Susan T.

Williams
March 2013

Case Study: Caribou Migration Routes

An environmental consulting firm in Alaska is hired by a natural gas utility to produce a map of a proposed
pipeline through a portion of northeast Alaska in preparation for a public hearing (a hearing attended also
by potential funders for the project). The company already has a pipeline route in mind but wants to
assess this further within the context of the physical landscape, private land ownership, and public lands
data. In the end they want to choose the shortest, most direct route to minimize capital expenditures for
construction and pipeline efficiency. Geophysical, environmental, political, social, economic and
regulatory factors often come into play when refining the best route.
A GIS analyst within the consulting firm is assigned to this project and proceeds to gather all pertinent
data including existing topographic maps (DEMs), potential landslides, land use, land cover, geologic
fault, soils, roads, railways, streams, station points, resident locations, administrative boundaries
(including land ownership), vegetation, regulatory data, and subsurface seismic data.
The project involves consideration of the following variables:
shortest distance from source to market;
slope of terrain;
number of stream, road, and railroad crossings;
substrate (rocks, soils, etc., associated with burial);
existing laws and regulations (e.g., proximity to wetlands, costs associated with right-of-way, etc.)
proximity to population centers;
use of existing utility corridors; and
vegetation (removal of trees needed?)
The analyst plans to use these variables within a multi-step raster and network analysis involving the
calculation of cost surfaces, distance surfaces, and direction surfaces in combination with source points,
station points and destination points in defining an optimum pipeline route.
The analyst also has access to caribou migration routes throughout the region from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Figure 1). Although the proposed path of the pipeline itself will not fall within wildlife
refuges, the migration corridors for this important species move beyond the reach of refuges. In fact the
analyst found these migration routes to intersect the proposed pipeline at several points.
The analyst brings this finding to the attention of her supervisor. For reasons unknown to the analyst, the
supervisor instructs her to remove the caribou migration routes from any maps prepared for the public
hearing. What should the analyst do?

Ethical Analysis
This case study was analyzed through the application of Davis seven-step guide (DiBiase et al, 2009).
Step 1. State problem.
The analyst has been asked to omit the caribou migration routes from the public hearing maps for
unknown reasons, even though the migration routes intersect the proposed pipeline at several points.
Omitting data that could potentially affect the outcome of the pipeline route and withholding it from the
public seems manipulative and feels uncomfortable.
1

Step 2. Check facts.

The facts are as follows:
An environmental consulting firm in Alaska is hired to produce a map of a proposed natural gas
pipeline through a portion of northeast Alaska. The company already has a route in mind but
wants to assess this further within the context of the physical landscape and land ownership data.
The map will be used at a public hearing which will also be attended by potential project funders.
In the end they want to choose the shortest, most direct route to minimize capital expenditures for
construction and pipeline efficiency. Geophysical, environmental, political, social, economic and
regulatory factors often come into play when refining the best route.
Variables for consideration include the shortest distance from source to market; slope of terrain;
number of stream, road, and railroad crossings; substrate; existing laws and regulations (e.g.,
proximity to wetlands, costs associated with right-of-way, etc.); proximity to population centers;
use of existing utility corridors; and vegetation (removal of trees needed?)
Pertinent data is gathered to address these variables, including caribou migration routes from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Although the proposed path of the pipeline itself will not fall within
wildlife refuges, the migration routes to intersect the proposed pipeline at several points.
The analyst brings this finding to the attention of her supervisor and is instructed to remove the
caribou migration routes from any maps prepared for the public hearing with no reason given.
Step 3: Identify relevant factors.
The persons involved include the GIS analyst and her supervisor, the environmental consulting company,
the natural gas utility company, the public who will be present at the hearing, and potential project funders
who will be present at the hearing.
The GIS Analyst may have ethical reservations about following her supervisors instructions and
omitting the data. However, if the analyst does not follow her supervisors instructions, her job
may be at risk.
The environmental consulting company may find their business and reputation at risk if the public
or potential project funders discover that relevant information has been omitted.
The natural gas utility company may also find their business and reputation at risk as it will
appear that they were attempting to hide relevant data in order to come up with a cheaper and
easier pipeline construction route with no thought to environmental impact, regardless as to
whether or not the utility company was aware of the omission.
The public citizens have the right to know about all mitigating factors, especially since this map is
to be prepared specifically for a public hearing. Potential funders have the right to know as many
facts as possible before they decide to invest in the project. There could be extensive backlash if
either party learns that data has been purposely omitted.
Step 4: Develop list of options.
Although it is technically an option to not approach the supervisor at all for further discussion or
clarification on the issue but to simply decide whether or not to comply or whether or not to approach
someone else regarding the matter, this is really a non-option as it represents poor communication skills
and lack of respect.
The GIS analyst should first approach the supervisor and express reservations regarding the removal of
the migration routes, explaining that these routes intersect with the proposed pipeline at several points
and are therefore relevant to the study. The analyst can attempt to further explain the risks of this data
omission (ie- public and stakeholder backlash, economic and reputation damage to the consulting
company). The supervisor will most likely then do one of four things:
1. Give an acceptable (ie- logical and defensible) reason for the datas removal.
2

