to submit a trail after attending the seminar? The results of this question were used as a general indicator of the respondents overa ll satisfaction and perceived need for the tool. The next 5 questions, 17 through 21, focu sed on the participants level of satisfaction with the training. Respondents were asked to rate different elements of the training seminar on a scale of 1 to 5, with th e following choices: =Very Dissatisfied, =Dissatisfied, =Neither, 4=Satisfied, =Very Satisfied, and =I do not have enough information to answer this question. Question 17 inquired about the respondents level of satisfaction with the equipment at the training workshop. This question is mostly relevant for the scheduli ng of future training workshops and less for the purposes of this study. There were significant technical difficulties at the Ft. Myers training workshop and it was important to th e primary researcher to ascertain whether dissatisfaction was due to technical problems or the quality of the training itself. Question 18 inquired about the respondents level of satisfacti on with the training materials, Were you satisfied that the ma terials provided you with an adequate understanding of how to use the Trail Network Update Utility? Questions 19 and 20 asked about the respondents le vel of satisfaction with the allocation of meeting time and the trainers, and question 21 asked for the res pondents overall level of satisfaction. The results of the training section mostly provide d the primary researcher with information about the quality of the training, the results of this section can also be used to evaluate whether participation at the training workshops had an impact on the level of satisfaction with the Web-based tool.

PAGE 94

81 Web-Based Tool The third section of the survey instrument dealt mostly with participant satisfaction with the Web-based tool for greenways planni ng. The first and last questions in the section were directional. Question 22 asked whether the respondent used the Web-based Trail Network Update Utility. If they responded yes, they we re directed to continue to question 23, if they answered no, they were directed to stop. Questions 23 through 28 examined the re spondents level of satisfaction with different aspects of the Web-based tool, such as documentation, navigability, ease of use, technical support, and time available for da ta submission. Responde nts were asked to respond to questions about the Trail Network Update Utility on a scale of 1 to 5, with =Very Dissatisfied, =Dissatisfied, =Ne ither, =Satisfied, =Very Satisfied, and =I do not have enough information to answer this question. Question 23 asked, How satisfied were you with the quality of the on-line documentation for the Trail Network Update Utility? Th e results of this question were used to assess the respondents general satisfaction with the help material. Each of the following questions in this section were phrased in the same manner as quest ion 23. Question 24 asked how satisfied the respondent was with the navigabi lity of the web-based tool. This question was used to evaluate the leve l of satisfaction with the desi gn of the ArcIMS Interface and general design of the site. The next item, question 25, asked how satisfied the respondent was with the ease of use of the web-based tool. The results of this question were used to examine participants level of comfort with using Webbased GIS technology. This question can be easily compared to the respondents level of comfort with GIS and the Internet, addressed in the general information section of the survey, to see if there is a correlation between a respondents satisfaction with the usability of the tool and their

PAGE 95

82 level of comfort with GIS and the Internet Questions 26 and twenty-seven asked how satisfied the user was with the technical support for the Web-based tool and the time available for data submission. Finally, ques tion 28 asked the respondent to rate their overall experience with the Web-based Trail Ne twork Update Utility. The results of this question were used to analy ze the respondents general e xperience with Web-based GIS for greenways planning. The last question in this section asked if the respondent was involved in the original design of the statewide tr ail network in 1996. If they answered yes, they were directed to the comparison s ection and if they answered no, they were directed to stop. Comparison The last section of the survey instrument was used to compare the original process used for the 1994-1996 Trail Network Design with the process used for the 2003-2004 Trail Network Design. The process of dr awing on maps in the 1994-1996 Design was referred to as Manual a nd the on-line digitizi ng process used in the 2003-2004 Design was referred to as ArcIMS. The purpose of this section was to evaluate whether respondents felt the on-line digitizing pro cess was an improvement over the manual method used in the original design. Questions 30 through 35 asked the respondent to indicate the de gree to which they favored one process over the other, using a se ries of topics such as, ease of submission, quality of the final product, travel time, access to data, and the potential number of participants. Respondents were asked to rate each question on a scale of 1 to 5, with the following categories: =Manual Strong, =Manual Moderate, =Neutral, =ArcIMS Moderate, =ArcIMS Strong, and =I do not have enough information to answer this question.

PAGE 96

83 The first item, question 30, asked Which pr ocess made it easier to submit potential trail corridors to the Office of Greenways and Trails? The results of this question were used to analyze which method made it easier for the participant to submit data. The Web-based tool made it much easier for OGT an d the GeoPlan Center to collect data, so the emphasis was specifically on the ease of submission for the user. The next item, question 31, asked, Which process resulted in a more complete statewide Trail Network? This question was used to an alyze whether respondents felt that the implementation of Web-based GIS lead to a better final product. Question 32 asked which process required the least amount of tr avel time. Question 33 asked the respondent which process gave them more access to geogr aphic data on which to base their trail recommendation. This question was important because there is a marked difference in access to data between paper maps and dynamic, on-line mapping. The aim of this question was to get an understanding of whethe r the user felt that they had access to more data and whether it was useful to them. Question 34 simply asked which process was easier for the respondent, and question 35 aske d which process allowed more people to submit potential trail corridors. The final question in this section was intended to assess the general opinion of the overa ll worth of the Web-based t ool. Question 36 asked, Do you feel that the benefits provided with the 2004 Trail Network U pdate Utility made changing the process worthwhile? This was followed by an open-ended question, asking the respondent to convey in their ow n words what they thought about the two different methods used for the design of the Trail Network. The survey concluded with a blank page for respondents to provide any a dditional comments and a note, thanking the participant for completing the survey.

PAGE 97

84 Statistical Analysis The survey data was tabulated and anal yzed in SPSS 12.0. The survey responses were recoded and all null values were recla ssed to 9, which represented No Data. All text-based answers were used to gain a greater understanding of the respondents perceptions towards Web-based GIS as a plan ning tool, but were not included in the statistical analysis. Respondent s personal comments will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter Six. Data analysis included basic descriptive st atistics of all the qu estions. Frequencies were run on each question to provide the basi c descriptive statistics. Many comparative statistics were run to find correlation between different responses. Fifty-two participants returned the survey, but not al l respondents participated in every aspect of the project, therefore responses for each section were lower than th e total number of surveys returned. Since the entire popul ation participated in the test all of the obs ervations about the results are drawn from descriptive statistics. In order to investigate the primary research question, which asked if the implementation of Web-based GIS enhanced th e design of a statewid e trails network, the questions in the comparison section were evaluated. The public meeting section was used to answer the secondary research que stion, which asked if the implementation of web-based GIS improves the opportunity for pu bic involvement. A correlation between the questions regarding the training semina r and Web-based GIS tool were used to investigate the tertiary re search question, which asked if training influences a participants satisfaction with Web-based GIS as a tool for greenways and trails planning.

PAGE 98

85 CHAPTER 6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The primary purpose of this study was to examine how the impl ementation of Webbased GIS affects the design of the Florida Greenways and Trails statewide Recreational Trails Network. It explored stakeholders an alysis of the Trail Ne twork Update Utility, a Web-based GIS for greenways and trails planni ng. It also examined the potential for greater public involvement and the influen ce of training on participant satisfaction. Finally, this study examined whether the implementation of Web-based GIS was an improvement over the former method of draw ing on paper maps at public meetings. Specifically, the study observed how the Trail Network Update Utility impacted travel time, access to spatial data, ease of submission, and perception of the quality of the final product by stakeholders who participated in bo th processes. Results for all of these questions will be discussed in this chapter. Given the limited number of survey res pondents, the primary researcher was not able to draw significant conclu sions or test a hypothesis. Therefore, this study does not attempt to answer broad question about the implementation of Web-based GIS for greenways planning, rather it is an analysis of the res ponses provided by participants regarding the 2004 Update of Floridas Trail Network. Descriptive Results Before discussing the analys es of each research question outlined in Chapter 1, a brief description of the pa rticipant populati on follows. From September 2003 to February 2004, approximately 114 individuals submitted potential trails corridors, using a

PAGE 99

86 variety of methods. The Trail Network Upda te Survey was sent to each of these individuals to give them the opportunity to convey pertinent information about the quality of their experience. Of these 114 indivi duals, 52 responded to the survey, leaving a sample size of approximately 50 (n=52). Mo st respondents (86.4%) had been involved in greenways and trails planning for ten years or less. This indicates that very few respondents were involved in the original de sign of the statewide trail network in 1996 (Table 6-1). Table 6-1. Greenways and Tr ails Planning Experience Duration (Years) Frequency Valid Percent 0 5 32.0 61.5 6 10 13.0 24.9 11 15 3.0 5.8 16 20 2.0 3.8 21 25 2.0 3.8 Total 52.0 100.0 Many of the respondents reported a moderate to high level of comfort with the Internet and GIS, with Inte rnet comfort being the highest. All 52 respondents (100%) reported moderate to highest levels of comfor t with the Internet (F igure 6-2). While only 43 (82.7%) reported moderate to highest leve ls of comfort with GIS (Figure 6-3). Table 6-2. Internet Comfort Comfort Level Frequency Valid Percent Lowest 0.0 0.0 Low 0.0 0.0 Moderate 3.0 5.8 High 9.0 17.3 Highest 40.0 76.9 Total 52.0 100.0 Public Meetings This section of the survey asked ques tions that helped provide information regarding the use of Web-based GIS to prep are for public meetings. Of the 52 survey

PAGE 100

87 respondents, 21 (40.4%) attended a public meeting in Ft. Myers, Orlando, or Tallahassee. Due to the fact that administrators such as OGT and GeoPlan staff also participated in the survey, 6 of the respondents attended two or more meetings. (Table 6-4) The following Table (6-4) shows the distribu tion of public meetings and th e number of respondents who attending each public meeting. Table 6-3. GIS Comfort Table 6-4. Location of Public Meeting that Respondent Attended Public Meeting Location Frequency Valid Percent Ft. Myers 4.0 19.0 Orlando 7.0 33.3 Tallahasee 4.0 19.0 All Three 5.0 23.8 Orlando & Tallahassee 1.0 4.8 Total 21.0 100.0 Of those who attended a public meeting, 5 ( 22.7%) reported that th ey chose to go to a public meeting rather than use the Webbased Trail Network Update Utility. The predominant reasons for attending a public m eeting in-lieu of using the Trail Network Update Utility were ease of coordination efforts, the prefer ence for direct contact, and dissatisfaction with the tool. One planning a dvocate stated, (The publ ic meeting was) in town and I prefer direct cont act if it is available. A Pa rks and Recreation Coordinator expressed that they chose to attend the public meeting due to difficulties coordinating input from the City, the County Greenways Committee, and the County GIS. A planning Comfort Level Frequency Valid Percent Lowest 3.0 5.8 Low 6.0 11.5 Moderate 13.0 25.0 High 13.0 25.0 Highest 17.0 32.7 Total 52.0 100.0

PAGE 101

88 manager reported that they attended a public meeting because the website was poor and there was no advertisement. These responses indicate a clear need for alternatives to Web-based participatory methods for green ways planning. While Web-based GIS can provide many benefits, which will be discussed in further detail, one-on-one contact is still a desirable component of the planning process and collaborative decision-making. To evaluate the effectiveness of Web-ba sed GIS as a tool to prepare for public meetings, the participants were asked if they viewed the proposed Tr ail Network prior to attending the public meeting. A vast majo rity of respondents, 20 out of 21 (95.2%) viewed the proposed Trail Network prior to attending a public meeting. Of those respondents, 13 (65%) viewed the proposed Trail Network using the Web-based GIS viewer. Participants also viewed th e proposed Trail Network by downloading the shapefile (15%) and view ing a paper map (15%). Table 6-5. Methods of View ing Potential Trail Network Viewing Method Frequency Valid Percent Download Shapefile 3.0 15.0 Paper Map 3.0 15.0 ArcIMS site 13.0 65.0 Other 1.0 5.0 Total 20.0 100.0 When asked if the Web-based GIS viewer was easy to access and use, 15 out of 17 (88.3%) reported that they Agree to S trongly Agree that it was easy to access and use. (Table 6-6; Table 6-7) Furthermore, 11 out of 14 (78.6 %) reported that the on-line viewer helped them prepare for the public meeting, while 1 (7.1%) reported that the online viewer didnt help them at all and 2 ( 14.3%) reported that it di dnt make a difference (Table 6-8).

PAGE 102

89 Table 6-6. Ease of Access of On-line Viewer Level of Agreement Frequency Valid Percent Strongly Disagree 1.0 5.9 Disagree 1.0 5.9 Neither 0.0 0.0 Agree 7.0 41.2 Strongly Agree 8.0 47.1 Total 17.0 100.0 Table 6-7. Ease of Use of On-line Viewer Level of Agreement Frequency Valid Percent Strongly Disagree 1.0 5.9 Disagree 0.0 0.0 Neither 1.0 5.9 Agree 8.0 47.1 Strongly Agree 7.0 41.2 Total 17.0 100.0 Table 6-8. Preparation Us ing the On-line Viewer Level of Agreement Frequency Valid Percent Strongly Disagree 1.0 7.1 Disagree 0.0 0.0 Neither 2.0 14.3 Agree 5.0 35.7 Strongly Agree 6.0 42.9 Total 14.0 100.0 Training Workshops Training workshops were held in Ft. Myers and Tampa in the fall of 2003. Nine of the 52 respondents reported that they a ttended a training workshop. There were 2 respondents at the Ft. Myers workshop, 4 res pondents at the Tampa workshop, and 3 of the respondents attended both training wo rkshops. The purpose of asking questions about the training workshop was to assess the respondents level of satisfaction with the training and to evaluate whethe r the training helped participants to use the Trail Network Update Utility. When asked about their sati sfaction with the equipm ent at the training facility, a majority of the respondents expressed dissatisfac tion. Of the 9 participants

PAGE 103

90 who responded, 6 (66.7%) reported that they were Dissatisfi ed to Very Dissatisfied with the equipment. A project manager who attended the Tampa training stated, Unfortunately the facilitys computer could no t handle all of us eith er being on-line or accessing the same website. Some people submitte d trails that day while the others had to do it later. Another participant reporte d a great deal of dissatisfaction with the workshop, equipment failure, lack of direction, c oordination, basically a waste. A GIS Analyst who attended both meetings comme nted, I thought Ft. Myers was good. Tampa was not good due to computer programs. The results from this question clearly reflect the technical difficulties e xperienced at the workshop facility in Tampa. Respondents reported a much higher level of satisfaction with other aspects of the training workshops, such as materials, allocati on of meeting time, and the trainers. When asked if the materials provided them with an adequate understanding of how to use the Trail Network Update Utility, 8 out of 10 (80%) reported that they were Satisfied to Very Satisfied. None of the respondent s reported being Very Dissatisfied but 1 (10%) reported being Dissatisfied and 1 (10%) reported that th ey were Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied (Table 6-9). Table 6-9. User Satisfaction with Materials at Training Workshop Satisfaction Level Frequency Valid Percent Very Dissatisfied 0.0 0.0 Dissatisfied 1.0 10.0 Neither 1.0 10.0 Satisfied 4.0 40.0 Very Satisfied 4.0 40.0 Total 10.0 100.0 When asked if they were satisfied with th e allocation of the mee ting time, 7 out of 9 (77.7%) respondents reported that they were S atisfied to Very Satisfied, while 2 of the 9 (22.2%) respondents repo rted that they were D issatisfied (Table 6-10).

PAGE 104

91 Table 6-10. User Satisfaction with Alloca tion of Meeting Time at Training Workshop Satisfaction Level Frequency Valid Percent Very Dissatisfied 0.0 0.0 Dissatisfied 2.0 22.2 Neither 0.0 0.0 Satisfied 4.0 44.4 Very Satisfied 3.0 33.3 Total 9.0 100.0 Overall, respondents that attended a tr aining workshop reported a high level of satisfaction with the training. Of the 9 respondents, 6 (66.6% ) reported that they were Satisfied to Very Satisfied overall w ith the training. The remaining 3 (33.3%) respondents were equally divided, with 1 repor ting that they were Very Dissatisfied, 1 Dissatisfied, and 1 Neither Sati sfied nor Dissatisfied (Table 6-10). Table 6-10. Overall User Satisfa ction with Training Workshops Satisfaction Level Frequency Valid Percent Very Dissatisfied 1.0 11.1 Dissatisfied 1.0 11.1 Neither 1.0 11.1 Satisfied 4.0 44.4 Very Satisfied 2.0 22.2 Total 9.0 100.0 As a general indicator of satisfaction with the training and user need for the Trail Network Update Utility, responde nts were asked if they used the on-line Trail Network Update Utility to submit a trail after a ttending the workshop. Eleven respondents answered the question, although only 9 reporte d attending a workshop. Regardless, all responses were tabulated. A majority of the respondents, 7 out of 11 (63%) reported that they did not use the Trail Network Update Ut ility again after the training workshop. The remaining 4 (36.4%) respondents reported that they used the tool again to submit a potential trail corridor. Potential explanations for these results could include: the respondent was able to submit their trail at the training workshop, the respondent did not

PAGE 105

92 think that the tool was a good method and used another method, or they did not have a trail to submit. While many respondents expr essed satisfaction with the Training Workshops, from these results it is indicated that many aspect s of the training coul d be improved in the future. First and foremost, it would be benefici al if training locations were selected based on the training administrators prior knowledge of the quality of the tr aining facility. Prior to the training workshop in Tampa, there wa s extensive communicati on with the training facility and GeoPlan staff. While the trai ning administrators were assured that all computers were functioning properly with the a ppropriate software, this was not the case and participants expressed a gr eat deal of dissatisf action, as can be illustrated by one GIS Specialists comment, (The traini ng was) too elementary, waste of time, trainers did not appear to know what they were doing, fac ility was too small, computers bad, easier to submit shapefiles. Web-Based Tool One of the primary questions that th is study sought to analyze was whether stakeholders involved in planning the stat ewide Trails Network embraced Web-based GIS as a legitimate planning tool. Of the 52 survey respondents, 27 (62.8%) reported using the Trail Network Update Utility. The predominant explanations for not using the tool were (1) lack of knowl edge that the Web-based Trail Network Update Utility existed, (2) a person more skilled in GIS performed this task for the documented participant, or (3) the responde nt did not have any potential corridors to add. It appears that in a number of cases, a GIS technician went through the submission procedure, but the supervisor was documented as the particip ant. Therefore, many of the surveys were sent to individuals who did not part icipate in the submission process.

PAGE 106

93 Of the 27 respondents who reported using the Web-based Trail Network Update Utility, a majority expressed a high level of sa tisfaction with all aspects of the process, which include (1) quality of on-line documenta tion, (2) navigability, (3) ease of use, (4) technical support, (5) time available for submi ssion, and (6) overall satisfaction. Each of the questions about the Trail Ne twork Update Utility were in tended to target any specific inadequacies about the We b-based GIS and to get an understanding of respondents acceptance of Web-based GIS as a planning t ool. This section will explain how the respondents rated the quality of the Trail Network Update Utility for the update of Floridas statewide Trails Network. When asked how satisfied they were with the quality of the on-line documentation for the Trail Network Update Utility, 21 of 27 (77.8%) respondents re ported that they were Satisfied to Very Satisfied, while 3 of 27 (11.1%) reported that they were Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied, and 3 of 27 (11.1%) reported that they were Dissatisfied to Very Dissatisfied (Table 6-11). The on-line documentation for the Trail Network Update Utility consisted of an Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) file that explained how to use the tool in a slide show. The on-line documentation was updated each time a change was made to the Web-based GIS tool. Table 6-11. Satisfaction Level with On-line Documentation for the TNUU Satisfaction Level Frequency Valid Percent Very Dissatisfied 1.0 3.7 Dissatisfied 2.0 7.4 Neither 3.0 11.1 Satisfied 14.0 51.9 Very Satisfied 7.0 25.9 Total 27.0 100.0 Next, respondents were asked to rate their satisfaction with the navigability of the Trail Network Update Utility. Again, ther e was a discrepancy with the number of

PAGE 107

94 responses vs. the number of participants that re ported using the tool but the data was kept in the spirit of fairness. A majority, 24 out of 29 (82.7%), of the respondents reported being Satisfied to Very Satisfied with the navigability of the tool, while 2 of the 29 (3.8%) respondents reported that they were N either Satisfied nor Dissatisfied, and 3 of the 29 (10.3%) respondents report ed being Dissatisfied to Very Dissatisfied with the navigability of the tool (Table 6-12). Table 6-12. Satisfaction Level w ith the Navigability of the TNUU Satisfaction Level Frequency Valid Percent Very Dissatisfied 1.0 3.4 Dissatisfied 2.0 6.9 Neither 2.0 3.8 Satisfied 17.0 58.6 Very Satisfied 7.0 24.1 Total 29.0 100.0 When asked how satisfied they were with the ease of use of the Trail Network Update Utility, respondents report ed a slightly lowe r level of satisfaction compared with the other aspects of the process. Of th e 27 respondents, 21 (77.7%) reported being Satisfied to Very Satisfied, while 4 of the 27 (14.8%) reported that they were Dissatisfied to Very Dissa tisfied. The remaining 2 ( 7.4%) respondents re ported that they were, Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied (Table 6-13). The level of dissatisfaction with the ease of use could possibly be attrib uted to the newness of the technology and the short length of the project, thus lesseni ng the potential for enhancements. Many collaborative spatial decision-making models are constantly modifi ed over the life-span of the project as users id entify needed modifications. Next, respondents were asked to rate thei r level of satisfaction with the technical support for the Trail Network Update Utility. Again, respondents reported a lower level of satisfaction for this item in comparison with other aspects of the tool. While a

PAGE 108

95 majority of the respondents, 16 out of 21 ( 76.2%) reported a high level of satisfaction, a significant number, 3 out of 21 (14.3%), indica ted that they were dissatisfied with the technical support (Table 6-14). While a numbe r of application bugs were identified and fixed through difficulties reported by users, it is implied that a number of users felt that the technical support did not meet their expectations. Table 6-13. Satisfaction Level with the Ease of Use of the TNUU Satisfaction Level Frequency Valid Percent Very Dissatisfied 1.0 3.7 Dissatisfied 3.0 11.1 Neither 2.0 7.4 Satisfied 11.0 40.7 Very Satisfied 10.0 37.0 Total 27.0 100.0 Table 6-14. Satisfaction Level with the Technical Support for the TNUU Satisfaction Level Frequency Valid Percent Very Dissatisfied 1.0 4.8 Dissatisfied 2.0 9.5 Neither 2.0 9.5 Satisfied 8.0 38.1 Very Satisfied 8.0 38.1 Total 21.0 100.0 Most respondents reported a high level of satisfaction with the time available for data submission. Of the 28 respondents, 23 ( 82.1%) reported a high le vel of satisfaction with the time available for submission, while 3 (10.7%) resp ondents expressed dissatisfaction (Table 6-15). During the fina l days of the submi ssion period, all requests that were made to the GeoPlan Center for addi tional time were granted. It is possible that respondents who were dissatisfied with the time available for submission either heard about the Trail Network Update Utility too late or never heard about it at all. Respondents who used the Trail Network U pdate Utility reported a high overall level of satisfaction w ith the tool. Of the 28 respondent s, 24 (85.7%) reported that they

PAGE 109

96 were Satisfied to Very Sa tisfied with their overall experience with the Web-based Trail Network Update Utility. A very low le vel of dissatisfaction wa s reported with 2 of the 28 (7.2%) respondents re porting that they were Dissati sfied to Very Dissatisfied with their overall experience (Table 6-16). Table 6-15. Satisfaction Level with the Ti me Available for Submission for the TNUU Satisfaction Level Frequency Valid Percent Very Dissatisfied 2.0 7.1 Dissatisfied 1.0 3.6 Neither 2.0 7.1 Satisfied 13.0 46.4 Very Satisfied 10.0 35.7 Total 28.0 100.0 Table 6-16. Overall Satisfac tion Level with the TNUU Satisfaction Level Frequency Valid Percent Very Dissatisfied 1.0 3.6 Dissatisfied 1.0 3.6 Neither 2.0 7.1 Satisfied 16.0 57.1 Very Satisfied 8.0 28.6 Total 28.0 100.0 A Bicycle-Pedestrian Planning Coordi nator who reported a high level of satisfaction with the tool commented that, the software was very easy to use and provided an efficient method for updating the Greenways map without unnecessary coordination meetings. This respondent re presents the user gr oup who feels that time and resources can be saved with the impleme ntation of Web-based GIS. Furthermore, this user group expressed a high level of comfort with the software, as one Planning Manager illustrates, I did not receive any tr aining to use the Web-based system, yet was able to use (it) effectively. Of the re spondents who expressed di ssatisfaction with the Trail Network Update Utility, the primary items of conten tion were access, coordination efforts, and lack of collaboration and ne tworking among colleagues. A Parks Designer

PAGE 110

97 commented that, the opportunity to stre ngthen relationships, improve communication, and generate ideas over a set of maps was missed. An Offi ce Manager felt that access to the tool was restricted, I think that I tried to contribute to this pro cess, but because I am not an official entity such as a city or c ounty, it was not friendly to my input. A GIS Specialist expressed dissatisfaction with coordi nation efforts, This project seems to just languish on forever. If one GIS Specialist ha ndled the project from start to finish maybe it would get done. Too many st udents with no continuity. Clearly there are aspects of Web-base d GIS and the methods implemented to design the statewide trails networ k that participants feel are lacking. But, it is important to note that very little cr iticism was actually directed at the Web-based technology, but rather how it was designed and implemented. This provides valuable information regarding the potential restruct uring of design and implementa tion strategies, such as (1) facilitate greater coordinati on, (2) allow for easier access, and (3) design a framework for collective visioning. Comparison Finally, to compare the original pro cess used for the 1994 1996 Trail Network Design with the process used for the 2003 2004 Trail Network Design, respondents were asked to indicate the degree to which they favored one process over the other on a number of items. The process of drawing on paper maps in the 1994 1996 Design was referred to as Manual a nd the on-line digitizi ng process used in the 2003 2004 Design was referred to as ArcIMS. ArcIMS is si mply a Web-based GIS software program that was used for this project and is analogous to the term Web-based GIS. Participants were asked to rate one process over the other on issues such as, (1) ease of submission, (2) quality of final product, (3) travel time, (4 ) access to geographic data, and (5) potential

PAGE 111

98 for more users. The criteria used to rate the two trail design processes were, Manual Strong indicating that a re spondent strongly favored the manual process, Manual Moderate meaning that a respondent moderate ly favored the manual process, Neutral indicating that neither proce dure outweighed the other, ArcIMS Moderate meaning that a respondent moderately favored the ArcIMS process, and ArcIMS Strong indicating that a respondent strongly favor ed the ArcIMS process. Participants were also given the option to select N/A which meant that they did not have enough information to answer the question. All N/A responses we re recalculated as No Data. A very small sample of the survey population, 7 of 52 respondents, participated in the 1994 1996 Trail Network Design. Even th ough the sample is small, the respondents were able to contribute valuable informa tion to compare the two Design processes. Among respondents, there was an overwhelmi ngly strong preference for ArcIMS as a design tool for the statewide Trails Network. In fact, all respondent s reported that they had a Moderate to Strong preference for ArcIMS on every comparison item. There was no preference at all for the Manual me thod and no one reported being neutral on any comparison items. When asked which process made it easier to submit potential trail corridors, all (100%) respondents reported that they strongly fa vored the ArcIMS process. Respondents equally favored the ArcIMS process when as ked which process required the least amount of travel time for them (Table 6-17). Respondents also repor ted that the ArcIMS process resulted in a more complete statewide Trails Network. Only 6 participants responded to this question, but 5 of the 6 (83.3%) reporte d that they strongly favored the ArcIMS

PAGE 112

99 process in the ability to produce a more complete statewide Trail Network. The remaining participant reported that they moderately favored ArcIMS (Table 6-18). Table 6-17. Ease of Submission and the Least Travel Time Preference Frequency Valid Percent Manual Strong 0.0 0.0 Manual Moderate 0.0 0.0 Neutral 0.0 0.0 ArcIMS Moderate 0.0 0.0 ArcIMS Strong 7.0 100.0 Total 7.0 100.0 Table 6-18. More Complete Statewide Trail Network Preference Frequency Valid Percent Manual Strong 0.0 0.0 Manual Moderate 0.0 0.0 Neutral 0.0 0.0 ArcIMS Moderate 1.0 16.7 ArcIMS Strong 5.0 83.3 Total 6.0 100.0 When asked which process gave participan ts more access to geographic data and which process was easier, 6 of 7 (85.7%) respond ents reported that they strongly favored the ArcIMS process (Table 6-19). These re sults show an overwhe lming preference for Web-based GIS as an effective tool for the design of a statewide Trail Network. Table 6-19. Access to Spatial Data and was Ease of Use Preference Frequency Valid Percent Manual Strong 0.0 0.0 Manual Moderate 0.0 0.0 Neutral 0.0 0.0 ArcIMS Moderate 1.0 14.3 ArcIMS Strong 6.0 85.7 Total 7.0 100.0 The last comparison item asked which process allowed more people to submit potential trail corridors. Of the 7 res pondents, 5 (71.4%) strongly favored the ArcIMS process and 2 (28.6%) moderately favored the ArcIMS process (Table 6-20).

PAGE 113

100 Unfortunately, there is no historic data documenting the number of participants that submitted potential trail corridors du ring the 1994 1996 Trail Network Design. Table 6-20. Submission of Trail Corridors Preference Frequency Valid Percent Manual Strong 0.0 0.0 Manual Moderate 0.0 0.0 Neutral 0.0 0.0 ArcIMS Moderate 2.0 28.6 ArcIMS Strong 5.0 71.4 Total 7.0 100.0 To wrap up the comparison of the original process used for the 1994 1996 Trail Network Design with the process used for the 2003 2004 Trail Network Design, participants were asked if they felt that th e benefits provided with the 2004 Trail Network Update Utility made changing the proce ss used in 1996 worthwhile. All of the respondents (100%) reported that they thought it was worthwhile to change the process. The overwhelming support for the Webbased method for updating the Trail Network Opportunity Maps was well articula ted by the President of an environmental planning firm, Although I didnt review your tr ails the old way, there is no comparison for what you currently use. Perhaps the reas on I cannot comment as an actual user of the old hand-drawn method is because this met hod is limited in being able to reach all persons who may have valuable information. A planner who also favored the ArcIMS process commented, My experience with on-line mapping has been good and getting better all the time. I feel using GIS for get ting and giving trail data is the way to go. Analysis of Research Questions There are five primary questions that th is study sought to answer regarding the implementation of Web-based GIS in the design of a statewide trails network as part of Floridas Greenways and Trails System. Due to the small survey population, the

PAGE 114

101 questions will be explored using descriptive statistics and cross-tabu lation. The answers to the research questions are meant to apply exclusively to this pr oject and do not imply that similar results would be incurred in similar studies. Public Involvement. Can Web-based GIS improve the opportunity for public involvement in designing of a statewide trails network? The purpose of this question was to eval uate whether Web-based GIS gave the public a greater opportunity to participat e in the 2003 2004 Desi gn of the Statewide Trails Network. Given the results of the su rvey, it can be shown that the implementation of Web-based GIS helped the public to better prepare for the public meetings and allowed more people to participate. Of the responde nts who utilized Web-based GIS to prepare for the public meeting, 78.6% reported that it helped them to better prepare for the meeting. Other respondents reported that although they were active in greenways and trails planning during the orig inal design of the Trail Network in 1996, they were not involved because access was limited. A Senior Planner commented, Web-based technologies are a great way to enhance public input. This is a great application. Training. Do training workshops improve a partic ipants satisfaction with Web-based GIS as a planning tool for the design of a statewide trails network? The purpose of this question was to expl ore any potential relationships between training attendance and satisfa ction with the Trail Netw ork Update Utility. By conducting a Crosstabs procedure, which provi des a measure of association for two-way tables, it was found that the respondents who attended training repor ted a higher level of satisfaction with the Web-based tool than those who did not attend training. As illustrated below (Table 6-21), none of the respondents who attended training reported being Very Dissatisfied or Dissatisfied with the Trail Network Update Utility.

PAGE 115

102 Table 6-21. Satisfaction Level with TNUU Based on Training Attendance Training Attendance Very Dissatisfied Dissatisfied Neither Satisfied Very Satisfied Total Attended Training 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 4.0 No Training 1.0 1.0 1.0 6.0 2.0 11.0 Total 1.0 1.0 1.0 7.0 5.0 15.0 These results imply that some level of training is benefici al when introducing advanced technologies to the public. Alt hough one respondent commented that the tool was easy to use without any tr aining, many potential users ar e less comfortable with new technology, as one participant pointed out, Technophobia is proba bly still a limit to the number of users for Web-based participation bu t I think it is inevitable that the process goes that direction. Manual management of public data inputs borders on unfeasible. Given the high level of dissatisfaction with the training workshops, a recommendation for future enhancements would include better methods of training that more closely resemble the needs of the users. Potential Users. Is there potential for reaching a br oader audience for the design of a statewide trails network with the implementation of Web-based GIS? Although there was no framework in place to collect data regarding the number of participants in the original Trail Network Design, we were able to ask individuals who participated in both the 1994 1996 Tra il Network Design and the 2003 2004 Trail Network Update which process they thought allowed more people to submit potential trail corridors. Of the 7 re spondents who were involved in both processes, 100% reported a moderate to strong preference for the We b-based methodology as the best means to reach a broader audience. The potential of Web-based GIS to facilitate greater involvement in the decision-making process is supported by other research as well (Schuler, 1994; Armstrong and Densham, 1995; Banger, 2001).

PAGE 116

103 Design. Does using Web-based GIS enhance the de sign of a statewide trails network? There was overwhelming agreement among participants that Web-based GIS provided enhancements to the design of th e statewide trails network in the following ways: The Web-based GIS method made it easier to submit potential tra il corridors to the Office of Greenways and trails. The Web-based GIS method resulted in a more complete stat ewide Trail Network. The Web-based GIS method required the least amount of travel time. The Web-based GIS method gave users more access to geographic data on which to base their trail recommendations. The Web-based GIS method was easier. The Web-based GIS method allowed more people to submit potential trail corridors. Based on the overwhelming consensus among pa rticipants, we can conclude that Webbased GIS is a more effective method for de signing a Floridas stat ewide Trail Network. Collaborative Spatial Decision Making. Is Web-based GIS suffi cient in providing a forum for collaborative group d ecision-making about the design of a statewide trails network or are supplemen tal activities needed? While participants felt that the benefi ts provided with the 2004 Trail Network Update Utility made changing the process used in 1996 worthwhile, they did have concerns about its ability to provide inte raction and learning amongst participants. A Program Manager commented that the manua l method used in 1996 enabled, greater personal interaction, learning amongst particip ants, (and) allowed collective vision to form. This participant felt that ArcIMS allowed for greater access at the loss of interaction and learning amongst participants, therefore less co llective vision was created.

PAGE 117

104 The Trail Network Update Utility was not designed to support on-line chat rooms or forums for users to collabo rate and share information. In the future, it would be desirable to provide these utilities in orde r for collaboration among participants. While some participants felt that the Web-base d tool eliminated unnecessary coordination meetings, others stated that th ey still prefer direct contact if it is available. This study proposes that enhancements to the Trail Netw ork Update Utility would be necessary to provide a forum for collaborative group d ecision-making, but supplemental activities such as meetings that provide direct contact are still an essential element of the group decision-making process.

PAGE 118

105 CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS At the beginning of this paper we disc ussed the background of greenways planning and the need to update the stat ewide trails network in Florid a. We then discussed the issue of how the public involvement approach grew from social and political demand, and the challenges it posed on communicati on channels (Sarjakoski, 1998). Spatial Decision Support Systems emerged as a pow erful model in the 1990s to develop customized and flexible decision-maki ng tools (Densham, 1991; Armstrong, 1994). Later, Collaborative Deci sion-Making (Armstrong and Densham, 1995; Coleman and Brooks, 1995; Schuler, 1994) was designed to ov ercome the limitations of a single user GIS. The widespread availability of Intern et connections has further enabled decisionmakers to communicate complex spatial info rmation to a wider audience (Kangas and Store, 2003). Today, the future of Web-ba sed GIS is brimming with opportunities. Research has shown that there will be oppor tunities to increase productivity and opportunities for public involvement by placing fri endly GIS interfaces at the disposal of novice users. The objective of our study was to de termine whether using Web-based GIS technology enhanced the update of the statew ide trails network. Our study looked at various aspects of using Webbased GIS, such as the opportu nity for public involvement, difficulty of technology for users, potential for reaching a broader audience, the impact on collaborative group decision-making, and quality of the final product. The results of

PAGE 119

106 our study could help in the design and implem entation of future Web-based GIS utilities for statewide greenways planning and othe r spatial planning activities as well. Individuals who were involved in both the 1994 1996 Trail Network Design and the 2003 2004 Trail Network Update felt th at the implementation of Web-based GIS enhanced the planning process in the follo wing ways: (1) it made it easier to submit potential trail corridors, (2) it resulted in a more complete statewid e Trail Network, (3) it required the least amount of tr avel time, (4) it gave more access to geographic data, (5) it was easier, and (6) it allowe d more people to submit potentia l trail corridors. But, the implementation of Web-based GIS for public involvement in greenways and trails planning need not compete or do away with di rect participation. Instead, we propose that it can be used to support and supplement trad itional participatory methods. Web-based GIS at best supplements other participation forms, it does not replace them. Yet, Webbased GIS is well suited to the planning of a statewide Trails Network because stakeholders are willing to participate and they feel that it is a mo re efficient method, but there is still a reasonable n eed for direct contact and mee tings to allow for a collective vision to form. While technophobia is probably still a limit to the number of users for Web-based participation, this study found that training can enhance a participan ts satisfaction with their overall experience using Web-based GIS. This study also found that Web-based GIS increases the potential for reaching a br oader audience but the design of the Trail Network Update Utility did not provide th e framework to support collaborative group decision-making.

PAGE 120

107 Recommendations for Future Study Many enhancements could be made to th e design and implementation of the Trail Network Update Utility to increase the poten tial for public involvement and collaboration among participants. The most important area of future research is testing the fit of different decision support methods with the n eeds faced by stakeholders in the greenways and trails planning process. The Trail Networ k Update Utility could also be enhanced to provide a more user-friendly and intuitive Graphical User Interface (GUI) and training methods could also be more fine-tuned to provide users that are less comfortable with new technology with a way to use Web-based GIS. Trail Network Update Utility Enhancements Comments received from the survey showed that there were aspects of the Webbased GIS that participants felt were lacking. Most of the criticis m was directed at how the Trail Network Update Utility was designe d and implemented. This section looks at specific design and implementation strategies that could be improve d to provide users with a more user-friendly Web-based GIS. Design The Trail Network Update Utility could be modified to give users greater opportunity to collaborate amongst themselves be more informed, and have access to more GIS tools. Some recommendations to accomplish these goals include: A strategy to enable greater collabor ative decision-making could include a framework for on-line forums that al low for greater communication amongst participants. To give users greater involvement in the decision-making process, a dynamic spatial analysis tool that prioritizes th eir recommended trail corridor using FGTC approved criteria could be provided. These criteria woul d include: regional significance, ecological conn ectivity, local connectivity, suitability for specific

PAGE 121

108 users, access/proximity, interpretive pote ntial, scenic character, management, and continuity for potential trail corridors. An improvement that would give participan ts greater control and flexibility would be to allow the user to amend submitted information rather than having to delete and start over. The ability to print maps of varying sizes would provide a more robust Web-based GIS for users, thus eliminating the need to recreate all of the maps in a single user GIS for printing purposes. To make the Web-based GIS interface more user-friendly, it would be beneficial to give users the ability to save preferences such as, geographic extent, datalayers which are displayed, and a history of segments that they have submitted. Implementation Greater administrative efforts could be made to encourage the participation of more individuals and assure that th e project runs more smoothly: To make the Web-based GIS utility ava ilable to a broader and more diverse audience, it could be advertised more aggressively. To accommodate the two types of potential participants, (1) the planner and (2) the GIS technician, the Utility should allow for tw o user profiles for ea ch trail segment. Therefore, pertinent follow-up questions can be directed to the appropriate user. Based on comments collected during the surv ey, it appears that there is a need to equally integrate all participants regardless of organizational affiliation or geographic location. Training Improved methods of training that more cl osely resemble the needs of the users could include: The provision of on-line classes for remote training could allow more individuals to experience some training for the Web-based GIS tool. Better equipped training facilities would im prove participants overall experience and make them better prepared to use the Web-based GIS tool. Training workshops could be held in mo re locations, especially in northwest Florida to accommodate more potential users.

PAGE 122

109 APPENDIX A IRB APPROVED RESEARCH PROPOSAL 1. Title of Project: Web-Based GIS to Enhance the Design of a Statewide Trails Network as Part of Floridas Greenways and Trails System 2. Principle Investigator: Name: Lila M. Schaller Degree held: Bachelors of Arts, Geography Title: Graduate Student Department: Department of Urban a nd Regional Planning, College of Design Construction and Planning Address: 431 Arch Building, Gainesville, FL 32611 Phone: (w) 352-392-3508 (h) 352-281-8827 Fax: (352) 392-3308 E-mail:lila@geoplan.ufl.edu 3. Supervisor: Name: Paul Zwick, PhD Degree held: Ph.D., University of Florida, 1985 MAURP, University of Florida, 1981 BS, University of Central Florida, 1979 Title: Associate Professor and Chairma n, Department of Urban and Regional Planning; Director GeoPlan Center Department: Urban and Regional Planni ng, College of Design, Construction and Planning Address: 431 Arch Building, Gainesville, FL 32611 Phone: (352) 392-0997 x421 Fax: (352) 392-3308 E-mail: paul@geoplan.ufl.edu 4. Dates of Proposed Research: Begin date: February 10th, 2005 End date: April 2nd, 2005 5. Source of Funding for the Protocol: Unfunded 6. Scientific Purpose of the Investigation: The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a web-based GIS approach to the design of a state-wide trail network and compare it with the

PAGE 123

110 previous method of data collection wh ich involved drawing trails by hand on paper maps. The scientific reason to c onduct this survey would be to determine if a new approach using web-based technology to collect and store data improves the planning process and th e desired product. 7. Research Methodology: A survey will be mailed to individuals who were involved in the 2004 design of the state-wide Recreational Trails Ne twork for the Office of Greenways and Trails. Individuals will be asked to evaluate th e utilities that were provided and give input on whether the web-based GIS appro ach was more effective in terms of time, data, and the final product. 8. Potential Benefits and Anticipated Risks: The potential benefit of information that will be collected from this survey will Help the Office of Greenways and Tra ils and the GeoPlan Center at the University of Florida understand th e needs of the people involved in greenways planning. Help in the design and implementation of future web-based GIS utilities for state-wide planning. There will be no more than minimal risk for participants. 9. Describe How Participants Will Be Recruited, the Number and Age of Participants, and Proposed Compensation: Participants will be recruited based on th eir previous participation in greenways planning in Florida. All part icipants that will be selected must have been directly or indirectly involved in th e design of the state-wide trails network over the last ten years. Surveys will be mailed to approximately 60+ participants who are all above the age of 18. Age is not a variable in this study, but all professiona ls in the field of greenway planning happen to be older than 18 years of age. There is no proposed compensation for participants who complete and return the survey. 10. Describe the Informed Consent Process: An Informed Consent cover page will accompany all surveys, which will provide potential research participan ts all the information reasonably needed for them to decide whether or not to participate. The informed consent letter states that participation is voluntary and completely confidential (see attached informed consent letter).

PAGE 124

111 11. Signatures: _________________________ __________________________ Lila M. Schaller Paul Zwick, PhD Principal Investigator Supervisor

PAGE 125

112 APPENDIX B IRB APPROVED INFORM ED CONSENT LETTER Dear Participant, I am a graduate student in the Department of Urban and Regiona l Planning at the University of Florida. As part of my coursework I am conducting a survey, the purpose of which is to learn about the effectiveness of web-based GIS for greenways planning. I am asking you to participate in this su rvey because you have been identified as an expert in my area of research. You will be asked to fill out a survey, wh ich should take no longer than 15 minutes. The survey is enclosed with this letter. You do not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. You can complete the survey at your leisure and mail it by March 10th 2005 in the return envelope enclosed. There are no anticipated risks, compensation or other direct be nefits to you as a participan t in this survey. You are free to withdraw your consent to participate and may disconti nue your participation in the study at any time without consequence. The title of my research is, Web-based GIS to enhance the design of a stat e-wide trails network as part of Floridas Greenways and Trails System. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a web-based GIS approach to the design of a state-wide trail network and compare it with the previous method of data collection which involved drawing trails by hand on paper maps. Geographic Inform ation System (GIS) is a system of computer software, hardware and data, and personnel to help ma nipulate, analyze and present information that is tied to a spatial location. The core product of a GIS is a geographic database with a ttributes that describe spa tial data, but other important functionalities are, geographic data acquisition, spatial anal ysis, cartographic presentation, and data management. Information collected from this survey will potentially: Help the Office of Greenways and Trails and the GeoPlan Center at the University of Florida understand the needs of the people involved in greenways planning. Help in the design and implementation of future web-based GIS utilities for state-wide planning. Your identity will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law and your pa rticipation in this study is completely voluntary. If you have any questions about this research prot ocol, please contact me or my faculty supervisor. Lila M. Schaller, Graduate St udent, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, 431 Arch Building, Gainesville, FL 32611. (352) 392-3508, lila@geoplan.ufl.edu Paul Zwick, PhD. Chair, Department of Urban and Regi onal Planning, 431 Arch Building, Gainesville, FL 32611 (352) 392-0997 x421, paul@geoplan.ufl.edu. If you have any questions about your rights as a re search participant in the study please contact: UFIRB Office, Box 112250, University of Flor ida, Gainesville, FL 32611-2250; ph 392-0433. Agreement: I have read the procedure described above. I voluntarily agree to participate in the procedure and I have received a copy of this description. Participant: _______________________________________ Date: _________________ Principal Investigator: _______________________________Date: _________________

PAGE 126

113 APPENDIX C SURVEY INSTRUMENT Figure C-1. General Information Section of Survey

PAGE 127

114 Figure C-2. Public Meet ing Section of Survey

PAGE 128

115 Figure C-3. Training Section of Survey

PAGE 129

116 Figure C-4. Web-Based Tool Section of Survey

PAGE 130

117 Figure C-5. Comparison Section of Survey

PAGE 131

118 Figure C-6. Graphical Re presentation of Web-Based Tool in Survey

PAGE 132

119 Figure C-7. Graphical Representati on of Input Utility in Survey

PAGE 133

120 Figure C-8. Blank Page for Additional Comments in Survey

PAGE 134

121 LIST OF REFERENCES Armstrong, M. P. 1994. Requirements for the Development of GIS-Based Group Decision-Support Systems. Journal of the American Society for Information Science. 45 (9): 669-677. Armstrong, M. P., and P.J. Densham. 1995. GIS and Group Decision-Making: A Look at the Dark Side. Proceedings of GIS/LIS 1995. http://www.uiowa.edu/~geog/faculty/a rmstrong/Nashville_GIS_LIS_paper.pdf Accessed March 8, 2005. Banger, S. 2005. Integrating GIS with Web fo r Public Participation. New Delhi: Hope Technologies, available at: http://www.gisdevelopment.ne t/technology/gis/techgi0058a.htm Accessed February 16th, 2005. Batty, M. 1995. The Computable City. Proc M-Squared Conferen ce: A Multi-Media Experience. Cardiff. November 29-30, 1995. Bennett, D. 1995. Collaborative Spatial Decision Making fo r Ecosystem Management. In: Densham, P. J., M. P. Armstrong, and K. K. Kemp (eds.) Collaborative Decision-Making. Proc. Scientific Report for the Initiative 17 Specialist Meeting. Santa Barbara, CA. September 16-19, 1995. Berrios, M. 1999. Construction to Start on the First Land Bridge in the U.S. Connections 5 (3): 4. Cartwright, D. 1998. Whats Next on the Internet? A Look Forward. Computers and Geosciences 24 (7): 627-632. Carver, S. 2001. Participation and Geographi cal Information: a Position Paper. Proc. ESF-NSF Workshop on Access to Geogra phic Information and Participatory Approaches Using Geographic Inform ation. Spoleto. December 6-8, 2001. Chen, S., X. Wang, N. Rishe, and M. A. Weiss. 2000. A High-Performance Web-Based System Design for Spatial Data Accesses. Presented at 8th ACM Symposium on GIS, Washington, D.C., USA. Chen, W., T. Hong, and R. Jeng. 1999. A Fram ework of Decision Support Systems for Use on the World Wide Web. Journal of Network and Computer Applications. 22: 1-17.