2. Give an unacceptable reason for the datas removal.

3. Instruct the analyst to remove the data as previously advised, with no further explanation.
4. Instruct the analyst to go ahead and include the data after all.
The analysts options in response to any of these scenarios are whether to comply or not comply with the
supervisors request for omitting the data, though specifics may vary based on the supervisors response.
Step 5: Test options.
In scenario 1 above, in which the supervisor gives an acceptable reason for the datas removal, the
analyst will likely then feel more comfortable with the decision and proceed as instructed, now having
knowledge as to how this decision might be defended to the public, potential stakeholders, and others
who may questions the ethics involved. The key is to whether or not the reason is logical and defensible.
If it truly is, then this option would likely pass the Publicity test (would I want my choice of this option
published in the newspaper?), Defensibility test (could I defend choice of option before Congressional
committee or committee of peers?), and Colleague test (what do my colleagues say when I describe my
problem and suggest this option as my solution?).
In scenarios 2 and 3 above, in which the supervisor gives an unacceptable reason or no reason for the
datas removal and continues to hold to the stance after further discussion, the analyst is in a difficult
position. If she proceeds as instructed, the action fails most of the tests as it is not publicly acceptable
nor defensible, and would likely be called into question by colleagues and ethics committees. The analyst
can consider approaching a higher-ranking supervisor (or ethics committee or legal counsel, if one exists)
with the matter. The analyst could also consult with the natural gas company that hired her firm for the
project. This meeting would allow her to voice her concerns and determine whether or not the company
asked the supervisor to see to the datas removal. The analyst could encourage the company to promote
an eco-friendly image by including the data, thereby enhancing their reputation among the public and
potential stakeholders.
In any of the first three scenarios, the analyst could also opt to include the data against her supervisors
orders and be willing to accept any consequences that might result, which may include being fired from
her job, or could ask that this particular project be given to someone else within the company. This is less
than ideal, however, as the ethical questions still remain and the analyst has only managed to distance
herself from the issue personally.
Choosing to include the data anyway is an action that would pass the ethical tests but certainly causes
personal difficulties for the analyst in regards to her employment and relationship with her supervisor.
In scenario 4, the conflict is concluded and there is no longer an issue. The matter may have been simply
an issue of miscommunication and a willingness to approach the affected parties with facts and clearheaded, respectful dialogue may have been all that was necessary to resolve the matter.
When reviewing the GIS Certification Institutes Rules of Conduct for Certified GIS Professionals, one that
seems particularly relevant to this case is found in Section I, Number 12: We, speaking in our
professional capacity, shall not knowingly make false statements of material fact, nor shall we omit
material facts (GIS Certification Institute, 2008). This makes it fairly clear that omitting the migration
routes is an unethical action and should be avoided.
Furthermore, Section II, Number 6 states that We shall not counsel nor assist a client or employer in
conduct that we know, or reasonably should know, is fraudulent, illegal, or unethical. If a client or
employer does suggest or disclose such conduct, we shall advise the client or employer of the aspects of
the proposal that are fraudulent, illegal, or unethical (ibid)

Step 6: Make a choice based on steps 1-5.

After approaching the supervisor and opening up further discussion regarding the matter, the analyst
should make it clear that removing the data is in direct violation of GISCI Rules of Conduct and is
therefore an unethical action and will not be carried out.
If the supervisor persists in requesting the datas removal, the analyst should take the matter to a higherranking authority and ethics committee or legal counsel (if the company has one) and together they can
decide whether or not to file a formal complaint in regards to the supervisor.
Step 7: Review steps 1-6.
The analyst could suggest that the environmental consulting company emphasize ethics training and
adherence to Rules of Conduct such as those presented by the GISCI, perhaps even using staff meetings
to facilitate familiarity with the rules. If the company does not currently have an ethics officer or
committee, the analyst could encourage that one be formed in order to provide future guidance and
support.

References
DiBiase, D, C. Goranson, F. Harvey, and D. Wright (2009). The GIS Professional Ethics Project: Practical
Ethics Education for GIS Pros. Proceedings of the 24th International Cartography Conference. Santiago,
Chile, 15-21 November. Accessed March 2013 at https://cms.psu.edu/section/content/Default.asp?
WCI=pgDisplay&WCU=CRSCNT&ENTRY_ID=1621158054F549DCAF011865DC4AD6AB
GIS Certification Institute (2008). Rules of Conduct for Certified GIS Professionals (GISPs). Accessed
March 2013 at http://www.gisci.org/Ethics_and_Conduct/rules_of_conduct.aspx