PAGE 135

122 Chopyak, J., and P. Levesque. 2002. Public Participation in Science and Technology Decision-Making: Trends for the Future. Technology in Society. 24: 155-166. Coleman, D. J., and R. Brooks. 1995. Applyi ng Collaborative Production Approaches to GIS Data Collection and Electronic Chart Production. In: Densham, P. J., M. P. Armstrong, and K. K. Kemp (eds.) Collabor ative Decision-Maki ng. Proc. Scientific Report for the Initiative 17 Specialist Meeting. Santa Barbara, CA. September 1619, 1995. Densham, P.J. 1991. Spatial Decision Support Systems. In: D. Maguire, M.F. Goodchild, and D. Rhind (eds.) Geographical Information Systems: Principles and Applications New York: Wiley DEP Welcomes New Secretary. 1999. Connections 5 (1): 3. Dragicevic, S. 2004. The Potential of Web-Based GIS. Journal of Geographical Systems. 6: 79-81. Duever, L., Conway Conservation Inc., J. Teisinger, GeoPlan Center, M.H. Carr. 2001. Prioritization of R ecreational Trail Opportunities for the State of Florida. Gainesville, FL, Department of Landscap e Architecture and Urban and Regional Planning, College of Design, Construction and Planning. ESRI. 2002. ArcIMS 4 Architecture and Func tionality, An ESRI White Paper April 2002. http://www.esri.com/library/whitepa pers/pdfs/arcims4_architecture.pdf Accessed March 10, 2005. ESRI. 2005. What is GIS? http://www.esri.com/software/ar cgis/concepts/ overview.html. Redlands, CA. Accessed March 9, 2005. Evans, A.J., R. Kingston, and S. Carver. 2004. Democratic Input Into the Nuclear Waste Disposal Problem: The Influence of Geographical Data on Decision Making Examined through a Web-based GIS. Journal of Geographical Systems. 6:117-132. Fabos, J. G. 2004. Greenway Planning in the United States: Its Origins and Recent Case Studies. Landscape and Urban Planning 68 (2-3): 321-342. FGTC Meets in Ocala. 2000. Connections 6 (4): 4. FDEP and FGCC (Florida Department of Environmental Protection and The Florida Greenways Coordinating Council). 1998. C onnecting Florida's Communities with Greenways and Trails: A Summary Report of the Five Year Implementation Plan for the Florida Greenways and Trails System. Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 2005. Statis tical Abstract. http://www.dep.state.fl.us Last Accessed April 13, 2005.

PAGE 136

123 Florida Greenways and Trails Council Update: Acquisition Projects Approved. 2002. Connections 6 (10): 1. Florida Greenways and Trails Foundation, Inc. 2002. Connections 6 (12): 7. Floridas ETDM Process. 2005. http://etdmpub.fla-etat.org/help/ETDM.pdf URS Corporation, Tallahassee, FL. Accessed March 11, 2005. Florida Forever Grants. 2002. Connections 6 (11): 8. Florida Trail Association. History of the Florida Trail. http://www.floridatrail.org/Fact_Sheet-FT_History.pdf Gainesville, FL. Accessed March 15, 2005. Graves, C. 2000. Land Bridge Opens September 30, 2000. Connections 6 (4): 1-2. Harder, C. 1998. Serving Maps on the Internet: Ge ographic Information on the World Wide Web Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., Redlands, CA. Kangas, J. and R. Store. 2003. Internet and Teledemocracy in Participatory Planning of Natural Resources Management. Landscape and Urban Planning. 62: 89-101. King, C. S., K. M. Feltey, and B. O. Susel. 1998. The Question of Participation: Toward Authentic Public Participation In Public Administration. Public Administration Review 58 (4): 317-326. Land Bridge Opens to Connect the Cross Florida Greenway. 2000-2001. Connections 6 (5): 1-2. Lewis, P. 1964. Quality Corridors for Wisconsin. Landscape Architecture 54 (2): 100107. Lippert, M. 1999. Seed Grant Program. Connections 5 (2): 2. Little, C. E. 1990. Greenways for America The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore. McHarg, I. L. 1969. Design with Nature Natural History Press for The American Musuem of Natural History. Doubled ay, Garden City, New York, USA. Messersmith, M. 1999a. Greenways and Trails Lands Acquisition Program Update. Connections 5 (2): 3. Messersmith, M. 1999b. 1999 Project List. Connections 5 (1): 3. Miller, A. M. and P. I. Ilieve. 2005. Water Quality Standards GIS Review Implementation: Moving from a Stat ic Website to a Web-Based GIS. http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/p roc00/professional/papers/PAP218/p218.htm Accessed March 9, 2005.

PAGE 137

124 Mills, A. 1999. Resource Management on the Cross Florida Greenway. Connections 5 (4): 5. National Telecommunications and Info rmation Administration (NTIA). 1999. Falling Through the Net: Defining the Digital Divide: A Report on the Telecommunications and Information Technol ogy Gap in America. Washington, DC: NTAI, U.S. Department of Commerce. http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/fttn99/FTTN.pdf Accessed March 24, 2005. OConnor, R., M. Schwartz, J. Schaad, and D. Boyd. 2000. State of the Practice: White Paper on Public Involvement Committee on Public Involve ment in Transportation, Transportation Research Board, National A cademy of Science. Washington, D.C. OGT Takes On State Trails. 2004. Connections 8 (2): 1. Pence, H. 2000. Florida Greenways and Trails Council Meeting Held. Connections 6 (3): 3. President's Commission of Americans Outdoors. 1987. Americans Outdoors: the Legacy, the Challenge Island Press, Washington, DC. Private Land Designation. 2003-2004. Connections 8 (1): 3. Proctor, J. 1995. CSDM and Public Particip ation in Biodiversity Conservation Planning. In: Densham, P. J., M. P. Armstrong, and K. K. Kemp (eds.) Collaborative Decision-Making. Proc. Scientific Report for the Initiative 17 Specialist Meeting. Santa Barbara, CA. September 16-19, 1995. Recreational Trails Program Grants Award. (2002, Fall). Connections 6 (12): 5. Rickman, M. 1999. Florida Greenways and Trails Council. Connections 5 (3): 2. Rickman, M. 2000. Florida Greenways and Trails Council. Connections 6 (2): 2. Rickman, M. 2002a. Florida Greenways and Trails Council Update. Connections 6 (11): 9. Rickman, M. 2002b. Florida Greenways and Trails Council. Connections 6 (12): 4. Rosener, J. B. 1978. Citizen Participatio n: Can We Measure Its Effectiveness? Public Administration Review. 38 (5):457-463. Sarjakoski, T. 1998. Networked GIS for Pub lic Participation Emphasis on Utilizing Image Data. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. 22 (4): 381-392.

PAGE 138

125 Schaller, L., K. Norris, T. Hoctor, A. Thomas, M. H. Carr. 2004. A Report on Tasks Completed for the Florida Office of Greenways and Trails 2003-2004 Including Updates for and Prioritization of Recreat ional Trail Opportun ities, Updates of Ecological Opportunities, and Critical Linkages Implementation Activities. GeoPlan Center, University of Florida, 430 Architecture Bldg, Gainesville, FL 32611. Schuyler, D. 1986. The New Urban Landscape: the Rede finition of City Form in Nineteenth-Century America The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London. Schuler, D. 1994. Community Networks: Bu ilding a New Participatory Medium. Communications of the ACM. 37(1): 39-50. Smith, D. S. and P. Hellmund. (Eds.) 1993. Ecology of Greenways University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Steinitz, C., P. Parker, and L. Jordan. 1976. Hand-Drawn Overlays: Their History and Prospective Uses. Landscape Architecture 66 (5): 444-455. Thomason, M. 1999. Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway Tree Planting. Connections 5 (2): 3. Two New National Recreational Trai ls Designated in Florida. 2003. Connections 7 (3): 9. University Planning Team, Department of Landscape Architecture, College of Architecture, University of Florida. 1 992. Cross Florida Green belt State Recreation and Conservation Area Management Pl an: Volume II, Report on Legislative Requirements and Governance. http://www.geoplan.ufl.edu/project s/greenways/finalreport.html Accessed April 22, 2005. URISA. 2005. URISAs Public Participation GIS Conference. http://www.urisa.org/ppgis.htm Accessed March 9, 2005. Voss, A., I. Denisovich, P. Gatalsky, K. Gavouc hidis, A. Klotz, S. Roeder, and H. Voss 2004. Evolution of a Participatory GIS. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 28 (6): 635-651. Walker, S. 1999. 1999 Legislative Session Report. Connections 5 (3): 1. Walker, S. 2000. Florida Greenways and Trails Council. Connections 6 (1): 1. Weiss, A. 2000. Florida Legi slative Session Report 2000. Connections 6 (3): 1. Weiss, A. 2002. 2002 Legislative Session Report. Connections 6 (11): 9.

PAGE 139

126 Wood, J. 2003. Protecting Ecologica l Greenways: A Progress Report. Connections 7 (3): 8-9. Zube, E. 1986. The Advance of Ecology. Landscape Architecture 76: 58.

PAGE 140

127 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Lila Schaller was raised in a small intentional community (called Spiral Garden) outside of Tallahassee, Florida. She attended a number of alternat ive schools throughout her childhood, including the Montessori C ooperative Early School, Grassroots Free School, Full Flower Education Center, and Sc hool for Applied Individualized Learning (SAIL). Lila received her undergraduate de gree in Geography from the University of Florida in 2002. During her undergraduate educ ation, Lila worked as a GIS Technician at the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Serv ice. Upon graduation, Lila worked as a GIS Analyst at 3001, Inc., in Gainesville, Fl orida. In the fall of 2003, Lila began pursuing her masters degree in Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Florida and began working at the GeoPlan Center.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0010744/00001

Material Information

Title: Web-based GIS to enhance the design of a statewide Trails Network as part of Florida's Greenways and Trails System
Physical Description: xiii, 127 p.
Language: English
Creator: Schaller, Lila M. ( Dissertant )
Zwick, Paul D. ( Thesis advisor )
Carr, Margaret H. ( Thesis advisor )
Latimer, Stanley ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2005
Copyright Date: 2005

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P   ( local )
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Urban and Regional Planning   ( local )

Notes

Abstract: The use of Web-based GIS applications has skyrocketed over the last decade for gathering information, facilitating public involvement, and providing access to government programs. The purpose of our study was to determine whether using Web-based GIS technology enhanced the update of a statewide trails network. We examined various aspects of using Web-based GIS, such as the opportunity for public involvement, difficulty of technology for general users, potential for reaching a broader audience, potential for collaborative group decision-making, and the quality of the final product. A Web-based application for participatory greenways planning, the Trail Network Update Utility (TNUU), was developed and implemented at the GeoPlan Center at the University of Florida as part of a contract with the Office of Greenways and Trails. Its purpose was to allow as many people as possible to participate in updating the Recreational Trail Network for the State of Florida. Before the Web-based application was developed, the Recreational Trail Network was created and maintained using paper maps. The Web-based application could reduce transcription errors, allow more individuals in various geographic locations to participate in the process, and standardize the data submitted. To examine the efficiency of Web-based GIS for statewide greenway planning, a survey instrument was created to investigate the TNUU user's degree of satisfaction and how they rated it compared with the original process of drawing potential new trail corridors on paper maps at public meetings. The survey also examined how frequently Web-based GIS is used to prepare for public meetings, and examined the efficiency of workshops for training decision-makers in Web-based GIS. Results showed that using Web-based GIS enhanced the update of the Recreational Trail Network and helped the public to better prepare for public meetings. Findings also suggested that training can increase a participants' level of satisfaction with Web-based GIS technology. Using Web-based GIS can enhance the planning process in a variety of ways, and Web-based GIS need not compete or do away with direct participation.
Subject: Arcims, Florida, GeoPlan, GIS, Greenway, Greenways, involvement, Lila, network, participation, public, recreation, Schaller, statewide, Web
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 140 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2005.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0010744:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0010744/00001

Material Information

Title: Web-based GIS to enhance the design of a statewide Trails Network as part of Florida's Greenways and Trails System
Physical Description: xiii, 127 p.
Language: English
Creator: Schaller, Lila M. ( Dissertant )
Zwick, Paul D. ( Thesis advisor )
Carr, Margaret H. ( Thesis advisor )
Latimer, Stanley ( Reviewer )
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2005
Copyright Date: 2005

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P   ( local )
Dissertations, Academic -- UF -- Urban and Regional Planning   ( local )

Notes

Abstract: The use of Web-based GIS applications has skyrocketed over the last decade for gathering information, facilitating public involvement, and providing access to government programs. The purpose of our study was to determine whether using Web-based GIS technology enhanced the update of a statewide trails network. We examined various aspects of using Web-based GIS, such as the opportunity for public involvement, difficulty of technology for general users, potential for reaching a broader audience, potential for collaborative group decision-making, and the quality of the final product. A Web-based application for participatory greenways planning, the Trail Network Update Utility (TNUU), was developed and implemented at the GeoPlan Center at the University of Florida as part of a contract with the Office of Greenways and Trails. Its purpose was to allow as many people as possible to participate in updating the Recreational Trail Network for the State of Florida. Before the Web-based application was developed, the Recreational Trail Network was created and maintained using paper maps. The Web-based application could reduce transcription errors, allow more individuals in various geographic locations to participate in the process, and standardize the data submitted. To examine the efficiency of Web-based GIS for statewide greenway planning, a survey instrument was created to investigate the TNUU user's degree of satisfaction and how they rated it compared with the original process of drawing potential new trail corridors on paper maps at public meetings. The survey also examined how frequently Web-based GIS is used to prepare for public meetings, and examined the efficiency of workshops for training decision-makers in Web-based GIS. Results showed that using Web-based GIS enhanced the update of the Recreational Trail Network and helped the public to better prepare for public meetings. Findings also suggested that training can increase a participants' level of satisfaction with Web-based GIS technology. Using Web-based GIS can enhance the planning process in a variety of ways, and Web-based GIS need not compete or do away with direct participation.
Subject: Arcims, Florida, GeoPlan, GIS, Greenway, Greenways, involvement, Lila, network, participation, public, recreation, Schaller, statewide, Web
General Note: Title from title page of source document.
General Note: Document formatted into pages; contains 140 pages.
General Note: Includes vita.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2005.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
General Note: Text (Electronic thesis) in PDF format.

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0010744:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












WEB-BASED GIS TO ENHANCE THE DESIGN OF A STATEWIDE TRAILS
NETWORK AS PART OF FLORIDA'S GREENWAYS AND TRAILS SYSTEM














By

LILA M. SCHALLER


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS OF ARTS IN
URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2005





























Copyright 2005

by

Lila M. Schaller















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The collaborative efforts and support from many people were essential to the

completion of this project. I would first like to thank my parents for their support and

encouragement throughout my academic years. I would like to thank Kaleb Stewart, who

provided continual emotional support during the writing of this document, for his daily

words of wisdom and his confidence in me. I would like to thank the members of my

committee: Paul Zwick for his unending encouragement and focus; Margaret Carr for her

guidance, immeasurable expertise on the subject, and dedication to quality; and Stanley

Latimer for his advice and support throughout this process. I would like to thank Alexis

Thomas for his tireless dedication to this project and for his insight and wisdom that was

essential to the success of this project.

I would like to thank Ajay Mangalam, who contributed immensely to this project

with his programming skills, for his dedication and work ethic. I would also like to thank

Kate Norris, for her willingness to jump in at any phase of the project and complete the

task at hand with ease, grace, and skill. I would like to thank Wesley Harrell and Christy

McCain for their excellent teaching skills and patience as mentors as they helped me to

learn new technologies. I would like to thank Crystal Goodison, who first inspired me to

enter this program, for her continual support and guidance. I would like to thank Heather

Hardester, who provided comradery and encouragement, for her endearing qualities as an

office mate and a friend.









I would like to thank members of the staff at the Office of Greenways and Trails

(Jim Wood, Heather Pence, Karen Shudes, and Dean Rogers) for giving me the

opportunity to work on this project and for providing me with such a positive experience

with professional partnerships. I would like to thank the people at URS Corporation in

Tallahassee, Florida and the GeoPlan Center, for sharing knowledge and resources

developed for the Efficient Transportation Decision Making: Environmental Screening

Tool. I would also like to thank Mike Konikoff at the URS Corporation for his

knowledge and helpfulness.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ................................................................................................. iii

LIST OF TABLES .......................................... viii

L IST O F FIG U R E S .............. ......................... ........................... ....................... .. .. .... .x

A B S T R A C T ...................................................................................................................... x ii

CHAPTER

1 IN TR O D U C T IO N ........ .. ......................................... ..........................................1.

Introductory B background Statem ent.................. .....................................................
D signing a Statew ide Trails N etw ork ............................................. ...............2...
Integrating GIS with the Web for Public Involvement ...................................3...
Statem ent of the P problem ...................................................................... ...............4...
Research Questions ..... ............... .. ........... ........................................ ...4
Significance of the Study ................................................................... .... ......... ..5

2 B A CK G R O U N D .............. ...................... ................ ..6.... .....6

The U united States Greenw ays M ovem ent ............................................... ...............6...
Four Key Stages of the Greenways M ovement................................ ...............6...
Early Greenway Planning from 1860 to 1900.................................. ...............6...
Regional Greenways Movement from 1900 to 1950 ......................................9...
Influence of Ecological Planning: 1950 to 1970 .............................................. 11
Economic Downturn and the Naming of the Greenway's Movement: 1980 to
1990 ......... .......................................... ...... ... ... .. .......................... 15
Florida Greenways Program: History and Review of its Legal, Ecological and
Economic Origins ............................. .......... ....................... 17

3 R E V IEW O F L ITER A TU R E .......................................... ...................... ............... 36

In tro d u ctio n ................................................................. ... .. ... ...................................... 3 6
Emergence of Public Involvement in Science and Technology Decision Making ....37
Public Involvement Techniques before the Information Age................................39
Geographic Information Systems and Public Involvement...................................41
Spatial D decision Support System s.................................................. ................ 42









Collaborative Spatial Decision Making..........................................................44
Web-Based Geographic Information Systems.......................................................45
H history of W eb-B ased G IS ..................................................... ........ ................ 46
Framework and Architecture of Web-Based GIS .......................................... 47
D evelopm ents in the F ield .............................................................. ................ 48
Future of W eb-B ased G IS .............................................................. ................ 52
Geographic Information Systems industry ............................................. 52
E nvironm ental research ........................................................... ................ 53
T h e p u b lic ..................................................................................................... 5 3

4 A WEB-BASED APPLICATION FOR PARTICIPATORY GREENWAYS
P L A N N IN G ............................................................................................................... 5 6

In tro d u ctio n ............................................................................................................... .. 5 6
O b je ctiv e s ............................................................................................................... .. 5 7
System Architecture.............................. .......... ........ ............... 57
Trail N etw ork U pdate U tility....................................... ....................... ................ 59
D ata ..................................................................................................... ........ .. 5 9
A c c e s s ............... .......................................... ...... .............................................. .. 6 1
Interface C u stom ization ........................................ ....................... ................ 64
S u b m issio n .......................................................................................................... 6 5

5 M E T H O D O L O G Y ................................................... ............................................ 70

Population and Sam ple ................ ................................................................... 70
Research Design and Subject Recruitment............................................................ 71
In stru m en tatio n ........................................................................................................... 7 7
G general Inform ation .............. ...... ............ .............................................. 78
Public M meetings ............................................................................................. 78
Training Sem inars ............. ................ ............................................... 79
W eb-B asked T ool ............... ................ ................................................. 81
C o m p ariso n .......................................................................................................... 8 2
Statistical A n aly sis...................................................................................................... 84

6 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .............................................................................. 85

D e scrip tiv e R e su lts ..................................................................................................... 8 5
Public Meetings ........................................ ......................................... 86
Training Workshops ............................................................................. 89
W eb-B asked Tool ............... ................ ............................................... 92
C o m p ariso n .......................................................................................................... 9 7
Analysis of Research Questions ...... ......................... ..................... 100
P u b lic Inv olv em ent ........................................... .. ...................................... 10 1
T ra in in g ............................................................................................................. 1 0 1
P potential U sers ......................................................................................... . 102
D e sig n ............................................................................................................ . 1 0 3
Collaborative Spatial Decision Making...... .... .................................... 103









7 SUM M ARY AND CONCLU SION S ............................................ ..................... 105

Recommendations for Future Study .......... ...... ......................107
Trail Network Update Utility Enhancements ...................................... ................ 107
D design ................................................................................. ...................... 107
Im plem entation .......................................................................... 108
T ra in in g .............................................................................................................1 0 8

APPENDIX

A IRB APPROVED RESEARCH PROPOSAL .....................................................109

B IRB APPROVED INFORMED CONSENT LETTER ................. ...................112

C SU R V E Y IN STR U M EN T ........................................................................................ 113

LIST O F R EFEREN CE S ... ................................................................... ............... 121

BIOGRAPH ICAL SKETCH .................. .............................................................. 127















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

6-1. Greenways and Trails Planning Experience......................................... ................ 86

6-2 Internet C om fort .................................................. .............................................. 86

6-3. GIS Comfort ................ ................. .. .......... .............. ............... 87

6-4. Location of Public Meeting that Respondent Attended........................................87

6-5. M ethods of Viewing Potential Trail Network...................................... ................ 88

6-6. Ease of A access of O n-line V iew er.................. .................................................. 89

6-7. E ase of U se of O n-line V iew er............................................................. ................ 89

6-8. Preparation U sing the O n-line V iew er ................................................. ................ 89

6-9. User Satisfaction with Materials at Training Workshop ......................................90

6-10. User Satisfaction with Allocation of Meeting Time at Training Workshop ...........91

6-10. Overall User Satisfaction with Training Workshops..........................................91

6-11. Satisfaction Level with On-line Documentation for the TNUU...........................93

6-12. Satisfaction Level with the Navigability of the TNUU......................................94

6-13. Satisfaction Level with the Ease of Use of the TNUU .......................................95

6-14. Satisfaction Level with the Technical Support for the TNUU...............................95

6-15. Satisfaction Level with the Time Available for Submission for the TNUU ...........96

6-16. Overall Satisfaction Level with the TNUU ......................................... ................ 96

6-17. Ease of Submission and the Least Travel Time ................................. ................ 99

6-18. M ore Complete Statewide Trail Network .......................................... ................ 99

6-19. Access to Spatial D ata and was Ease of U se....................................... ................ 99









6-20. Subm mission of Trail C orridors .................................................................... ... ..100

6-21. Satisfaction Level with TNUU Based on Training Attendance .......................... 102
















LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

4-1. System A architecture .............. .................. ................................................ 58

4-2. D atalayers in A application .................................................................. ................ 60

4-3. XML Code for Dynamic Map Display....................................................60

4-4. XM L Code for Layer Scale Factors ................................................... 61

4-5. Interface to Obtain Username and Password ................ ....................................62

4-6. Form to C ollect U ser Inform ation ........................................................ ................ 62

4-7. Record in Oracle Lookup Table with User Information.......................................62

4-8. Oracle Trigger to Assign Username and Password..............................................63

4-9. Interface to Logon to A rcIM S Site....................................................... ................ 64

4-10. ArcIMS Interface .................. .. ........... ............................... 65

4-11. Project Inform ation Form ................. ............................................................ 67

4-12. Input Utility to D igitize N ew Trails ......................... ........................... ............. 68

4-13. Final Prioritized Multi-Use Opportunity Map....................................................69

5 1 U se r S c e n a rio 1 .......................................................................................................... 7 2

5 -2 U ser S cen ario 2 .......................................................................................................... 7 3

5 -3 U ser S cen ario 3 .......................................................................................................... 7 4

5 -4 U ser S cen ario 4 .......................................................................................................... 7 5

5 -5 U ser S cen ario 5 .......................................................................................................... 7 6

C-1. General Information Section of Survey ............... ........................113

C-2. Public M meeting Section of Survey ....... ......... ........ .....................1... 14









C-3. Training Section of Survey ................. ........................................................1...... 15

C-4. W eb-Based Tool Section of Survey...... .... ...... ...................... 116

C-5. Com prison Section of Survey ....... ........... ............ .....................1... 17

C-6. Graphical Representation of Web-Based Tool in Survey..................................118

C-7. Graphical Representation of Input Utility in Survey ................... ...................119

C-8. Blank Page for Additional Comments in Survey........................ ...................120















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning

WEB-BASED GIS TO ENHANCE THE DESIGN OF A STATEWIDE TRAILS
NETWORK AS PART OF FLORIDA'S GREENWAYS AND TRAILS SYSTEM

By

Lila M. Schaller

August 2005

Chair: Paul Zwick
Cochair: Margaret Carr
Major Department: Urban and Regional Planning

The use of Web-based GIS applications has skyrocketed over the last decade for

gathering information, facilitating public involvement, and providing access to

government programs. The purpose of our study was to determine whether using Web-

based GIS technology enhanced the update of a statewide trails network. We examined

various aspects of using Web-based GIS, such as the opportunity for public involvement,

difficulty of technology for general users, potential for reaching a broader audience,

potential for collaborative group decision-making, and the quality of the final product.

A Web-based application for participatory greenways planning, the Trail Network

Update Utility (TNUU), was developed and implemented at the GeoPlan Center at the

University of Florida as part of a contract with the Office of Greenways and Trails. Its

purpose was to allow as many people as possible to participate in updating the

Recreational Trail Network for the State of Florida. Before the Web-based application

was developed, the Recreational Trail Network was created and maintained using paper









maps. The Web-based application could reduce transcription errors, allow more

individuals in various geographic locations to participate in the process, and standardize

the data submitted.

To examine the efficiency of Web-based GIS for statewide greenway planning, a

survey instrument was created to investigate the TNUU user's degree of satisfaction and

how they rated it compared with the original process of drawing potential new trail

corridors on paper maps at public meetings. The survey also examined how frequently

Web-based GIS is used to prepare for public meetings, and examined the efficiency of

workshops for training decision-makers in Web-based GIS.

Results showed that using Web-based GIS enhanced the update of the Recreational

Trail Network and helped the public to better prepare for public meetings. Findings also

suggested that training can increase a participants' level of satisfaction with Web-based

GIS technology. Using Web-based GIS can enhance the planning process in a variety of

ways, and Web-based GIS need not compete or do away with direct participation.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The use of Web-based GIS applications has skyrocketed over the past decade for

gathering information, facilitating public involvement, and providing access to

government programs. The first Web page with an interactive map was published in

1993 by Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) as an experiment in interactive

information retrieval (Harder, 1998). Since then, GIS technology and the Internet have

been integrated to produce an expanding area of research, referred to as Web-based GIS.

Web-based GIS facilitated the open use of GIS in three ways: (1) spatial-data access and

dissemination, (2) spatial-data exploration and visualization, and (3) spatial-data

processing, analysis, and modeling (Dragicevic, 2004). Our study examined the

effectiveness of Web-based GIS to enhance the design of a statewide trails network as

part of Florida's greenways and trails system.

Introductory Background Statement

New information technology based on the World Wide Web (WWW) offers

excellent means for bringing the public into the spatial decision-making process. Our

primary focus was on a Web-based geographic information system (GIS) as a tool for

communication among different stakeholders (planners, decision makers, and the public)

for designing a statewide trails network. We hypothesized that a community-wide

information network (like the WWW) is a new kind of medium offering a real-time, two-

directional communication channel between different parties that enhances the quality of

the final product.









Designing a Statewide Trails Network

The Florida Greenways Commission began an effort in 1993 to bring together

public and private interests to create a vision for a statewide system of greenways and

trails in Florida. The concept for recreational linkages emphasized connections among

urban areas and natural areas to form a network for the entire state. After a year of

meeting with various interest groups and the public, a vision of a statewide network of

recreational trails was produced in a series of maps that included Hiking Trail

Opportunities, Off-Road Bicycling Opportunities, Equestrian Trail Opportunities, Multi-

Use Trail Opportunities, and Paddling Trail Opportunities. Each set of opportunity maps

was delineated into logical segments and prioritized based on a set of criteria, including

regional significance, ecological connectivity, local connectivity, suitability for specific

users, access/proximity, interpretive potential, scenic character, management, and

continuity. The opportunity maps were finalized and approved by the Florida Greenways

and Trails Council in 1996. The Department of Environmental Protection Office of

Greenways and Trails uses these opportunity maps to evaluate grant applications for

acquisition of trail corridors. It was understood that the opportunity maps would be

periodically revised and updated (FDEP & FGCC, 1998).

The first revision of the opportunity maps began in 2003. The Off-Road Bicycling

and Equestrian Opportunity Maps were combined and integrated into Multi-Use

Opportunity Maps to reflect their use as connective corridors rather than statewide trails,

so the three opportunity maps up for revision included Multi-Use Trail Opportunities,

Paddling Trail Opportunities, and Hiking Trail Opportunities. A Web-based GIS system

was implemented to enable on-line recommendations for potential trail corridors, and

participation of a greater number of stakeholders. Recommendations were taken from









representatives of non profit organizations, government agencies, and the general public

from September 2003 to February 2004. The new opportunity maps were then approved

by the FGTC and prioritized using the same process and criteria used for the original

opportunity maps. Today, the Department of Environmental Protection Office of

Greenways and Trails uses the updated opportunity maps in their evaluation of grant

applications for acquisition of trail corridors (Duever, Conway Conservation Inc.,

Teisinger, GeoPlan Center and Carr, 2001).

Integrating GIS with the Web for Public Involvement

A Geographic Information System (GIS) is an organized collection of computer

hardware, software, geographic data, and personnel designed to efficiently capture, store,

update, manipulate, analyze, and display many forms of geographically referenced

information (ESRI, 2005). GIS has been widely implemented in various planning

problems. Together with the use of the Internet, GIS could be further developed to allow

many more people to have access to GIS functionality and to enhance public involvement

in decision-making. Public involvement is symbolized by dynamic two-way

communication and encourages input from the public to guide the decision-making

process in its early stages (O'Connor, Schwartz, Schaad, and Boyd, 2000). Web-based

GIS can be used as a tool for communication among different interest groups such as

planners, decision-makers, and the public for the design of a statewide trails network.

Rapid growth of the Internet has enabled a community-wide information network

to provide highly customized, accessible, and interactive sources of public information.

This new means of information transfer is changing the way that people capture and

manipulate spatial information. Web-based GIS could provide a means to communicate,









capture, and store complex spatial information with a wider audience (Kangas and Store,

2003) for enhancing public involvement and collaboration in decision-making processes.

Statement of the Problem

Between 1994 and 1996, the original vision for a statewide network of trail

opportunity corridors was created and maintained by using paper maps. These maps were

hand edited at public meetings around the State, using Mylar overlays to trace over

statewide maps of Florida. The database was later updated by a GIS technician using

free-hand digitization. Various aspects of this method were inefficient:

* It was time consuming (trail segments had to be "drawn" twice: once on the map
and once on the computer screen).

* Transcription errors were possible.

* It was difficult to reach a broad and diverse audience.

This process was very successful at enabling collaborative group decision-making.

However, we and the Office of Greenways and Trails wished to improve the process by

using new Web-based GIS technology.

Research Questions

Our goal was to determine whether using Web-based GIS technology enhanced the

update of the statewide trails network. We examined various aspects of the

implementation of Web-based GIS, such as opportunity for public involvement, difficulty

of technology for general users, potential for reaching a broader audience, potential for

collaborative group decision-making, and quality of the final product. The primary

research questions that we addressed included:

1. Does using Web-based GIS enhance the design of a statewide trails network?

2. Can Web-based GIS improve the opportunity for public involvement in designing a
statewide trails network?









3. Do training workshops improve a participant's satisfaction with Web-based GIS as
a planning tool for the design of a statewide trails network?

4. Is there potential for reaching a broader audience for the design of a statewide trails
network with the implementation of Web-based GIS?

5. Is Web-based GIS sufficient in providing a forum for collaborative group
decision-making about the design of a statewide trails network, or are supplemental
activities needed?

Significance of the Study

Information gathered in our study could help the Office of Greenways and Trails

and the GeoPlan Center at the University of Florida understand the needs of the people

involved in greenways and trails planning. Results of our study could also help in the

design and implementation of future Web-based GIS utilities for statewide greenways

planning and other spatial planning activities.














CHAPTER 2
BACKGROUND

The United States Greenways Movement

Four Key Stages of the Greenways Movement

Succession of the greenways movement in the United States was explained by

Fabos (2004). Fabos divided Greenways literature into four phases. The first phase was

the era of Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr.; Charles Eliot, and Horace W.S. Cleveland, who

pioneered the greenways movement from 1867 to 1900. The second phase of greenways

literature came between 1900 and 1940, mostly from students of Olmsted and Eliot, as

well as Benton MacKaye and Robert Moses. The third phase looks at the environmental

decades of the 1960s and the 1970s and the works of notable landscape planners such as

Philip Lewis and Ian McHarg. The fourth phase is the naming and federal validation of

the greenways movement, primarily by the President's Commission of Americans

Outdoors in 1987 and Charles Little in his popular book, Greenways for America (Little,

1990).

Early Greenway Planning from 1860 to 1900

Frederick Law Olmsted is often referred to as the father of the greenways

movement. He was born in Hartford, Connecticut in 1822 and dabbled in many

vocations in his youth, ranging from an apprentice civil engineer, a journalist, a Staten

Island nurseryman, a seaman, and a Connecticut farmer (Little, 1990). Olmsted was a

self-proclaimed social reformer and saw his work as a way to promote social order. He

advocated the newly emerging belief that the design of the physical spaces that humans









occupy influences human behavior. Olmsted believed that large natural open spaces

were essential to metropolitan cities, because they offered opportunities for quiet

contemplation in nature. He felt so adamant about the provision of this service that he

intentionally precluded more active uses in his parks (Schuyler, 1986).

At the age of 35, Olmsted accepted an administrative job as the superintendent of

an unimproved site that was intended to be a "central park" for New York City. This was

the beginning of a career as a park builder and a fruitful professional partnership with

Calvert Vaux, a British architect. Olmsted and Vaux won a competition to design Central

Park, which was a remarkable success and was followed by many contracts to design

other urban parks.

Although Central Park was a high profile project for Olmsted, the landscape

architecture work that he did in Berkeley, prior to the construction of Central Park,

proved to be the Olmstedian source of the greenway idea when he proposed two

greenway elements. In designing a plan for the college grounds, now the University of

California at Berkeley, and the immediate neighborhood, Olmsted proposed to (1)

designate public parkland for recreational use and (2) create a scenic drive from Oakland

to the campus (Little, 1990). Other successful greenway projects that Olmsted worked on

include Prospect Park and Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn, the Emerald Necklace in Boston

and Piedmont Way in Berkeley.

Charles Eliot, a pupil of Olmsted, expanded on his vision when he created a park

system for the entire Boston Metropolitan Region. Eliot's plan connected five large

parks on Boston's outer fringe with five shorter coastal river corridors such as the Charles









River Greenway Corridor to the ocean (Fabos, 2004). The concept of using coastal rivers

to connect open space became a forerunner of the current greenways planning approach.

It is important to note that early parkways and linear corridors designed during

Olmsted's era were for pedestrians, carriages and horseback riders. Neither bicycles nor

automobiles had been introduced into American culture when Olmsted designed

Berkeley's Piedmont Way and Brooklyn's Ocean Parkway. In 1910, there were less than

500,000 automobiles in the United States, a ratio of one for every two hundred people.

As the mass-produced automobile gained popularity in the U.S., the nature of the

'parkway' would change forever (Little, 1990).

Much of the early greenways planning theory stemmed from concepts that were

emerging in Europe at the time. Olmsted and a few of his contemporaries had traveled in

Europe extensively and drew many of their ideas from examples previously implemented

there. In the United States, the term greenbelt conveys any swath of open land, but in

Britain, where the original concept emerged at the turn of the century, the greenbelt

served to separate communities to preclude conurbationn," as Lewis Mumford points out

in The City in History. The idea originated with Alfred Marshall, a British economist

who made the point in an 1899 paper: "We need to prevent one town from growing into

another or into a neighboring village; we need to keep intermediate stretches of country

in dairy farms, etc., as well as public pleasure grounds." Marshall's concept of stretches

of land that separated cities was rooted in Ebenezer Howard's idea of a "garden city,"

which he introduced in To-Morrow: The Peaceful Path to Social Reform. Howard

proposed an agricultural "country belt" around the garden city to maintain its urban

integrity by maintaining the rural integrity. Howard's concept of a garden city was









unique because he was not concerned with creating a city of gardens but rather a city in a

garden a city contained within a permanent agricultural landscape. Cleveland, a

contemporary of Olmsted, designed what some believe is the finest example of a network

of open space in a metropolitan area with the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan park

system, completed in 1895 (Little, 1990).

Regional Greenways Movement from 1900 to 1950

Robert Moses (1888-1981) has been credited with creating more parks and

parkways than any other person in the history of the world (Little, 1990). Moses created

many public works projects during his time, including bridges, housing projects, dams,

and a multitude of other side projects, such as the world's fairgrounds in Queens and the

site of the United Nations in Manhattan. Moses built many recreational trails and

greenways during his career, but towards the end of his career he found himself at odds

with conservationists. The automobile became more popular and highway design to

accommodate an increasing number of vehicles traveling at much faster speeds started to

take precedent over greenway design. Parkways began to overpower, if not obliterate the

natural scenes they were meant to celebrate. The tensions over greenway versus parkway

design culminated with the Richmond Parkway, which Moses intended to construct along

a beautiful wooded ridge of the escarpment on Staten Island. In 1963, citizens mobilized

to protest the construction of the highway and instead, proposed a Staten Island Greenbelt

with a recreational trail, the Olmsted Trailway, running through the middle. The

conservationists succeeded in blocking Moses's highway and the Staten Island Greenbelt

remains one of the most politically supported greenways in the United States.

Four very influential landscape architects in the early 1900's were the two sons of

Olmsted, known as the Olmsted Brothers, Henry Wright, and Charles Eliot II, the









nephew of the first Charles Eliot. The majority of the works by these landscape

architects would be considered greenways by today's standards. The Olmsted Brothers

are well known for the 40-Mile Loop in Portland, Oregon they designed in 1903 to honor

the Lewis and Clark Centennial. The 40-Mile Loop now covers 140 miles and is

described by Little in Greenways for America as, "one of the most creative and

resourceful greenway projects in the country" (Little, 1990, p. 77). Henry Wright gained

respect as a regionalistt" particularly for his input on the Regional Plan for the state of

New York in 1926. He has also been recognized for work in community planning, which

involved the design of an interconnected network of open space and greenways for

Radburn, New Jersey. Charles Eliot II was the first landscape architect for the Open

Space Commission for the Governor of Massachusetts in 1928. During this time he drew

up the first open space plan for the state of Massachusetts. Most of the land mapped out

by Eliot II has been preserved and acts to connect major wetlands and drainage systems

in the region (Fabos, 2004).

Benton MacKaye was an important figure in the regional-planning movement of

the 1920's. He is best known as the pioneer of the Appalachian Trail, which he proposed

in a 1921 magazine article in The Journal of the American Institute of Architects.

MacKaye was also the cofounder (with Aldo Leopold, Robert Marshall, and others) of

the Wilderness Society in 1936 and was an active member of the Regional Planning

Association of America. MacKaye was a visionary because he saw the connection

between greenways as a way to guide development as well as provide recreational

opportunities to large metropolitan populations. He combined recreation with the use of

corridors that followed natural landforms to control urban growth, which added









significant detail to the country belt idea of Ebenezer. Howard MacKaye was a

proponent of hiking trails provided in open spaces that encircled and connected urban

areas (Little, 1990).

MacKaye's plan for the Appalachian Trail was an expansion of the open-way

greenbelt concept, because it was on a regional scale rather than local scale. MacKaye

did not design the Appalachian Trail to be a walking route; he envisioned it as the starting

point for a giant dam and levee system for the entire Eastern Seaboard. The trail was

originally intended to follow a wide belt of protected open land that would have lateral

greenways descending eastward and connecting to coastal cities. Although MacKaye's

primary open-way concept for the Appalachian Trail was never implemented, the two

thousand mile trail from Maine to Georgia was completed. Interest in the original design

for the open-way concept was reignited in the 1970s, but the revisitation of MacKaye's

Appalachian Greenway never took off (Little, 1990).

Influence of Ecological Planning: 1950 to 1970

The post World War II development boom can be characterized as a race between

conservationists and developers to obtain tracts of open space on the metropolitan fringe.

As undeveloped parcels became increasingly scarce, many farmers, ranchers and owners

of large estates on the urban fringe sold to developers, rather than passing their holdings

on to the next generation. Uncontrolled growth began to take over the countryside, which

lead to increasing taxes to cover the demand for new municipal services. In the spirit of

conservation, people who were concerned with protecting natural areas began to apply

for grants and raise funds to purchase the tracks of land on the urban fringe that were at

risk of being developed. Some landowners were persuaded to donate their land as nature

sanctuaries or open space. This type of conservation leads to fragmented open space,









varying in size and shape and lacking any continuity. It also prompted criticism from

civil rights activists, who charged that land conservation wasn't consistent with social

need and mostly benefited the well off who lived in estate country. Very little newly

acquired conservation land was in the urban inner city or even the older suburbs, leaving

the greenways movement with few supporters (Little, 1990).

In the 1960s, the ecological approach to greenway planning and design emerged in

response to the disorganized conservation that was characteristic of the 1940s and 1950s.

Ecological planners and landscape architects recognized the need to protect corridors,

mostly to mitigate the loss and fragmentation of natural areas (Smith and Hellmund,

1993). In the early 1960s, Philip Lewis Jr., a professor of landscape architecture at the

University of Wisconsin at Madison emphasized the need to establish a statewide pattern

of resource values so that important natural features were protected as man-made changes

quickly spread over the landscape. Lewis and his colleagues took advantage of the 10

year $50 Million Resource Development and Outdoor Recreation Act to observe and

inventory the Wisconsin landscape. The detailed landscape analysis was possibly the

first of its kind in the U.S. in terms of comprehensiveness and detail (Lewis, 1964).

The first stage of Lewis's work was to compile data of the natural and cultural

resources of Wisconsin, then map all features at the same scale. Lewis was then able to

use overlay maps to evaluate natural resources for the entire state of Wisconsin (Lewis,

1964). Drawing different data maps such as soils, vegetation, slope, and hydrology at the

same scale then overlaying them creates an overlay map. The practice of drawing

overlay maps can be traced back to Warren Manning who used overlay maps in a study

done for the town of Billerica, Massachusetts in 1912 (Steinitz et al., 1976). In Lewis's









work, individual elements of the landscape such as wetlands, vegetation, water, and

topography were combined using overlays, which produced a composite map. The

composite maps revealed a pattern in the spatial distribution of valuable natural

resources. Lewis discovered that high concentrations of natural features were distributed

in a linear pattern along waterways due to the elements and glacial action. These

corridors were called "Environmental Corridors" and are described as the "basic units of

research for recreational planning" (Lewis, 1964, p. 104). The term "corridor fringe

areas" was later coined to describe the adjacent lands paralleling the environmental

corridors. The purpose of mapping these natural resources and identifying a spatial

pattern to their distribution was to encourage a holistic approach to environmental

planning rather than piecemeal or haphazard land conservation (Lewis, 1964).

Ian McHarg has been described as the best-known practitioner of ecological

planning (Little, 1990) for his systematic approach to land-use planning according to the

relative ecological value and sensitivity of each element of the landscape (Smith and

Hellmund, 1993). McHarg was a professor at the University of Pennsylvania and

published the seminal book, Design i i/h/ Nature (1969). The premise of Design il ilh

Nature is that without a systematic, scientific approach to conserving land, we will

quickly deplete the landscape of its ecological value. In the absence of any ecological

planning, the normal expectation is that

"growth will be uncontrolled, sporadic, representing short term values, with little
taste or skill. Slowly nature will recede, to be replaced by growing islands of
development. These will in time coalesce into a mass of low grade urban tissue,
having eliminated all natural beauty, diminished rare excellences, both historic and
modern" (McHarg, 1969, p. 80).

"You can confirm an urban destination from the increased shrillness of the neon
shrills, the diminished horizon, the loss of nature's companions until you are alone,
with me, in the heart of the city, God's Junkyard or should it be called Bedlam,









for cacophony lives here. It is the expression of the inalienable right to create
ugliness and disorder for private greed, the maximum expression of man's
inhumanity to man" (McHarg, 1969, p. 23).

Yet, McHarg does not offer the country as the remedy for the industrial city; rather

he applies the ecological view to the selection of open space in the metropolitan area. He

suggests that lands reserved for open space in the metropolitan region must be selected

based on their unique natural processes and that they have intrinsic ecological value.

McHarg's basic method is to create overlay maps of areas that show the suitability or

value of each feature. Each physiographic feature the location of wetlands, for

example, or waterways, forested valleys, or unforested plateaus is individually plotted

with a transparent color on a clear Mylar sheet (McHarg, 1969).

McHarg contributed his expertise to the Plan for the Valleys outside of Baltimore,

Maryland, a citizen lead movement to protect their community from becoming a

no-place, somewhere, U.S.A. The Plan uses physiographic determinism, which suggests

that development is guided by the natural processes of the land. In this study, McHarg

uses lighter shades to represent areas that have low ecological value and darker shades

translate a higher ecological value. When the maps were overlaid, the lightest areas

depicted regions that were most suitable for urban uses, while the darkest areas had a

high ecological value and were most suitable for conservation (McHarg, 1969).

Great advances in ecological planning were made during the 1960s and 1970s. The

key idea that emerged during these decades was that systematic analyses was essential for

the study of ecological resources and would encourage informed and responsible

decision-making (Zube, 1976). The ecological planning approaches developed by Lewis

and McHarg have been further developed and are now components of complex computer

models that are used today for environmental decision-making.









Economic Downturn and the Naming of the Greenway's Movement: 1980 to 1990

The recession of 1982-83 greatly restricted the amount of money available for the

acquisition of public land. Funding for numerous public programs was cut severely or

eliminated; these included the open-space grant program of the Department of Housing

and Urban Development, and the Interior Department's grant-making Land and Water

Conservation Fund. In the mid 1980's private money was restricted as well by tax reform

laws that limited the deductibility of donated land or money used to buy it. The Gramm-

Rudman-Hollings Act was passed in 1985 as a United States budget deficit reduction

measure. This Act drastically reduced the number of open-space grants that would be

granted from the federal level (Little, 1990).

On January 28, 1985, Ronald Reagan issued Executive Order 12503, which created

an advisory commission to review the state of Americans Outdoors and to give

recommendations on the public need for outdoor recreation. Two years later, the

Presidents Commission on Americans Outdoors released Americans Outdoors, a report

that calls attention to the need for more recreation space. "Accelerating development of

our remaining open spaces, wetlands, shorelines, historic sites, and countryside's, and

deferred maintenance and care of our existing resources, are robbing future generations

of their heritage which is their birthright" (President's Commission on Americans

Outdoors, 1987, p. 14). The President's Commission was very clear that not enough was

being done to protect the remaining open spaces in the United States and even if only for

the health of the American people, a conscious and fiscal effort should be made by the

government to protect America's ecologically sensitive areas. At the beginning of the

report, the President's Commission states their primary assumption, which is that "the









outdoors is a statement of the American condition" (President's Commission on

Americans Outdoors, 1987, p. 9).

A cloud of controversy hung over the President's Commission from the beginning

to the end, because environmentalists and conservationists were underrepresented. There

was concern that the Report would mostly stress private commercial development of

outdoor resources and give little attention to resource protection. At the beginning of the

report, it is stated that there was not complete unnaninimity and not all statements reflect

the views of all members. The Chairman of the Commission was Lamar Alexander, the

Governor of Tennessee and the Vice-Chairman was Gilbert Grosvenor, the President of

the National Geographic Society. There were thirteen additional members on the

Committee, representing different interests in outdoor education.

Many positive statements for the environment were made in the President's Report

and a strong emphasis was placed on the importance of public participation. The

published document shows a great deal of regard for the environment and an

understanding of the research that had been conducted by proponents of the ecological

view, such as McHarg and Lewis. "We have a vision for delivering outdoor recreation

opportunities close to home for all American's: a network of greenways, created by local

action, linking private and public recreation areas and linear corridors of land and water"

(President's Commission on Americans Outdoors, 1987, p. 14). The President's

Commission called for a prairie fire of local, community-based public participation.

Charles Little's book Greenways for America (1990) was a very popular and

comprehensive book that helped to rally support for the greenways movement. Little

gives William H. Whyte credit for inventing the term, greenway in his 1959 monograph









published by the Urban Land Institute, titled Securing Open Space for Urban America

(Little, 1990). Little illustrates the power of local action in sixteen summaries of current

greenways projects in the United States. This seminal book gave a name to the

greenways movement and helped to motivate environmental planners and landscape

architects around the country. Little categorized greenways into five major types:

* Urban riverside greenways

* Recreational greenways

* Ecological corridors

* Scenic and historic routes

* Comprehensive greenway systems based on the natural topography of the land

Florida Greenways Program: History and Review of its Legal, Ecological and
Economic Origins

The Florida Greenways and Trails System has its roots in the Florida Trail

Association, Florida Recreational Trails System, the Florida Canoe Trail System, and the

public parks, forests, refuges, wildlife management areas and water management areas

created to protect Florida's natural heritage.

The planning and construction of the Florida National Scenic Trail grew out of the

efforts of James Kern who, in 1966, founded the Florida Trail Association (FTA) to

create hiking and backpacking opportunities in Florida. To advance the building of the

statewide trail, the Florida Trail Association initiated the creation of the Florida National

Scenic Trail (FNST) through the Florida Congressional Delegation in the mid-1970s.

The efforts of the Florida Trail Association volunteers attracted interest from the United

States Department of the Interior. Their three-year study of the trail, completed in 1980,

resulted in the enthusiastic endorsement of the Florida Trail to become one of eight









National Scenic Trails in the United States. On March 28, 1983, the FNST was officially

designated by public law 98-11 by the U.S. Congress. When Congress approved the

Florida National Scenic Trail (FNST), they designated the United States Department of

Agriculture Forest Service as the administrative agency for that trail (Florida Trail

Association, 2005). The U.S. Forest Service completed a comprehensive plan for the

FNST in 1985 (FDEP & FGCC, 1998).

The Florida Canoe Trail System, created by the Governor and Cabinet in 1970,

consisted of 36 canoe trails on 949 miles of natural rivers and streams. In 1981, a

managing agency was identified for each canoe trail, which was designated by the

Governor and Cabinet in accordance with the administrative rule that existed at the time.

The managing agencies that were identified included the Division of Recreation and

Parks, the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, and the Division of Forestry (FDEP

& FGCC, 1998). Their responsibilities were: inspection of the entire length of the trail,

clearing to allow the passage of canoes at normal water levels, maintenance of existing

canoe trail facilities, and enforcement.

In 1979, the Florida Recreational Trails System was created by the Legislature. "It

was intended to provide the public with access to and enjoyment of outdoor recreation

areas; and to conserve, develop and use the state's natural resources for healthful and

recreational purposes" (FDEP & FGCC, 1998). The Florida Recreational Trails System

was influential in designating canoe trails.

In 1987 the federal government deauthorized the Cross Florida Barge Canal

(CFBC), formally the Cross Florida Ship Canal. The Canal was a depression-era work

project whose funding was discontinued in 1936. During the building of the canal, large









tracks of land were excavated (Thomason, 1999). The project was officially deauthorized

in 1991 by the State of Florida and became known as the Cross Florida Greenways State

Recreation and Conservation Area (A Community Resource Guide for Greenway

Projects, FDEP & OGT).

In 1987, the Legislature amended Florida Statute 260 to allow the state to acquire

abandoned railroad rights of way for conversion into trails (FDEP & FGCC, 1998).

In 1988, the Florida Recreational Trails Council was created by the Department of

Natural Resources to advise the Department about issues related to the trails system,

especially trail acquisition projects (FDEP & FGCC, 1998).

In the 1990s, Florida greatly enhanced its ability to protect its remaining

endangered and environmentally sensitive lands. It created the Preservation 2000

program allowing the state to spend $3 billion over a ten-year period to acquire land (A

Community Resource Guide for Greenway Projects, FDEP & OGT).

Preservation 2000 was created in 1990 to establish annual funding for the Rails to

Trails Acquisition Program and the Florida Greenways and Trails Acquisition Program.

The program was expanded in 1991 to include acquisition for the National Scenic Trail

(FDEP & FGCC, 1998). There were various ways to fund greenways and trails projects

under the Preservation 2000 program. These sources of funding included, the Greenways

and Trails Land Acquisition Program, which was funded by bonds issued from the sale of

documentary stamps and the Florida Communities Trust (FTC) which was created to help

local governments implement elements of their comprehensive plan which were related

to conservation and recreation (Messersmith, 1999a). During the 1990's, the Office of

Greenways and Trails (OGT) received approximately $3.9 million per year for the









purchase of land which met the definition of greenway or trail as defined in Section

260.13, Florida Statutes:

"Greenway" means a linear open space established along either a natural corridor,
such as a river front, stream valley, or ridgeline, or over land along a railroad right-
of-way converted to recreational use, a canal, a scenic road, or other route; any
natural or landscaped course for pedestrian or bicycle passage; an open space
connector linking parks, nature reserves, cultural feature, or historic sites with each
other and populated areas; or a local strip or linear park designated as a parkway or
greenbelt.

"Trails" means linear corridors and any adjacent support parcels on land or water
providing public access for recreation or authorized alternative modes of
transportation (Messersmith, 1999b).



In 1991, 1000 Friends of Florida and The Conservation Fund created the Florida

Greenways Project, which later evolved into the Florida Greenways Program. This

initiative was designed to help create a statewide system of greenways for the protection

of natural ecosystems, wildlife and for human enjoyment (FDEP & FGCC, 1998). Under

the umbrella of the Florida Greenways Project, many people and organizations worked

together to accomplish two primary goals, (1) determine the ecological, cultural/historic

and recreational components of a statewide greenways system and (2) identify which

tools and techniques were available to implement a Statewide System. The four-year

project was successful in raising support from private foundations such as the Surdna

Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the Elizabeth Ordway

Dunn Foundation, and the American Express Foundation, as well as public funding

through the Florida Department of Transportation's ISTEA Enhancement Program.

One of the primary accomplishments of the Florida Greenways Project was the

distribution of information about greenways. The Project was influential in the

development of the greenways movement in Florida by keeping the public informed









about issues and projects related to greenways through a quarterly newsletter and by

sponsoring workshops and roundtables related to greenways and trails planning. The

Project directed a lot of it's funding towards four prototype greenways projects: the

Loxahatchee Greenways Project in north Palm Beach and south Martin counties; the

Suncoast Greenways Project in Hillsborough and Polk counties; the Apalachee

Greenways Project, in the six-county region around Tallahassee; and the Broward Urban

River Trails Project in the intensely developed area of Ft. Lauderdale (FDEP & FGCC,

1998).

The state's trail designation program was transferred to the Office of Greenways

and Trails (OGT) from the Division of Recreation and Parks in 1993 (FDEP & FGCC,

1998).

In early 1993, Governor Lawton Chiles created the 40-member Florida Greenways

Commission (FGC) by Executive Order, giving the Commission a three-year period to

develop a coordinated approach for protecting, enhancing, and managing a statewide

system of greenways (FDEP & FGCC, 1998). The FGC began an effort to bring together

public and private partners to create a statewide system of greenways and trails with

recreational connections between urban and rural areas and ecological linkages between

state and national parks, forests and other protected areas, and rivers and wetland systems

(FDEP & FGCC, 1998). Lt. Governor Buddy MacKaye was appointed chair of the

Commission and Nathaniel Reed was the vice chair. In late 1994, the Secretary of DEP

Virginia Wetherell, was appointed second vice chair by Lt. Governor MacKaye. The

Commission represented a variety of interests, with member affiliations including:

conservation and the environment, recreation, business and development, forestry and









agriculture, education and the general public. Members were also drawn from

government agencies including: Florida's five Water Management Districts, a regional

planning council and local governments. Mark Benedict was appointed Executive

Director and also served as the Director of the Florida Greenways Project.

An example of a public/private partnership that was coordinated by the FGC is the

Hillsborough Greenways Task Force, which was designed to protect the resources of the

Upper Hillsborough River Basin-Green Swamp Corridor. The Task Force was initiated

by the owner of the largest tract of privately owned land in the area, Hillsborough

County, The Nature Conservancy and 1000 Friends of Florida, but grew to include the

Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission, the Hillsborough River

Interlocal Planning Board, phosphate and utility companies and transportation agencies

(Florida Greenways Commission, 1994).

When the Florida Greenways Commission met in September 1993, they created

four working committees: Greenways Identification and Mapping; Program Integration;

Community Action; and Partners, Awareness and Involvement (Florida Greenways

Commission, 1994).

The Greenways Identification and Mapping Committee was charged with

answering the question "what is a greenway" and with creating a state-wide map of

existing and proposed greenway connections. This committee also developed greenway

definitions and a classification system, discovered where greenways already existed and

what important connections were missing. The 12-member group was chaired by Florida

Department of Transportation Secretary Ben Watts and had members from Florida

Department of Transportation, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 1000









Friends of Florida, University of Florida Landscape Architecture Department and

University of Florida Urban and Regional Planning Department. The formation of this

Committee marked the beginning of a long partnership between the Department of

Environmental Protection and the University of Florida's Department of Landscape

Architecture and the Department of Urban and Regional Planning.

The Program Integration Committee looked at how the state's existing conservation

and recreation programs fit into the greenways picture. Their goal was to look at both

public and private greenways projects and put the pieces of the program puzzle together.

The final product was a recommendation for an institutional framework to help state,

regional and local greenway efforts (public and private) to work together. The committee

was chaired by George Willson of the Nature Conservancy and included members from

the Florida Department of Transportation, 1000 Friends of Florida and Florida Infinity,

Inc.

The Community Action Committee surveyed communities to find out which had

greenways and what made their projects successful. It was chaired by Sally Thompson, a

board member from the South Florida Water Management Districts and included

members from the Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1000 Friends of Florida

and the South Florida Water Management District. Particular attention was given to the

Pinellas Trail where organizers had organized and advisory group, acquired over $8

million in county government funds and $200,000 in private donations, and was ranked

one of the top urban rail-trails nationwide. Many of the strategies used to promote urban

recreational greenways were adapted and used to help gain public support for rural

greenways.









The Partners, Awareness and Involvement Committee identified groups and

individuals interested in working on greenways projects. This committee aimed at

distributing information to non-traditional groups like city-dwellers and minorities and

was chaired by Margaret Spontak of the St. Johns River Water Management District and

included members from the Department of Commerce, 1000 Friends of Florida and the

St. Johns River Water Management District (Florida Greenways Commission, 1994).

This Committee identified important obstacles or barriers to greenways that would need

to be tackled for a successful greenways program to exist in Florida. The primary

obstacles to greenways at the time of the study include crime concerns, political

opposition, development patterns, private property rights, road projects, funding, and

long-term maintenance (Florida Greenways Commission, 1994).

Then in December 1994, the Commission recommended to the Governor and

Legislature that Florida create a statewide system of greenways, a system that would link

natural areas and open spaces, conserving native landscapes and ecosystems and offering

recreational opportunities across the state (FDEP & FGCC, 1998). "The planning of

Florida's system of greenways and trails began in earnest in 1995 with the passage of

Greenways legislation (F.S. 253.787 and 260.012) that mandated a five year

implementation plan (Schaller, Norris, Hoctor, Thomas, and Carr, 2004)."

In 1995, Chapter 260, Florida Statutes, which was originally written in 1979, was

amended renaming the Florida Recreational Trails System as the Florida Greenways and

Trails System. During the 1995 session, the Florida Legislature also created a 26

member Florida Greenways Coordinating Council (FGCC) comprised of business

owners, conservationists, land owners, recreation, local and federal interests and state









agency representatives and designated the Florida Department of Environmental

Protection as the state's lead agency in the greenways program (FDEP & FGCC, 1998).

The FGC was dissolved when the Florida Greenways Coordinating Council was created.

The FGCC was created to promote greenways and trails initiatives throughout the state

with technical support, leadership, education, advocacy, and other service-oriented

efforts.

In order to accomplish the initial goals of the FGCC, the Council and DEP created

the Florida Greenways and Trails Seed Grant Program. The Department of Community

Affairs (DCA) provided funding for the program in the amount of $60,000. Under

policies adopted by the Council and DEP, grants of up to $5,000 were given to projects

that stimulated support for greenways and trails initiatives. In order to meet the criteria

for the grant program, an applicant had to be able to (1) match the amount requested in

cash, in-kind services, or donated materials; (2) identify/propose a greenway with relative

significance that would be affected by the project; (3) assure the grantee's administrative

capability; (4) demonstrate the education potential of the project; and (5) demonstrate the

value of the project and anticipated economic benefits. During the first two weeks of

March 1999, the Seed Grant Evaluation Committee met to review the 77 applications that

were submitted. The program received applications requesting over $340,000 in funds,

but only had $60,000 available to distribute. Clearly, there was a need for a greenways

land acquisition program in Florida (Lippert, 1999).

In the 1996 Legislative session, the Preservation 2000 program and the trails

acquisition program was expanded to include greenways (FDEP & FGCC, 1998).









In 1998, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the

FGCC completed their five-year implementation plan titled Connecting Florida's

Communities n /ih Greenways and Trails: The Five Year Implementation Plan for the

Florida Greenways and Trails System. It included a set of six maps representing the

physical opportunities for an Ecological Network and five Trail Networks: Hiking, Off-

Road Bicycling, Equestrian, Multi-Use Trail and Paddling. The report also contained

specific recommendations, strategies and actions to be used to set about capitalizing on

the opportunities represented on the maps (Schaller, et al., 2004).

At the end of 1998, Fred Ayer, the original Director of the Office of Greenways

and Trails retired. His work began on the Canal Authority in 1987 and continued as he

worked to gain support for greenways and trails in Florida. Deborah Parrish was named

Director of the Office of Greenways and Trails shortly after Ayer's retirement ("DEP

Welcomes New Secretary," 1999).

The Office of Greenways and Trails experienced a lot of change in 1999,

beginning with the appointment of David Struhs as Secretary of the Department of

Environmental Protection by Governor Jeb Bush on January 8, 1999. Struhs previously

served as Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection

from 1995 to 1999. Prior to Struhs' employment at Massachusetts DEP, he served as

vice-president at Canyon Group, Inc., a Los Angeles-based management and consulting

firm that specialized in the electric and gas utility industry. Struhs also served as Chief of

Staff to the Council on Environmental Quality under President George Bush's

administration in 1989 ("DEP Welcomes New Secretary," 1999).









The Preservation 2000 program was drawing to a close at the end of the 1990s,

which called for an evaluation of the program and a fresh look towards the future.

During the Preservation 2000 program, over 1 million acres of land in Florida were

acquired and protected including many greenways and trails. The program was seen as

largely successful, and was superseded by an even more powerful program when the

Legislature passed Senate Bill 908 in 1999, which created the Florida Forever Program.

This authorized the issuance of $300 million in bonds each year over a period often years

for the purposes of conservation, recreation, environmental restoration, historical

preservation, water resource development, and capital improvements to land and water

areas. The Greenways and Trails acquisition program benefited from the new allocation

of funds; OGT's portion of the funding increased from $3.9 million to $4.5 million per

year. Furthermore, the funding for DCA's Florida Communities Trust (FCT) program

was expanded from $30 million annually to $72 million. No less than 5% ($3.6 million)

of FCT's funding was allocated toward recreational trails systems.

Significant legal changes were also made during the 1999 Legislative Session.

The Legislature amended Florida Statute 260 to clarify the following issues: (1)

waterways and lands could be designated as part of the Florida Greenways and Trails

System; (2) all previously designated trails on public lands and waterways were

automatically "grand-fathered-in" so that OGT did not need to go through the process

again; (3) the Department of Environmental Protection was charged with the

responsibility to carry out the five-year implementation plan for the Florida Greenways

and Trails System which was adopted by the Florida Greenways Coordinating Council in

September 1998; and (4) the new Florida Greenways and Trails Council was created to









advise the Department in the execution of its powers and duties as stated in Chapter 260

F.S (Walker, 1999).

As mentioned above, at the 1999 Legislative Session, the Florida Greenways and

Trails Council (FGTC) was established to replace both the Florida Recreational Trails

Council and the Florida Greenways Coordinating Council (FGCC). This was a

significant and controversial merger because the advisory groups for "greenways" and

"trails" had not been joined before. There was fear between both advocates of

recreational trails and ecological linkages that their priorities would take a back seat to

the other interest. The new Florida Greenways and Trails Council was composed of 21

members that represent all stakeholders and advise the Office of Greenways and Trails on

greenway and trail related issues. The Council was intended to include ten government

representatives, five representatives of the trail user community, five representatives of

the greenway user community and one member representing private landowners. The

Council is expected to meet four times a year at various locations around the state as

provided in Section 112.061, Florida Statutes (Rickman, 1999).

In 1998 The Cross Florida Barge Canal was renamed in honor of the late Marjorie

H. Carr an environmental activist whose opposition to the Cross Florida Barge Canal led

to the creation of the cross Florida greenway. An important land management strategy

was accomplished in late 1999 when the Office of Greenways and Trails developed a

Memorandum of Agreement with the Florida Division of Forestry to cooperatively

manage the Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway. The Memorandum of

Agreement was developed to "balance the need for low impact recreation with the need

to protect and enhance natural resources" (Mills, 1999, p. 5).









By January 2000, all 21 members of the Florida Greenways and Trail Council were

appointed and their duties were clearly defined to include: (1) Reviewing applications for

acquisition funding under the Florida Greenways and Trails Program and recommending

projects to be purchased; (2) Reviewing proposals for private and public lands to be

formally designated as part of the Florida Greenways and Trails System; (3) Making

recommendations for updating and revising the implementation plan for the Florida

Greenways and Trails System; and (4) Measuring the overall success of the Florida

Greenways and Trails Program. The FGTC held their first meeting in March 2000 in

Tallahassee where they adopted bylaws and elected officers. Sally Thompson, who

represented the Florida Water Management Districts, was elected Chair and Ken Bryan,

who represented trail-users, was elected Vice Chair. Sally Thompson served on both the

Florida Greenways Coordinating Council and the Florida Greenways Commission during

the development of the greenways program and Ken Bryan previously served on the

Florida Greenways Commission and was a long-time active member of the greenways

community as the Director of the Florida field office of the Rails to Trails Conservancy

(Rickman, 2000).

The 2000 Legislative session didn't have a large impact on the Office of

Greenways and Trails. Two bills were passed which affected the office's activities. The

most important was the Environmental Reorganization bill, which confirmed the

existence of the Office of Greenways and Trails as a special office under the Department

of Environmental Protection. The Office of Greenways and Trails was also granted the

authority to administer grant programs, which allowed them to give out approximately

$1.4 million in trail grants annually. The Florida Forever Glitch Bill was passed, which









fixed "glitches" that were found in the previous years' legislation. The bill was amended

to allow OGT to use 10% of Florida Forever funds on capital improvements, whereas

before, 100% of the funds had to be spent on acquisition (Weiss, 2000).

The Florida Greenways and Trails Council held their second meeting in May 2000.

The meeting was primarily used to inform Council members about the new procedures

for acquisition, according to Rule 62S, Florida Administrative Code. The Council passed

a resolution at the meeting that supported Urban Transit Greenways as a way to connect

metropolitan areas to the statewide system of greenways and trails (Pence, 2000).

At the Florida Greenways and Trails Council's third meeting in July 2000 the

Department of Environmental Protection recommended a process for prioritization of the

ecological network within the vision for the statewide greenways and trails system, which

was approved by the FCTC (Schaller et al., 2004). The Council also approved the

following lands for acquisition (ranked in order): (1) South Brevard Trail Connector, (2)

South Tampa Greenway, (3) Winder Springs Town Center, and (4) Texaco Service

Station Site ("FGTC Meets in Ocala," 2000).

On September 30, 2000 the Office of Greenways and Trails celebrated the opening

of the Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway Land Bridge with over 1000 trail

enthusiasts. The fourteen-month project from groundbreaking to grand opening was

federally funded with transportation enhancement money. The $3.4 million project was a

symbol of progress for Florida's greenways movement: it was America's first land bridge

(Berrios, 1999; Graves, 2000; "Land Bridge Opens to Connect the Cross Florida

Greenway, 2000-2001).









In November 2000, the FGTC approved a process for prioritization of

recreational/cultural features within the vision for a statewide greenways and trails

system (Schaller, et al. 2004). The University of Florida Departments of Landscape

Architecture and Urban and Regional Planning carried out the prioritization study

through a grant from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. The study

sought to prioritize the recreational and cultural features of the statewide greenways

vision. The team at the University of Florida determined a Recreational Trails

Opportunity Ranking Process that ranked different aspects of potential trail value. The

broad categories that the study identified included: regional significance, ecological

connectivity, local connectivity, suitability for specific users, access/proximity,

interpretive potential, scenic character, management and continuity (Duever et.al., 2001).

In June 2001, upon adoption of the prioritization process by the Florida Greenways

Trails Council, the Department of Environmental Protection prepared a plan with specific

recommendations for prioritizing greenways and trails for ecological and

recreation/cultural significance. This plan detailed the decision making process that

would be implemented in order to carry out the prioritization using spatial modeling with

Geographic Information Systems (GIS).

When the Florida Greenways and Trails Council met in Tallahassee in January

2002, they approved the designation of 120 state parks, adding 408,434 acres into the

Florida Greenways and Trails System. Parks that were solely owned by the Board of

Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund were designated under this agreement.

The Council reviewed 20 applications for land acquisition at the meeting, where they

recommended 14 projects for final approval. The four top projects were guaranteed for









acquisition: (1) West Jacksonville Greenway Connector, (2) White City Bridge, (3) East

Central Regional Rail Trail, and (4) Heather Island Preserve ("Florida Greenways and

Trails Council Update," 2002).

The FGTC discussed new directions for the Office of Greenways and Trails

acquisition program at the meeting in Homosassa Springs in April 2002. The Council

agreed that the program should focus on acquiring critical linkages needed to complete

the Statewide System of Greenways and Trails. The Council also voted to designate the

Suncoast Trail part of the Florida Greenways and Trails System. The Suncoast Trail

traverses 44 miles through Hernando, Pasco and Hillsborough Counties (Rickman,

2002a).

The year 2002 was constructive for the Florida greenways movement in terms of

grants awarded for greenways and trails. The Office of Greenways and Trails received

36 applications for recreational trails program, requesting a total of $2,984,920. By the

end of the acquisition cycle, the Office of Greenways and Trails funded 22 of the 36

projects for a total of $1,970,971. A few of the grant recipients included, Miami River

Greenway, Lake Lizzie Nature Preserve in Osceola County, the Boundary Canal Trail in

the City of Palm Bay and the Duval County Equestrian Trail ("Recreational Trails

Program Grant Awards," 2002). On May 15, 2002 the Florida Communities Trust (FCT)

opened the first Florida Forever application cycle. Approximately $66 million was made

available for grants to local governments and nonprofit environmental organizations to

acquire lands for conservation, open space and outdoor recreation purposes ("Florida

Forever Grants," 2002).









The Florida Greenways and Trails Foundation, Inc., a non-profit, citizens support

organization (CSO) was created under Section 20.2551, Florida Statutes in the spring of

2002. The main purpose of the Foundation was to help the Office of Greenways and

Trails enhance the statewide system of greenways and trails in Florida. The fiscal

amount allocated to the Foundation was not disclosed, but Jena Brooks, the Director of

the Office of Greenways and Trails expressed optimism for the program in stating "a

CSO is an invaluable asset. The Foundation can provide additional resources and assist

with special projects..." ("Florida Greenways and Trails Foundation, Inc.," 2002, p. 7).

By April 2002, the entire ecological network had been prioritized and the Florida

Greenways and Trail Commission adopted the ten most critical linkages as identified by

the study. The Office of Greenways and Trails immediately partnered with the

Conservation Trust for Florida in an effort to obtain funds from the Florida Forever

Program to acquire the most critical linkages (Wood, 2003).

In the summer of 2002, the Office of Greenways and Trails launched the Online

Florida Greenways and Trails Guide. The guide was designed for general users to access

quick trail information and view maps that identified the locations of trails and detailed

trail maps. At the Florida Greenways and Trails Council meeting in August 2002, the

Marjorie Harris Carr Cross Florida Greenway State Recreation and Conservation Area

was designated part of the Florida Greenways and Trails System (Rickman, 2002).

In 2003, significant additions were made to the National Trails Recreation System

when Secretary of the Interior Gale A. Norton designated 23 new recreational trails, two

of which were in Florida. The Fred Marquis Pinellas Trail, in Pinellas County is

considered one of the busiest trails in the nation, was designated along with the Peghorn









Nature Park Trails near downtown St. Cloud ("Two New National Recreation Trails

Designated in Florida," 2003).

Another important addition was made to the Florida Greenways and Trails System

when a private owner designated land for the Florida Greenways and Trails System for

the first time in October 2003. The Plum Creek Timber Company designated a 17.6-mile

hiking trail in Union and Baker Counties in exchange for the provision of liability

coverage to Plum Creek Timber Company for the property ("Private Land Designation,"

2003-2004).

The Office of Greenways and Trails continued to make headway when they took

over the management role of eight of Florida's most popular State Trails at the end of

2003. These trails included, the Tallahassee-St. Marks Historic Railroad Trail and the

Lake Okeechobee Scenic Trail. This transfer of land management responsibilities from

the Division of Recreation and Parks to the Office of Greenways and Trails added over

300 miles of recreational trails to the Florida Greenways and Trails System ("OGT Takes

On State Trails," 2004).

In 2003, the Office of Greenways and Trails renewed their partnership with the

University of Florida to update the Trail Network Opportunity Maps and conduct a new

prioritization of the recreational trails and the ecological network. To reach the broadest

audience and optimize the efficiency of data collection, the Office of Greenways and

Trails used a new web-based technology to update the Trail Network Opportunity Maps.

This process and technology will be outlined and described in detail in the methodology

section of this paper. The project was very successful, allowing the submission of 223

potential new segments for the new Trail Network Opportunities. The new trail network









was discussed at three public hearings in January and February of 2004, where the public

submitted an additional 302 segments for consideration. The Florida Greenways and

Trails Council approved the new Opportunities at a meeting in March 2004. The new

Opportunities were then prioritized using the previous methodology and were approved

by the Council in late 2004 (Schaller et al., 2004)

The greenways and trails movement in Florida has been very successful, growing

exponentially in the last decade. The Office of Greenways and Trails has acquired large

tracts of land and has initiated important partnerships with other state and federal

agencies that have helped to expand the statewide system of greenways and trails in

Florida. The Office of Greenways and Trails currently has 34 full-time employees and

continues to grow.














CHAPTER 3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Introduction

This chapter begins with a discussion of how the framework for science and

technology decision-making is evolving (Chopyzk and Levesque, 2004) and how the

public involvement approach grew from social and political demand (Sarjakoski, 1998).

There are three different practices for communicating with the public, (1) public

information, (2) public relations, and (3) public involvement. The public information

process represents a one-way form of communication between a decision maker and the

general public about ongoing issues or developments. A public relations campaign

differs from public information in that the emphasis is on the promotion of a particular

policy or development but it still represents a one-way stream of communication. This

paper deals exclusively with public involvement, which includes elements of both public

information and public relations, but it is distinguished by dynamic two-way

communication which encourages input from the public to guide the decision making

process (O'Connor, Schwartz, Schaad, and Boyd, 2000).

Spatial Decision Support Systems (Densham, 1991; Armstrong, 1994) and

Collaborative Decision-Making (Armstrong and Densham, 1995; Coleman and Brooks,

1995; Schuler, 1994) have emerged as powerful models to develop customized and

flexible spatial decision-making tools. The widespread availability of Internet

connections has further enabled decision-makers to communicate complex spatial

information to a wider audience (Kangas and Store, 2002). The integration of GIS









technology and the Internet has lead to the development of Web-based GIS, which

focuses on disseminating and processing geographic information by means of the World

Wide Web. Web-based GIS emerged in the early 1990s (Harder, 1998) and has played

an important role in making GIS concepts more open, available, and mobile for everyone,

thus facilitating the democratization of spatial data (Kangas and Store, 2002), effective

dissemination (Chen, Wang, Rishe, and Weiss, 2000), and open accessibility (Dragicevic,

2004). This chapter provides a discussion of the history of Web-based GIS and the

architecture and functionality that have been engineered to serve geographic data and

services on the Internet. Various implementations for Web-GIS are then presented to

illustrate the variety of ways that Web-GIS can be used for complex societal issues.

Finally, the future of Web-based GIS is discussed to show its potential in the fields of

spatial analysis and modeling, wireless and mobile services, public involvement, and 3-D

data visualization and query (Dragicevic, 2004).

Emergence of Public Involvement in Science and Technology Decision Making

The framework for science and technology decision-making in the United States is

shifting from a top down, three-prong form of government, industry, and university to a

participatory approach that integrates the public in the decision making process. The

traditional model for science and technology decision-making emerged in the United

States following World War II. The United States prevailed as the leader in scientific and

technological innovations from the 1940s to the 1970s. An informal social contract

between science and society emerged during this time, which placed research

responsibilities in the hands of university based researchers and was funded by the

federal government (Chopyak and Levesque, 2002).









During the 1970s and 1980s, the United States experienced increased competition

from Europe and Japan and the research community was under fire for allegations of

scientific misconduct. This threatened the insular relationship between government and

universities and the realm of science and technology decision making opened up to

include industry. Legislation was passed to secure a place for industrial activities,

including the Stevenson-Wydler Technology Innovation Act of 1980, the Bayh-Dole

Patent and Trademark Amendments Act of 1980, and the Federal Technology Transfer

Act of 1986. These amendments allowed for technology transfer and opened the door for

university research to be patented for commercial use (Chopyak and Levesque, 2002).

Greater access to educational opportunities has played a role in moving science and

technology out of traditional institutions. More people in society are educated at graduate

and post-graduate levels and are working outside of universities and government research

institutions. These highly skilled professionals are working in commercial areas, public

interest and non-governmental organizations. The movement of experts out of typical

research institutions and the greater number of educated individuals has lead to a more

informed citizenry, which calls for greater accountability in science and technology

decision-making. Scientists are no longer trusted to work in the interest of the public

good due to the nature of their profession. This has prompted government leaders and

policy makers to find ways to effectively communicate scientific and technological issues

and to incorporate the public in the decision making process (Chopyak and Levesque,

2002).

The idea of involving the public in decision-making is not new. There was

substantial interest in public involvement practices in the 1970s and 1980s, which arose









out of a heightened climate of activism. Over the last three decades, new methodologies

for including the public have been developed and refined (Chopyak and Levesque, 2002).

Many researchers have argued that the value of public involvement has increased since

the Equal Opportunity Act of 1964 due to the "maximum feasible participation" clause.

But, there has been considerable debate over whether the effectiveness of public

involvement has been measured effectively to make such claims (King, Feltey, and Susel,

1998; Carver, 2001; Rosener, 1978). In Citizen Participation: Can We Measure Its

Effectiveness, Rosener argues that a standardized evaluation research methodology must

be established to make it possible to analyze the effectiveness of public involvement

programs. Rosener contends that when we ask the questions who, where, what, how and

when, the seemingly simple concept, public involvement, turns out to be rather complex

(Rosener, 1978).

Public Involvement Techniques before the Information Age

Various approaches to public involvement in the decision making process were

proposed by Burke, in A Participatory Approach to Urban Planning. The 1979 Burke

publication was among the first literature to deal with the growing pressure to

decentralize the decision making process. According to Burke, there are five roles that

the public can play in the decision making process: review and comment, consult, advise,

share decision-making and control decision-making. Burke also addresses the unique

characteristics of power in communities, stating that planners must assess the power

dynamics of a community to appropriately serve their needs (Burke, 1979).

Many techniques for public involvement were implemented in the early 1980s,

including public opinion polls and other surveys, referenda, the ballot box, public

hearings, advocacy planning, letters to editors or public officials, representations of









pressure groups, protests and demonstrations, court actions, public meetings, workshops

or seminars, and task forces (Sarjakoski, 1998). Among the problems encountered with

these techniques were low participant numbers, tight schedules, scarcity of resources, the

existing conflicts, management of the feedback received and the possibility that the views

of the participants did not reflect the opinions of the general public (Kangas and Store,

2002).

Public involvement was given greater importance with the passage of the

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA), which federally

mandated early, proactive public involvement with sustained citizen input into the

decision making process, particularly for transportation projects. ISTEA's message was

reiterated by the passage of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).

ISTEA and TEA-21 evolved from the growing trend in American politics over the last 30

years: the general transfer of power from the federal government to state and local

governments and the emergence of the general public as a key player in the decision

making process about issues affecting their communities (O'Connor, et al., 2000).

Major conflicts arose in the early days of public involvement, particularly in

transportation planning, because the public wasn't involved during the early stages of the

decision making process, and that resulted in project delays, lawsuits, and public outcry

about the lack of public input. But, the succeeding trend, to thoroughly involve the

public in the decision making process, began to overload the publics' ability to respond.

Decision and policy makers have relied heavily on public meetings to involve the public,

but it has been shown that the concentration of resources on public meetings has lead to

the overweighting of the voices of activists who attend and a misrepresentation of the









community voice. As articulated by the Committee on Public Involvement in

Transportation in State of the Practice: White Paper on Public Involvement, decision

makers must be prompted to look to new technologies to more effectively involve the

public in the decision making process:

"Improved techniques must be developed to respond to stakeholder time
constraints, provide information to help people accurately assess the importance of
their issues to their quality of life, and attract and communicate effectively with a
broader audience (O'Connor, et al., 2000)."

The Commission specifically points to web-based methods to improve communication

with the public.

"In an age of sound bites and limited attention span, public involvement
practitioners must develop ways to capture and maintain public attention and
convey complex information, as well as receive complex feedback. In particular,
the Internet and new multimedia programs present promising options to
communicate complex information effectively and widely (O'Connor, et al.,
2000)."

Geographic Information Systems and Public Involvement

A geographic information system (GIS) is a system for management, analysis, and

display of geographic knowledge, which is represented using a series of information sets.

These information sets include, maps and globes, geographic datasets, processing and

work flow models, data models, and metadata (ESRI, 2005). GIS supports planning and

the public participation process with planning support systems. Public Participation GIS

(PPGIS) can be defined as increased public involvement in the definition and analysis of

questions tied to location (Banger, 2001). The use of GIS as a participatory tool raises

critical technical, social, and theoretical issues that interest both researchers and

practitioners who are concerned with the social consequences of its use. The first PPGIS

conference was held in 2002 at Rutgers University to discuss the issues of intersecting









community interests and GIS technology (URISA, 2005). This conference was a notable

landmark in the research and development of GIS technologies for public involvement.

There are conflicting theories regarding the effectiveness of public involvement

through the use of geographical information systems. Carver asserts that the heightened

attention to public involvement through geographical information is a waste of time,

based on the false assumption that "the general public want to be more closely involved

in decision-making, and ... that those in positions of decision-making power actually

value and therefore would like public input" (Carver, 2001, p 1). Ineffective methods of

participation are the key barrier to effective, two-way channels of communication with

the public, with public meetings topping the list as the least effective (King, Feltey, and

Susel, 1998; Carver, 2001; Kangas and Store, 2002). They are considered ineffective for

a number of reasons, that include, meeting scheduling too late in the decision making

process (King, et al., 1998), meeting participation by only the most vocal members of the

community and meeting times that are often inconvenient for the general public (Carver,

2001).

Spatial Decision Support Systems

In an attempt to integrate the public at an earlier stage of the decision-making

process, new frameworks for interactive, two-way communication are being developed.

Due to the complex nature of spatial decision-making, problems require numerous,

conflicting objectives be met to find solutions. There are a variety of techniques that

have been developed to assist decision makers with complex issues, but they require that

the problem statement and objectives be well articulated and well structured. Often, this

is not the case and decision makers do not start the process with clearly defined goals and

objectives, which hinders their ability to articulate the issues to the public (Densham,









1991; Armstrong, 1994). For these reasons, Densham suggests that GIS is not always

adequate to answer complex spatial questions. He asserts that, "to assist decision makers

with complex spatial problems, geoprocessing systems must support a decision research

process, rather than a more narrowly defined decision making process, by providing the

decision maker with a flexible problem solving environment" (Densham, 1991, p. 403).

Due to shortcomings of GIS, Spatial Decision Support Systems (SDSS) are proposed to

offer a more customized and flexible decision-making tool. Two benefits of SDSS, as

described by Densham are (1) exploratory tools empower the decision maker to further

refine their level of understanding and definition of the problem, and (2) the ability to

generate alternative scenarios enables the decision- maker to weigh the possible trade-

offs of different objectives and foresee unanticipated and possibly unacceptable

characteristics of solutions (Densham, 1991).

The framework for SDSS is modeled after Decision Support Systems (DSS), which

are primarily for business applications. The six distinguishing characteristics of a DSS,

as defined by Densham citing Geoffrion,

* They are designed to solve problems that the decision maker cannot clearly
structure or define.

* They have a user interface that is easy to use and powerful at the same time.

* The system provides a flexible framework for the user to combine analytical
models and data.

* The design allows users to explore possible alternatives.

* They are easily adapted to provide new functionalities as the needs of the user
arise.

* The systems allow problems to be solved interactively.









Each of these six principles also describes SDSS, but a few additional functions

that must be integrated:

* They provide a framework for the input of spatial data.

* They allow accurate representation of complex spatial relations that occur in spatial
data.

* Analytical tools specifically designed for spatial and geographic analysis are
included.

* They provide for output in a variety of forms such as maps and shapefiles.

SDSS were an exciting new framework to enhance spatial decision making in the early

1990's, but they came with intrinsic shortcomings because it was difficult to reach a

broad audience (Densham, 1991).

Collaborative Spatial Decision Making

Collaborative Spatial Decision Making (CSDM) was designed to overcome the

limitations of a single user GIS. CSDM has enabled the collaborative production of

digital maps and digital data (Coleman and Brooks, 1995) and has provided a mechanism

for a bottom-up approach to planning that recognizes the needs of affected people in local

communities. CSDM has been widely used in conservation planning and ecological

problem solving ( Proctor, 1995) because it enables compromise and consensus building

(Bennett, 1995). The benefits provided by CSDM include, simultaneous viewing and

manipulation of the same file by two or more users in different locations, streamlining

data submission (Coleman and Brooks, 1995) and consideration of a greater number and

diversity of opinions during the formation of public policies (Armstrong and Densham,

1995). In Community Networks: Building a New Participatory Medium, Schuler

describes how web-based computer applications can be used to address community needs

by fostering a sense of community cohesion, by providing timely information to an









informed citizenry, and by promoting and supporting participatory democratic activities

(Schuler, 1994).

There are many emerging collaborative GIS-based tools that can be used by

different members in the community during the decision making process, but there are

concerns with making GIS available to a wider audience. The drawbacks include: the

limitations of GIS data including lack of spatial resolution and currency of data, the

limited availability of high performance computers, the difficulty in using computers, and

the case of creating maps that distort the facts (Armstrong and Densham, 1995).

Web-Based Geographic Information Systems

Generally speaking, Web-based GIS focuses on disseminating and processing

geographic information by means of Internet and World Wide Web. The Internet is a

network that enables dynamic two-way communication between two or more parties that

are not constrained by geographic location (Cartwright, 1998). GIS combined with the

Internet has proved to be an effective medium for involving the public in the decision-

making process about spatial issues. However, Web-based GIS is not a single

technology, it is, in fact, comprised of a number of components including,

Object-Oriented Language, GIS software and programming language, HTML, Java,

Common Gateways Interface (CGI), and theories about PPGIS. There are currently five

different types of web-based GIS applications:

* Map Generators
* Spatial Database and Libraries
* Graphic snapshots of pre-generated images
* Real-time Maps and Images
* Real-time Browsers (Banger, 2001)









These Web-based applications have been widely used in the GIS community to facilitate

greater involvement in the decision making process.

History of Web-Based GIS

In 1993, the Xerox Palo Alto Research Center (PARC) published the first Web

page with an interactive map as an experiment in interactive information retrieval. At

this time, there were no internet specific programming languages such as Java; the page

was purely HTML with links that allowed the user to zoom, pan, and identify (Harder,

1998). In 1994, the first distributed library service for spatially referenced data was

established by The Alexandria Digital Library Project, funded by the US National

Science Foundation (Dragicevic, 2004). In 1995, Batty was among the first to envision

the possibilities of Internet technology to facilitate city planning in his landmark

publication, The Computable City (Batty, 1995; Sarjakoski, 1998). Over the last ten

years, GIS technology and the Internet have been integrated to produce an expanding area

of research, which is referred to as Internet GIS, Web-based GIS, On-line GIS, and

Internet distributed GIServices. The earliest implementations of this technology were

mostly static maps, and then, interactive maps with pan, zoom, and identify

functionalities. Web-based GIS has facilitated the open use of GIS in three ways, (1)

spatial data access and dissemination, (2) spatial data exploration and visualization, and

(3) spatial data processing, analysis and modeling (Dragicevic, 2004).

The most popular types of early web-mapping applications were location services,

routing and direction services, electronic atlases, and pubic notification utilities. The

Service Corp of Retired Executives (SCORE) contracted Geographic Services Corp to

develop one of the first locational on-line map services. The online application, Chapter

Locator, allowed the user to type an address or a street intersection into a simple form









and a map of the closest Score Chapter would pop-up. Among the first routing and

directional services, Zip2 offered point-to-point routing for any location in the United

States. Public access websites were also popular in the early days of Web-based GIS.

The government of Cabarrus County launched a website called, e-gov, that allowed tax

payers to communicate with elected local officials and tax funded agencies via an

interactive map in 1996 (Harder, 1998).

Framework and Architecture of Web-Based GIS

The two primary components of Web-based GIS are the server and the client. The

server/client system is comprised of two programs that communicate over a network

using an established communication language called a protocol. The network can either

be the Internet or a secure closed network equivalent called an intranet. The common

protocol for communication is Hyper Text Transfer Protocol (HTTP). The client

program is typically a web-browser, with the most popular commercial products being

Internet Explorer, Netscape Navigator, or Mozilla Foxfire. When the user types a Web

address, called a Uniform Resource Locator (URL), into the web-browser, a request is

sent to the server computer. At this point, the server loads a file from its disk and

transmits it over the Internet to the client web-browser (Harder, 1998). The server is

comprised of many technologies working together to provide information and services.

The components include a database that stores the raw data, the Web-server, which

handles requests sent by the client browser, and middleware, which can be employed

with a number of different technologies, but the basic task is to perform the job sent by

the Web-server (ESRI, 2001).









Developments in the Field

Development languages for an interactive Web-based GIS have enabled complex

Web-based applications to be deployed. Common Gateway Interface (CGI) was

developed by the CERN research center in 1992 and Java was developed by the Sun

Corporation in 1995. Both languages can accept user input in the form of HTML

document components, which enables the server to store user preferences, and allows the

user to update the database. However, the two programs have different methods of

processing data. CGI has less interactivity than Java, but can be executed much faster.

Java has greater flexibility than CGI, but due to the slow processing time, applications

with a large amount of information often use CGI to deploy an interactive web-based GIS

(Chen, Hong, and Jeng, 1999). The following case studies exemplify the multitude of

ways that Web-based GIS applications have been developed and implemented.

In Evolution of a Participatory GIS, researchers from Germany describe how they

integrated two software tools that were originally developed independently to create a

web-based GIS that facilitated both visual data analysis and decision support tools for

selection, prioritization, and integration of spatial data. The first tool, CommonGIS, was

based on Java technology and could be used on a stand-alone Personal Computer (PC) or

on the Internet using Java applets or plug-ins. CommonGIS provided a combination of

GIS technology and tools for visual data analysis and decision-making. The Java

application, Dito, was developed for knowledge transfer through text based discussions.

Dito was basically an on-line forum that users could contribute to via the web or e-mail.

The two applications were combined to produce an on-line map viewer that allowed users

to add annotated text about the map. The annotated text that users added was then

integrated into the decision-making process. The research showed that complex spatial









problems could be solved using on-line media to involve multiple stakeholders (Voss,

Denisovich, Gatalsky, Gavouchidid, Klotz, Roeder, and Voss, 2004).

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Water used a different

approach when they moved from a static website to a web-based GIS to enhance access

to water quality data. Previously, the EPA had a static website displaying Avenue-

generated jpeg images that were created for each state, with a separate jpeg image

generated for each water body's designated use and the data was distributed on CD-ROM

every time it was updated. The EPA quickly outgrew the static application, with issues

such as maintenance, frequent updates and inadequate detail due to the size of the j peg

images. When the EPA decided to implement a web-based GIS approach, they chose to

create the application using MapObjects 1.2, MapObjects Internet Map Server (IMS) 2.0,

Visual Basic 5.0, and SQL Server 7.0. The robust application offered an on-line map

viewer and the ability to download the data in shapefile format for further review.

Benefits of the web-based GIS included, a more user-friendly way to view the data,

enhanced currency of the data, elimination of CD-ROM distribution, and users can query

the database and zoom to an extent that is appropriate for their individual needs (Miller

and Ilieve, 2005).

In Britain, a group of researchers explored the ways that users of a web-based

decision support system responded to spatial data for the site selection of nuclear waste

disposal. The Web-based GIS allowed a group of stakeholders to designate a potential

location for radioactive waste disposal and use spatial analysis tools to assess the

suitability of the site. A detailed user profile was collected to determine how the

participants responded to the inclusion of spatial data, whether their decision reflected a









sound understanding of the spatial data, if the spatial data inflicted a bias, and how the

participants responded to the opportunity to participate in the decision making process.

The user profile was also used to address the "Not In My Back Yard" (NIMBY) issue, to

determine whether the inclusion of spatial data lead the participants to propose sites away

from areas where they live. The study found that although the participants misinterpreted

the system to a minor degree, their outlook on the issue was directly influenced by the

spatial component of the data. The participants responded positively to their inclusion in

the decision making process, made rational proposals for potential nuclear waste sites

based on the data and analysis, and did not exhibit the use of NIMBY principles to make

their decision. The study ultimately showed that when spatial decision support systems

provide an avenue for stakeholders to learn about issues and experiment with the

consequences of their choices, the tend to make informed and realistic choices (Evans,

Kingston, and Carver, 2004).

Chen, Wang, Rishe, and Weiss discuss the development of a high-performance

system architecture to provide Web-based GIS access to the general public. The high-

performance application, TerraFly, was designed with a specific emphasis on system

architecture, data structures, and networking to improve the functionality and the

response time for users with little knowledge of spatial data. TerraFly allows users to

explore spatial data and perform advanced semantic queries, such as "Find all schools

within 20 miles." The researchers developed a model to optimize server CPU and other

resources called, Internally Distributed Multithreading Model (IDMT), which

compartmentalized and distributed each query based on the type of query being executed.

Queries were divided into two types, range queries and nearest neighbor queries. A range









query was used to find spatial objects in a specific area around a location determined by

the user, for example, "find all rental car companies around Miami International Airport

within six miles." A nearest neighbor query was used to find the nearest spatial object to

the location specified by the user, such as, "find the nearest rental car company." Once

the user sent a query via the client, the middleware on the server would parse the query

based on query type and return a response. This framework was achieved through a

distributed model, which included, the Java client, a database server, a proxy server, an

information server, and a framework for semantic queries. This project provides an

example of the architecture that can be deployed in order to offer web-based GIS to a

large audience that has little to no knowledge of GIS (Chen, Wang, Rishe, and Weiss,

2000).

Web-based GIS has been helpful in transportation decision-making as well, which

has been exemplified by a pilot project for the Florida Department of Transportation,

called Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM). The project was spearheaded

as a result of the "Streamling" provisions in TEA-21 that mandates early NEPA reviews

and approvals, timely decision-making without compromise of environmental quality,

public involvement, and meaningful dispute resolution. ETDM implements a web-based

tool, called the Environmental Screening Tool (EST), which is used for planning

transportation projects, conducting environmental reviews, and developing permitting

projects. The EST integrates geographic data from multiple sources into one standard

format and provides timely and standardized analyses of the effects of the proposed road

projects on natural and cultural resources. The primary GIS functions of the EST are,

data entry, GIS analyses, project review, and summary report (URS, 2000). The project









started in 2000 and has been highly effective and flexible as users articulate the

functionality that is needed.

Future of Web-Based GIS

Web-based GIS has enhanced the potential for research in the fields of spatial

analysis and modeling, wireless and mobile services, disaster response and 3D data

access and query. Future implementations of Web-based GIS will have the greatest

impact on three main groups, the GIS industry, environmental research, and the public.

The following section will detail how each of these groups in the GIS community will be

impacted (Peng and Tsou, 2003).

Geographic Information Systems industry

The further development of Web-based GIS will have three major impacts on the

GIS industry. First, the adoption of dynamic, distributed GIS services will enable the

reusability of GIS software and data. The current heterogeneous software and database

engines have not been successful facilitating data sharing or mitigating impacts of

software incompatibility. Future technological innovations that support software sharing

and reusability will generate higher productivity, increased efficiency in software

development, and provide a model for software prototyping when developing a new

system or technology. Second, the GIS industry will have more flexibility when

migrating to new GIS technologies. Using an incremental approach, small components

of GIS architecture, such as the database, user interfaces, and core GIS programs can be

migrated to adopt new technologies. Finally, as Web-based GIS becomes more

widespread, the current monopolized GIS environment will gradually shift to an open,

competitive environment. Whereas traditional marketing of GIS technology has always

targeted GIS professionals, consulting companies, academic institutions, and government









agencies, future marketing of GIS technology will be directed toward the public and end

users. This transition could lead to a stronger community of small GIS software

companies and program developers. GIS users will have greater flexibility in their

choices of GIS platforms as the market opens, due to a more competitive marketplace

(Peng and Tsou, 2003).

Environmental research

Web-based GIS provides many opportunities for data sharing. While most people

involved in environmental research are primarily interested in complex analyses to

further explore data, they are undoubtedly going to spend a great deal of time collecting

and processing spatial data. Traditionally, the most expensive part of GIS

implementation is data input and conversion. Most environmental research requires the

integration of numerous datasets, which necessitate costly generation procedures such as,

digitization, re-projection, classification, and image scanning. Web-based GIS provides a

framework for data sharing which would reduce the amount of time and resources needed

to generate and standardize spatial data (Peng and Tsou, 2003).

The public

As Evans, Kingston, and Carver presented in their research on the use of web-based

GIS for site selection of a nuclear waste disposal location, the general public tends to

make rational and well-informed decisions when presented with spatial data and analysis

tools. This presents potential opportunities for using web-based GIS to involve members

of the general public in the decision-making process. "It would seem that to have the

input of a broad and interested (but not self interested) group of people into the decision

making process is to the benefit of all responsible for managing the public's environment

and risks, and would enhance public interest in the democratic and decision-making









process" (Evans, Kingston, and Carver, 2004). But there are also negative impacts that

might result if Web-based GIS becomes more ubiquitous in society. Both the positive

and negative impacts on the public will be further detailed in this section.

There are two main aspects of daily life that would be greatly enhanced with the

implementation of Web-based GIS for public services. As Peng and Tsou describe in

Internet GIS, Web-based GIS could be integrated into society in a very transparent way.

For example, there could be a display board at every bus stop with detailed information

such as, when the next bus is coming, if it will be delayed, and the real-time location of

the bus. Another very important contribution that Web-based GIS could bring to daily

life is real-time services for emergency management. Real-time natural hazard reports

and evacuation/rescue plans could be relayed to the public for a more convenient and safe

way of life (Peng and Tsou, 2003).

A major problem with implementing Web-based GIS for public services is the

inequality of access to technological services such as the personal computer and Internet

access. This has been described as the "Digital Divide," which according to the National

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), is one of America's

leading economic and civil rights issues. NTIA released a report in 1999, stating that the

"Digital Divide" was widening over time, predominately among Black, Hispanic, and

female-headed households in the inner city and rural areas (NTIA, 1999). As Web-based

GIS becomes more integrated into the social fabric, governments will need to make an

effort to provide facilities for the public to access this information at schools, libraries,

and community centers (Peng and Tsou, 2003).









After the four hurricanes that hit Florida in the summer of 2004, the Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) asked The URS Corporation and the GeoPlan

Center at the University of Florida to adapt the ETDM-EST model mentioned above, to

provide spatial decision support to emergency response personnel investigating potential

facility location, such as staging areas, temporary and permanent housing, and any other

site-selection needs. The model, which was easily adapted within weeks, provided

detailed, dynamic maps with buffers around the paths of all four hurricanes and an

analysis of potential impacts. The Web-based GIS provided detailed imagery and access

to hundreds of statewide data layers from the Florida Geographic Data Library (FGDL).

This application exemplifies the three ways that Web-based GIS will change the way the

GIS community operates: a pre-existing Web-based GIS application was proven to be

reusable and easily adaptable, the level of research and access to hundreds of datasets and

detailed analyses enhanced FEMA's emergency response, and response times for

hurricane relief efforts were reduced.














CHAPTER 4
A WEB-BASED APPLICATION FOR PARTICIPATORY GREENWAYS PLANNING

Introduction

A Web-based application for participatory greenways planning was developed and

implemented at the GeoPlan Center at the University of Florida as part of a contract with

the Office of Greenways and Trails (OGT). Its purpose was to allow as many people as

possible to participate in the update of the Recreational Trail Network for the State of

Florida. The utility was developed during the summer of 2003 and tested by OGT staff.

The web-based tool was designed to allow representatives of non-profit organizations,

government agencies and the general public to log onto a website, review relevant

geographic data and input their suggestions for additions and deletions to the previous

opportunities maps. The application integrated geographic information systems (GIS),

relational database management systems and Internet mapping technology to provide on-

line tools for submitting potential recreational corridors in Florida (Schaller, et al., 2004).

Prior to the development of the Web-based application, the opportunity maps were

created and maintained using paper maps. These maps were hand edited at public

meetings around the State and the database was later updated by free-hand digitization.

The goals of the application were to improve the efficiency of the update process by

reducing transcription errors, allow more individuals in various geographic locations to

participate in the process, and standardize the data that was submitted. Real decision-

making power was not granted to the participants, but they were encouraged to submit

their suggestions for consideration.









Objectives

The specific objectives of the project were to:

* Develop a Web-based utility that allows any Internet user with access to a Web
browser to acquaint him/herself with the planning area and to support data input.

* Provide relevant geographic data at various extents.

* Set up a utility for OGT personnel to approve potential users of the application.

* Collect all user information in a database.

* Customize the ArcIMS interface to allow users to automatically zoom to the
geographic region of their interest.

* Customize the ArcIMS application to allow users to submit spatial and attribute
data on potential new trail corridors in Florida.

* Provide an on-line utility for users to upload shapefiles in-lieu of using the digitize
tool.

System Architecture

To meet the objectives listed above, the system was designed using an Oracle

database, Apache Web server, J2SDK JavaVM, Jakarta-Tomcat servlet engine, and

ArcIMS internet mapping software on a Linux Redhat platform. These components

provided the foundation for a working ArcIMS site.

The database server stored and served the data using an Oracle relational database

management system (RDBMS) and ArcSDE software. An Oracle database is comprised

of an instance and a collection of files stored on disk. The Oracle instance is made up of

processes and memory structures. ArcSDE is an Oracle client, designed to work with

server processes. ArcSDE is used to access large multiuser geographic databases stored

in a RDBMS. Each ArcSDE service listens for requests from the user application and

cleans up disconnected user processes. ArcIMS is a client application of ArcSDE, and is

assigned a process when it connects to ArcSDE. All query and edit requests are

submitted to the Oracle database by ArcSDE.



















ArcIMS
Servlet Connector

ArcIMS
Application Server

ArclMS Oracle/
Spatial Server ArcSDE
Database

Client Side Server Side

Figure 4-1. System Architecture

The Web server handles requests sent from users with an Internet Explorer

browser. The Web server forwards the requests to ArcIMS and sends a response back to

the requesting client. JavaVM provides the basic application programming interface

(API) for ArcIMS. The servlet engine is an extension to the JavaVM and provides

support for the servlets through a servlet API. The servlet engine plugs into the Apache

Web server and provides the link between the JavaVM and the Web server.

ArcIMS uses multiple components in conjunction with the system architecture to

serve maps, which includes the Application Servlet Connector, the Application Server,

and the Spatial Server (Figure 4-1). A single request is made to ArclMS by the client

browser every time an image is requested. For example, when the user zooms to a new

extent, pans to a different area, or selects attributes in a map, a new request is made.

Each time the user sends a request, it is first handled by the Web server, passed through









the ArcIMS Servlet Connector, and then forwarded to the ArcIMS Application Server.

The Application Server then dispatches the request to the ArcIMS Spatial Server for

processing.

Trail Network Update Utility

The Trail Network Update Utility is an ArcIMS application designed to provide

access to geographic data pertinent to greenways planning and a tool to submit spatial

and attribute data on potential new recreational trail corridors to a broad audience with

little knowledge of GIS. Many components of the Trail Network Update Utility were

built upon tools previously developed by the GeoPlan Center and the URS Corporation

for the Environmental Screening Tool (EST) for FDOT's Efficient Transportation

Decision Making (ETDM) model.

Data

After a series of conversations with OGT staff and the project leader, Margaret

Carr, a list of necessary data was compiled for the project (Figure 4-2). This included:

Existing Recreation Trails, Existing Trail Network Opportunities, Brownfield Areas,

Superfund Hazardous Waste Sites, Points of Interest, Roads, City Limits, Military Lands,

Water Bodies, Existing and Proposed Conservation Lands, and Digital Ortho Quarter

Quads. The data were first loaded into an ArcSDE database. The ArcSDE database was

chosen because it allows hundreds of ArcGIS users to be connected to a single database

through an ArcIMS server to access spatial and attribute data.

The contents and graphic presentation of the dynamic map were defined using Arc

Extensible Markup Language (XML), which creates an ArcXML (AXL) file. The AXL

file points to the location of the networked data, defines map properties, and lists the

layers to draw with specific rendering properties (Figure 4-3). In this example, the







60


ENVELOPE property tag indicates that the map will open at a specified extent based on

x and y coordinates and the MAPUNITS property tag indicates that the map units are in

meters. The SDEWORKSPACE tag points to the location of the database. Each LAYER

tag in the AXL file represents one feature class with detailed rendering properties.

ot. T *d' Hydric Soils







military Lands








Figure 4-2. Datalayers in Application















minscale="1:850000">


Figure 4-3. XML Code for Dynamic Map Display

Since the map is dynamic and we want it to have an appropriate amount of detail at

any scale, each layer is assigned scale factors. The next example shows two scale factors,

(1:70000 and 1:2000000) for one layer, which indicates that the layer will be visible

between a scale of 1:70000 and 1:2000000 (Figure 4-4).










Data were organized into folders in the Table of Contents to provide a logical and

systematic way for users to find the data. The folders in the Table of Contents include:

Sites, Historical Resources, Political, Trail Recommendations, Off-Road Biking Trails,

Equestrian Trails, Hiking Trails, Multi-Use Trails, Paddling Trails, Transportation,

Imagery, Natural Resources, and Landuse. Many datalayers were not visible by default,

but where available if the user chose to make them visible and to use them for reference.


minscale=" 1:70000" maxscale="1:2000000">







Figure 4-4. XML Code for Layer Scale Factors

Access

The Utility was initially available to representatives of governmental agencies and

non-governmental organizations in Florida. All potential participants received

notification of the project and were advised to visit the Office of Greenways and Trails

website to obtain a username and password to have access to the ArcIMS application. A

username and password was required for this project because users were able to write

directly to the database when digitizing new trails; therefore detailed information about

the users was pertinent.

When the user requested access to the Trail Opportunity Maps, they were asked to

fill out an on-line form (Figure 4-6) with their user information such as, name, address,

phone number, e-mail, and organization. If the user chose 'Other,' they were prompted

to enter the name of their organization. The entry would update the database and the









62




organization name would appear in the dropdown menu. All users were assigned a


unique username and password that was stored in an Oracle lookup table (Figure 4-7).


Note: We will be accepting trail recommendations until October 30th, 2003.

W welcome to the homepage for the Office of Greenways & Trails (OGT) Statewide
Greenways Recreational Trail Opportunity Map Update Utility This interactive web based
application can be used to assist in the creation, update, and maintenance of the Florida
Trails Network

Use the following link to access the Opportunity Map Update Utility

View and Diaitize Recreational Trail Onortunityv Mans

Request access to the Trail Opportunity Maps

Download the tutorial


Figure 4-5. Interface to Obtain Username and Password


Flagler County
Flonda Bike Association
FlondaTrai Associalion
Franklin County
Gadsden County
3ainesville MPO

silchnst County
Glades County
Greenways and Trails Council
Gulf County


Figure 4-6. Form to Collect User Information


NME # PHONE # E-MAIL
Sl ................. A .0 ................... l e-


# ADDRESS


k ADDRESS


PWORD P LOGIN I


plan ufl edu 420 Architecture Bldg Unersity ofFL


Figure 4-7. Record in Oracle Lookup Table with User Information


Tabl Editr: "Uilr"." USER ogCOETDMURACL.[iEULAN.UL.EDUn IE


TL T ADDRE031 4 #


# FK ORG $


4 IsOgtl Ilia








63



When the user filled out the form with their information, an e-mail was


automatically sent to the Office of Greenways and Trails using an Oracle Trigger. A


Trigger is a block of code that adds functionality to a default application, using one or


more SQL statements. When the User Information form was submitted, an event


occurred which executed the code in a trigger, thus "firing" the trigger. The purpose of


the trigger was to send an e-mail to OGT staff with the User Information, so that a


username and password could be granted. It must be noted that, during the course of the


submission process, no request for access was denied.



I-. I .. J
"_'


You will receive a user name and password at lila@geoplan.ufl.edu
within 24 hours.

You entered the following information:
Na-e Schalle La
Phone 3523928686


cBOX Si. Mil
F I p~yj~ tTM rnh~t rnziI"


E--al 11a@geopln ufl edu
Address 1 420 Arcltecture Building
Address 2 G nesville, FL 32611 opl .ufl edu etst Sual Blaci st S
Organzaton Office of Greenways and Trails november 17, 2003 10:24 pm
-I oplma.ufl.edu
IDo n e | | In t rn e,


I_________L:_______________________________ z"J : SC.ll.er, Lnl.


PASSWORD ogtos


-. -/-1- .. .-.1 .-- .-.-.






Figure 4-8. Oracle Trigger to Assign Username and Password


The user typically received their username and password by the end of the business


day, and was guaranteed to receive it within twenty-four hours. At this point, they were


able to log-on to the ArclMS website in order to view GIS data and digitize potential


recreational trail corridors.















om~e Note: We will be accepting trail recommendations until October 30th, 2003.

ni W welcome to the homepage for the Office of Greenways & Trails (OGT) Statewide
Greenways Recreational Trail Opportunity Map Update Utility This interactive web based
applicallon can be used to assist in the creation, update, and maintenance of the Florida
U"rsz ,dro, Trails Network
P"b.L.t O [J }I. Use the following link to access the Opportunity Map Update Utility
FAQ View and Dilizte Recreational Trail Opportunity Maps
unwt~ .* Request access to the Trail Opportunity MapX
ot@eoplan ufl edu,. ,
heather pence.de state fl. us Download the tutonal im
r~,dI


SThis ure Web Site [at almsb geoplan ul edu] eques you to log
Please type the User Name and Password that you use for ogt

P., p ------


Figure 4-9. Interface to Logon to ArcIMS Site

Interface Customization

The ArcIMS interface was customized using JSP, JAVA, and HTML to give users


functionality that wasn't available out-of-the-box.


A series of drop down menus were designed from needs expressed by OGT staff.


The drop down menus allowed users to zoom to a Florida Department of Environmental


Protection (FDEP) district, a county-wide extent, or to the jurisdictional boundary of their


organization. The minimum and maximum x y coordinates for each geographic region


were stored in an Oracle lookup table and using an SQL statement, the user was able to


zoom to the respective coordinates.


Using an SQL statement, the utility checked to see which organizations had


obtained a username and password. The organizations, which were using the application,


were the only names that showed up in the 'ORGANIZATION' drop down menu. This


Office of Greenways and Trails also used this utility to check which organizations were


participating in the update process. The last customized drop down menu allowed users


I~;;;


~j~S~y-.40A_










to toggle between maps of datasets relevant to multi-use trails, paddling trails and hiking

trails (Figure 4-10).

Many tools for viewing and analyzing spatial data were available to the user,

including Print Map, Pan, Zoom In, Zoom Out, Zoom to Previous Extent, Show Imagery,

View Metadata, Identify, Query, Buffer, Select, Measure, Set Units, and Clear Selection.

These tools allowed the user to navigate in the map and perform detailed queries as well

as analysis on the data.



O _c .of ',eril ,, Trails


'j I II ,.












thh
i. ... ............... .............


Figure 4-10. ArcIMS Interface

After the user viewed all relevant data and got familiar with their area, they clicked

'Digitize New Trail', which opened a new ArcIMS site at the same extent that the user

was zoomed to in the viewer.

Submission

Once the user clicked 'Digitize New Trail', they were prompted to enter attribute

information about their proposed trail corridor (Figure 4-11). The attribute information









and spatial coordinates were stored in multiple tables in an Oracle relational database.

Once the form was submitted, the user was able to digitize a new trail, with aerial

photography in the background to assure accuracy (Figure 4-12). The attribute data and

the spatial coordinates were combined on the fly so that the user and all other participants

could see the new trail immediately. This helped prevent the submission of identical

trails.

In September and October 2003, two training workshops were held in Tampa and

Ft. Myers. At each workshop participants were introduced to the web-based application

and given assistance submitting trails. Some participants used this time to submit

potential trail corridors, while others logged on to the site at a later date to use the web-

based application. Technical support was provided throughout the course of the

submission process.

During the course of the web-based application, 90 people acquired a username and

password for access to the website and 24 individuals submitted a total of 223 trail

segments for consideration.

If the user already had data in GIS format, we provided a utility for the submission

of digital data. The user was asked to provide attribute data using the same project form

as the digitize tool, to provide uniformity of data. Then, the user would send the spatial

data in GIS format. The spatial information was then joined with the attribute data that

the user previously entered. Eleven sets of digital data uploads were submitted totaling

approximately 500 segments (for example a county recreation department submitted its

entire set of local trails already in GIS format).









In early November 2003 staff from OGT and GeoPlan met to review the suggested

additions and deletions to the multi-use and paddling opportunity maps and to prepare

draft updates to be taken to the FGTC for review and approval. The FGTC meeting was

held on November 21, 2003 and the drafts were accepted as final by the FGTC with only

slight modification.


























Figure 4-11. Project Information Form

Then the draft updates were posted on the website and a period for public review

was widely advertised. Three public meeting were held in early 2004 to collect

suggestions; February 3rd in Ft. Myers, February 4th in Orlando, and February 9th in

Tallahassee. These meetings accommodated participants who did not have Internet

access or who preferred the group collaboration provided in a public meeting. During

these meetings staff from GeoPlan and OGT were available to record the suggestions









through a customized ArcMap application, which was available on multiple laptop

computers. Altogether, 40 individuals submitted 302 new trail segments for

consideration during this period.

OGT staff reviewed these additional drafts of multi-use and paddling opportunities

and a final version of each was prepared for review and approval by the FGTC.

Approval was granted by the FGTC for the multi-use and paddling opportunities at their

March 8-9, 2004 meeting with only minor modifications. The final opportunity segments

were then prioritized and ranked based on their potential significance to completing the

continuous statewide network of recreational trails (Figure 4-13).


Figure 4-12. Input Utility to Digitize New Trails


















a^


2004 Prioritization Multi-Use
Trail Network Opportunity Map


MlUM.oappurbmty mim a 004



LOW
C Warwgdon Leai


Figure 4-13. Final Prioritized Multi-Use Opportunity Map














CHAPTER 5
METHODOLOGY

The following methodology was designed to examine the efficiency of Web-based

GIS for statewide greenways planning. It investigated the degree of satisfaction that

users of the Trail Network Update Utility expressed and how they rated it in comparison

with the original process in 1994 of drawing potential new trail corridors on paper maps

at public meetings. The study also explored the use of Web-based GIS as a tool to

prepare for public meetings and the efficiency of training workshops to train decision-

makers in Web-based GIS. This chapter will cover the survey population, type of

respondents, instrumentation, and statistical analysis for the present study. All

procedures, methods, and analyses that will address the goals of examining the

effectiveness of Web-based GIS for statewide greenways planning are described.

Population and Sample

Recommendations for additions and deletions of the Trail Network Opportunities

were taken over a five month period from September 2003 to February 2004 using a

variety of methods, which included, on-line submission using Web-based GIS at training

workshops or from any location with Internet access, the submission of existing

datalayers on CD-ROM, and the submission of information to a GIS technician at public

meetings. The variety of submission methods allowed a participant with any level of

experience with GIS or the Internet to participate and contribute their recommendations.

During the five-month period, over 110 people participated submitting over 700 new trail

segments. Due to the relatively small number of participants, all people who participated









in the update of the Trail Network Opportunity Maps were sent a survey to evaluate their

satisfaction. Therefore, a sample of the population was not taken, rather the entire

population was asked to participate in the study.

Research Design and Subject Recruitment

Due to the diverse nature of the submission process, not all respondents

participated in every aspect of the project. The survey was broken into four key

components: public meetings, training workshops, the web-based tool, and a comparison

of the web-based GIS tool to the manual submission method implemented between 1994

and 1996. The survey was designed to accommodate a respondent who participated in

any combination of the update process. The potential survey respondents were

conceptually broken into five different user categories, which will be outlined below.

The first potential respondent, from here on referred to as User 1, participated in

each step of the update process. User 1 attended a public meeting, went to a training

workshop, used the web-based GIS utility, and was involved in the original process for

the 1994-1996 Design (Figure 5-1). The second potential respondent, User 2, attended a

training workshop, but was not involved in any other portion of the project (Figure 5-2).

The third potential respondent, User 3, did not attend a public meeting or training

workshop, and was not involved in the original process, but used the Web-based GIS

utility (Figure 5-3). The forth potential respondent, User 4, did not attend a public

meeting and was not involved in the original process, but went to a training workshop

and used the Web-based GIS utility (Figure 5-4). Lastly, the fifth potential respondent,

User 5, attended a public meeting, but did not attend training or use the Web-based GIS

utility and was not involved in the original process (Figure 5-5).












5. Didyou atteml a
Pgl. Pubhli Meeting?








7 -12.

Pg. about Puhi
Meeting


6. Didyogo to N
training?
I--- Y


1. Anttededed Public Meeting- Yes
2. Wentto Traiing Yes
3. Usedthe Utility- Yes
4.Invohledin 1996 Yes


14.Didyouget N-- STOP
-a usenamem andi
pas word? y









Please continue to
page 4
7 T


0-
N


N


STOP

t


Figure 5-1. User Scenario 1 represents how a respondent would be directed through the
survey if they attended a public meeting and a training workshop, used the
Web-based GIS tool, and were involved in the original update process.












1. Atededed Public Me eting No
2. WVAtto Traimng Yes
3.Used teUtiliy- No
4 Ivolued in 1996 No


7 -12I
Pg2. Queotios about 13. Didyou 14.Didyoueta N STOP
Pg2. Public Metieg o to userfamllde .td
traiig? password?

Y H


page 4


23-28. Qetions 29. Irvo d in
about UtWW T1de6 l


30-36. Comparison
Pg5. Questions


Figure 5-2. User Scenario 2 represents how a respondent would be directed through the
survey if they only attended a training seminar, but did not participate in any
other aspect of the project.













1. Attendeded Public Meeting No
2. Waeitto shiningg No
3. Usedthe Utiliy Yes
4. hInvold in 1996 No


Y

I


7 -12.
Pg2. Questionsabout 13.Dflyou 14. Didyou get N STOP
Public Meeting .uem1une sad
-Iramig? password? V

Y HN













o 1-1q ub |PIase continue to

iS^ m--.---------__ JP^


Y-


30-36. Comparison
Que moins


Figure 5-3. User Scenario 3 represents how a respondent would be directed through the
survey if they only used the Web-based tool.











1. Attendeded Public Meeting -No
2. Weitto Thnmmg Yes
3.Usedthe Utiliy- Yes
4. Involvd in 1996 No


7 -12.
Questions about 13. Di you
Public eating got


Y N






S Ph as continue to
paLg 4


N STOP


Y


HO


30-36. Comparison
Pg5. QueAtiM


Figure 5-4. User Scenario 4 represents how a respondent would be directed through the
survey if they went to a training workshop and used the Web-based utility, but
did not attend a public meeting and was not involved in the original process.












1.Attende ded Public Meeting- Yes
2. Wentto rtaiing No
3.Usedfthl Utilit No
4.wlvohedin 1996 -No


I6. Didyougoto
training?
A












Y t







Please ontjrae to


Y


30 36. Con~primo


Figure 5-5. User Scenario 5 represents how a respondent would be directed through the
survey if they only attended a public meeting.


In each diagram of potential respondents, the shaded boxes represent a portion of


the survey instrument that the respondent completed. The yes/no directional questions









are intended to direct the respondent only to the parts of the survey that pertain to

activities they participated in. The white boxes represent questions they did not answer,

because they were not involved in that part of the update process.

The survey was designed to guide each User through the questionnaire with ease,

regardless of their level of participation in the project. The primary researcher gave the

participants an introduction to the topic, a list of all benefits and risks, the expected

length of time for completion, and who to contact with questions or concerns (Appendix

B). The survey was sent in the mail in booklet format with graphics of the web-based

tool. Participants were given three to four weeks to complete the survey and an

addressed, paid postage envelope to return the survey. Jim Wood, Assistant Director of

the Office of Greenways and Trails sent an E-mail to all survey participants to show the

Department's support and encourage participation.

Instrumentation

The survey instrument (Appendix C) consisted of 36 questions, which were broken

into five subject sections, (1) general information, (2) public meetings, (3) training

workshops, (4) the web-based tool, and (5) comparison questions. There was an

additional blank page at the end of the survey for additional comments. The instrument

was revised three times over two weeks after careful examination and lengthy discussions

with the primary researcher's thesis committee. Special attention was given to the

phrasing of the questions, to assure that little to no bias was introduced. Before

circulating the survey, it was pilot tested using five mock participants who met the

criteria of Users one through five. Due to the complex nature of these individual

questions in this instrument, they will be discussed for further understanding of this

study.









General Information

The first background question was the participant's number of years involved in

greenways planning. The results from this question were used to analyze the respondents

experience with greenways and trails planning. Next, the respondent's job title was

requested, to understand what role they played in the greenways and trails planning

process. The third and forth introductory questions asked the user to rank their level of

comfort with the Internet and GIS on a scale of 1 to 5, with one being the least

comfortable and five being the most comfortable. The answers to these questions

provided the participants base level of comfort with the technical aspects of the project.

Questions 5 and 6 were directional questions, intended to guide the survey respondent to

the parts of the survey that matched their experience. Question 5 asked if the respondent

attended a public meeting, if so, they were directed to the next section on public

meetings, if not, they were directed to the next question. Question 6 asked if the

respondent participated in a training workshop; they were directed to the training

workshop section if they answered "yes," or to the web-based tool section if they

answered "no." The first question in the Web-based tool section asked if the respondent

used the tool. This enabled all potential respondents to quickly go to the section that

applied to them.

Public Meetings

Questions 7 through 12 assessed the effectiveness of the public meetings and how

well the web-based tool prepared the respondent for the public meetings. Question 7

asked which public meeting the respondent attended as a general reference. A major part

of the study was to examine respondent's resistance or acceptance of web-based GIS as a

planning tool. Therefore, the respondent was asked in question 8 if they chose to attend









the public meeting rather than use the Web-based tool. The results from this question

were used to examine if participants were avoiding the Web-based tool. It was followed

by an open-ended question regarding why they chose to attend the public meeting rather

than submit trail corridors using the web-based tool.

Prior to the public meetings, the FGTC approved draft opportunities were posted on

an on-line ArcIMS site for anyone from the general public to view, query, and print.

Paper maps of the draft opportunities were also available for download as were data in

shapefile format. Question 9 asked if the respondent viewed the draft opportunities prior

to attending the public meeting and which method they used. If they viewed the draft

opportunities using the on-line ArcIMS site, they were asked to rank its effectiveness in

preparing for the public meeting in questions 10 through 12. These questions consisted

of statements about the ease of access and ease of use of the on-line ArcIMS site and

whether the site helped them to better prepare for the public meeting. The respondents

had the following choices: "Strongly Disagree," "Disagree," "Neither," "Agree,"

"Strongly Agree," and "I do not have enough information to answer this question." The

last questions in the public meeting section were directional, sending the user to the

training workshop section or the web-based tool section, depending on the respondent's

answer.

Training Seminars

Questions 15 through 21 examined the effectiveness of the training seminars. The

questions in this section inquired about the participant's level of satisfaction with the

training and whether they used the Web-based GIS tool to submit a trail after the training.

Question fifteen asked which training seminar the respondent attended, Ft. Myers or

Tampa, as a general reference and to identify issues that were relevant to a particular









workshop. The next question, question 16, asked, "Did you use the on-line Trail

Network Update Utility to submit a trail after attending the seminar?" The results of this

question were used as a general indicator of the respondents overall satisfaction and

perceived need for the tool.

The next 5 questions, 17 through 21, focused on the participant's level of

satisfaction with the training. Respondents were asked to rate different elements of the

training seminar on a scale of 1 to 5, with the following choices: "l=Very Dissatisfied,"

"2=Dissatisfied," "3=Neither," 4=Satisfied," "5=Very Satisfied," and "0=I do not have

enough information to answer this question." Question 17 inquired about the

respondent's level of satisfaction with the equipment at the training workshop. This

question is mostly relevant for the scheduling of future training workshops and less for

the purposes of this study. There were significant technical difficulties at the Ft. Myers

training workshop and it was important to the primary researcher to ascertain whether

dissatisfaction was due to technical problems or the quality of the training itself.

Question 18 inquired about the respondent's level of satisfaction with the training

materials, "Were you satisfied that the materials provided you with an adequate

understanding of how to use the Trail Network Update Utility?" Questions 19 and 20

asked about the respondent's level of satisfaction with the allocation of meeting time and

the trainers, and question 21 asked for the respondent's overall level of satisfaction. The

results of the training section mostly provided the primary researcher with information

about the quality of the training, the results of this section can also be used to evaluate

whether participation at the training workshops had an impact on the level of satisfaction

with the Web-based tool.









Web-Based Tool

The third section of the survey instrument dealt mostly with participant satisfaction

with the Web-based tool for greenways planning. The first and last questions in the

section were directional. Question 22 asked whether the respondent used the Web-based

Trail Network Update Utility. If they responded "yes," they were directed to continue to

question 23, if they answered "no," they were directed to stop.

Questions 23 through 28 examined the respondent's level of satisfaction with

different aspects of the Web-based tool, such as documentation, navigability, ease of use,

technical support, and time available for data submission. Respondent's were asked to

respond to questions about the Trail Network Update Utility on a scale of 1 to 5, with

"l=Very Dissatisfied," "2=Dissatisfied,"'' "3=Neither," "4=Satisfied,"'' "5=Very Satisfied,"

and "0=I do not have enough information to answer this question." Question 23 asked,

"How satisfied were you with the quality of the on-line documentation for the Trail

Network Update Utility?" The results of this question were used to assess the

respondent's general satisfaction with the help material. Each of the following questions

in this section were phrased in the same manner as question 23. Question 24 asked how

satisfied the respondent was with the navigability of the web-based tool. This question

was used to evaluate the level of satisfaction with the design of the ArcIMS Interface and

general design of the site. The next item, question 25, asked how satisfied the respondent

was with the ease of use of the web-based tool. The results of this question were used to

examine participants' level of comfort with using Web-based GIS technology. This

question can be easily compared to the respondent's level of comfort with GIS and the

Internet, addressed in the general information section of the survey, to see if there is a

correlation between a respondent's satisfaction with the usability of the tool and their









level of comfort with GIS and the Internet. Questions 26 and twenty-seven asked how

satisfied the user was with the technical support for the Web-based tool and the time

available for data submission. Finally, question 28 asked the respondent to rate their

overall experience with the Web-based Trail Network Update Utility. The results of this

question were used to analyze the respondent's general experience with Web-based GIS

for greenways planning. The last question in this section asked if the respondent was

involved in the original design of the statewide trail network in 1996. If they answered

"yes," they were directed to the comparison section and if they answered "no," they were

directed to stop.

Comparison

The last section of the survey instrument was used to compare the original process

used for the 1994-1996 Trail Network Design with the process used for the 2003-2004

Trail Network Design. The process of drawing on maps in the 1994-1996 Design was

referred to as 'Manual' and the on-line digitizing process used in the 2003-2004 Design

was referred to as 'ArcIMS.' The purpose of this section was to evaluate whether

respondents felt the on-line digitizing process was an improvement over the manual

method used in the original design.

Questions 30 through 35 asked the respondent to indicate the degree to which they

favored one process over the other, using a series of topics such as, ease of submission,

quality of the final product, travel time, access to data, and the potential number of

participants. Respondents were asked to rate each question on a scale of 1 to 5, with the

following categories: "l=Manual Strong," "2=Manual Moderate," "3=Neutral,"

"4=ArcIMS Moderate," "5=ArcIMS Strong," and "0=I do not have enough information

to answer this question."









The first item, question 30, asked "Which process made it easier to submit potential

trail corridors to the Office of Greenways and Trails?" The results of this question were

used to analyze which method made it easier for the participant to submit data. The

Web-based tool made it much easier for OGT and the GeoPlan Center to collect data, so

the emphasis was specifically on the ease of submission for the user. The next item,

question 31, asked, "Which process resulted in a more complete statewide Trail

Network?" This question was used to analyze whether respondents felt that the

implementation of Web-based GIS lead to a better final product. Question 32 asked

which process required the least amount of travel time. Question 33 asked the respondent

which process gave them more access to geographic data on which to base their trail

recommendation. This question was important because there is a marked difference in

access to data between paper maps and dynamic, on-line mapping. The aim of this

question was to get an understanding of whether the user felt that they had access to more

data and whether it was useful to them. Question 34 simply asked which process was

easier for the respondent, and question 35 asked which process allowed more people to

submit potential trail corridors. The final question in this section was intended to assess

the general opinion of the overall worth of the Web-based tool. Question 36 asked, "Do

you feel that the benefits provided with the 2004 Trail Network Update Utility made

changing the process worthwhile?" This was followed by an open-ended question,

asking the respondent to convey in their own words what they thought about the two

different methods used for the design of the Trail Network. The survey concluded with a

blank page for respondents to provide any additional comments and a note, thanking the

participant for completing the survey.









Statistical Analysis

The survey data was tabulated and analyzed in SPSS 12.0. The survey responses

were recorded and all null values were reclassed to 9, which represented "No Data." All

text-based answers were used to gain a greater understanding of the respondent's

perceptions towards Web-based GIS as a planning tool, but were not included in the

statistical analysis. Respondent's personal comments will be discussed in greater detail

in Chapter Six.

Data analysis included basic descriptive statistics of all the questions. Frequencies

were run on each question to provide the basic descriptive statistics. Many comparative

statistics were run to find correlation between different responses. Fifty-two participants

returned the survey, but not all respondents participated in every aspect of the project,

therefore responses for each section were lower than the total number of surveys

returned. Since the entire population participated in the test, all of the observations about

the results are drawn from descriptive statistics.

In order to investigate the primary research question, which asked if the

implementation of Web-based GIS enhanced the design of a statewide trails network, the

questions in the comparison section were evaluated. The public meeting section was

used to answer the secondary research question, which asked if the implementation of

web-based GIS improves the opportunity for pubic involvement. A correlation between

the questions regarding the training seminar and Web-based GIS tool were used to

investigate the tertiary research question, which asked if training influences a

participant's satisfaction with Web-based GIS as a tool for greenways and trails planning.














CHAPTER 6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The primary purpose of this study was to examine how the implementation of Web-

based GIS affects the design of the Florida Greenways and Trails statewide Recreational

Trails Network. It explored stakeholders' analysis of the Trail Network Update Utility, a

Web-based GIS for greenways and trails planning. It also examined the potential for

greater public involvement and the influence of training on participant satisfaction.

Finally, this study examined whether the implementation of Web-based GIS was an

improvement over the former method of drawing on paper maps at public meetings.

Specifically, the study observed how the Trail Network Update Utility impacted travel

time, access to spatial data, ease of submission, and perception of the quality of the final

product by stakeholders who participated in both processes. Results for all of these

questions will be discussed in this chapter.

Given the limited number of survey respondents, the primary researcher was not

able to draw significant conclusions or test a hypothesis. Therefore, this study does not

attempt to answer broad question about the implementation of Web-based GIS for

greenways planning, rather it is an analysis of the responses provided by participants

regarding the 2004 Update of Florida's Trail Network.

Descriptive Results

Before discussing the analyses of each research question outlined in Chapter 1, a

brief description of the participant population follows. From September 2003 to

February 2004, approximately 114 individuals submitted potential trails corridors, using a









variety of methods. The Trail Network Update Survey was sent to each of these

individuals to give them the opportunity to convey pertinent information about the quality

of their experience. Of these 114 individuals, 52 responded to the survey, leaving a

sample size of approximately 50 (n=52). Most respondents (86.4%) had been involved in

greenways and trails planning for ten years or less. This indicates that very few

respondents were involved in the original design of the statewide trail network in 1996

(Table 6-1).

Table 6-1. Greenways and Trails Planning Experience
Duration (Years) Frequency Valid Percent
0-5 32.0 61.5
6-10 13.0 24.9
11 15 3.0 5.8
16 20 2.0 3.8
21 -25 2.0 3.8
Total 52.0 100.0

Many of the respondents reported a moderate to high level of comfort with the

Internet and GIS, with Internet comfort being the highest. All 52 respondents (100%)

reported moderate to highest levels of comfort with the Internet (Figure 6-2). While only

43 (82.7%) reported moderate to highest levels of comfort with GIS (Figure 6-3).

Table 6-2. Internet Comfort
Comfort Level Frequency Valid Percent
Lowest 0.0 0.0
Low 0.0 0.0
Moderate 3.0 5.8
High 9.0 17.3
Highest 40.0 76.9
Total 52.0 100.0

Public Meetings

This section of the survey asked questions that helped provide information

regarding the use of Web-based GIS to prepare for public meetings. Of the 52 survey









respondents, 21 (40.4%) attended a public meeting in Ft. Myers, Orlando, or Tallahassee.

Due to the fact that administrators such as OGT and GeoPlan staff also participated in the

survey, 6 of the respondents attended two or more meetings. (Table 6-4) The following

Table (6-4) shows the distribution of public meetings and the number of respondents who

attending each public meeting.

Table 6-3. GIS Comfort
Comfort Level Frequency Valid Percent
Lowest 3.0 5.8
Low 6.0 11.5
Moderate 13.0 25.0
High 13.0 25.0
Highest 17.0 32.7
Total 52.0 100.0


Table 6-4. Location of Public Meeting that Respondent Attended
Public Meeting Location Frequency Valid Percent
Ft. Myers 4.0 19.0
Orlando 7.0 33.3
Tallahasee 4.0 19.0
All Three 5.0 23.8
Orlando & Tallahassee 1.0 4.8
Total 21.0 100.0

Of those who attended a public meeting, 5 (22.7%) reported that they chose to go to

a public meeting rather than use the Web-based Trail Network Update Utility. The

predominant reasons for attending a public meeting in-lieu of using the Trail Network

Update Utility were ease of coordination efforts, the preference for direct contact, and

dissatisfaction with the tool. One planning advocate stated, "(The public meeting was) in

town and I prefer direct contact if it is available." A Parks and Recreation Coordinator

expressed that they chose to attend the public meeting due to difficulties coordinating

input from the City, the County Greenways Committee, and the County GIS. A planning