Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …
New journal!

Open Information Science

Editor-in-Chief: Sturges, Paul

1 Issue per year

Open Access
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Land Developers and Archaeological Information

Isto Huvila
Published Online: 2017-09-08 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2017-0006


Land developers are significant stakeholders of archaeological work in the developed world. A better understanding of their information practices is crucial for the preservation and management of archaeological heritage. This study investigates land developers’ use, needs and conceptions of the usefulness- value of archaeological information and their views of development-led archaeological process. The findings are based on a survey of Finnish and Swedish land developers (N=34) that have contracted and financed archaeological fieldwork. The results show that the most useful information for land developers is data on the spatial location of archaeological sites but that the situation is much more nuanced than often suggested. Even if the most of the respondents were rather satisfied with the current situation, the lack of information can have major consequences and there are several obstacles to obtain relevant information. Extensive reliance on people sources can be seen both a symptom of the current problems and an indication of the importance of closer collaboration between archaeologists and land developers. Further, the study shows that the different levels of the perceived usefulness of specific types of archaeological information can be explained by the different regimes determining their worth in the two communities.

Keywords : land development; archaeology; information use; information needs; information value; usefulness


  • Aitchison, K. (2015). Professional archaeology in the UK in 2015. Cultural Trends, 24(1), 11-14.Google Scholar

  • Andersson, C., Lagerlof, A., & Skyllberg, E. (2010). Assessing and measuring: On quality in development-led archaeology (with comments and reply),. Current Swedish archaeology, 18, 11-28.Google Scholar

  • Bazelmans, J. (2009). Wie betaalt, bepaalt? 47 de introductie van marktwerking en het ’verstoorder betaalt’ -principe in de nederlandse archeologie. In Het cultuurhistorisch argument, (pp. 49-59). Utrecht: Belvedere.Google Scholar

  • Berggren, A., & Hodder, I. (2003). Social Practice, Method, and Some Problems of Field Archaeology. American Antiquity, 68(3), 421-434.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Boltanski, L., & Thevenot, L. (2006). On justification. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar

  • Borjesson, L. (2015). Grey literature - grey sources? nuancing the view on professional documentation: The case of Swedish archaeology. Journal of Documentation, 71(6), 1158-1182.Google Scholar

  • Borjesson, L. (2016). Beyond information policy: conflicting documentation ideals in extra-academic knowledge making practices. Journal of Documentation, 72(4), 674 - 695.Google Scholar

  • Borjesson, L., Petersson, B., & Huvila, I. (2015). Information policy for (digital) information in archaeology: current state and suggestions for development. Internet Archaeology, 40.Google Scholar

  • Burnett, G., & Jaeger, P. T. (2008). Small worlds, lifeworlds, and information: The ramifications of the information behaviour of social groups in public policy and the public sphere. Information Research, 13(2). http://informationr.net/ir/13-2/paper346.htmlGoogle Scholar

  • Bystrom, K. (1999). Task Complexity, Information Types and Information Sources. Ph.D. thesis, University of Tampere, Information Studies, Tampere.Google Scholar

  • Carver, M. (1999). Field archaeology. In G. Barker (Ed.) Companion encyclopedia of archaeology, (pp. 128-181). London: Routledge.Google Scholar

  • Case, D. O., & Given, L. M. (2016). Looking for information : a survey of research on information seeking, needs, and behavior. Bingley: Emerald.Google Scholar

  • Chirikure, S. (2012). Reverse archaeology or relevance seeking archaeology? Heritage & Society, 5(1), 116-120.Google Scholar

  • Cumberpatch, C., & Blinkhorn, P. (2001). Clients, contractors, curators and archaeology: who owns the past? In M. Pluciennik (Ed.) The responsibilities of archaeologists. Archaeology and ethics, (pp. 39-46). Oxford: Tempus Reparatum.Google Scholar

  • Cummins, J., & Bawden, D. (2010). Accounting for information: Information and knowledge in the annual reports of FTSE 100 companies. Journal of Information Science, 36(3), 283-305.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Darlington, M., Culley, S. J., Zhao, Y., Austin, S. A., & Tang, L. (2008). Defining a framework for the evaluation of information. International Journal of Information Quality, 2(2), 115-132.Google Scholar

  • De Clercq, W., Bats, M., Bourgeois, J., Crombe, P., De Mulder, G., De Reu, J., Herremans, D., Laloo, P., Lombaert, L., Plets, G., et al. (2012). Development-led archaeology in flanders: an overview of practices and results in the period 1990-2010. Development-led archaeology in North-west Europe: proceedings of a round table at the University of Leicester 19th-21st november 2009, (pp. 29-55).Google Scholar

  • De Roo, B., Bourgeois, J., & De Maeyer, P. (2013). A survey on the use of GIS and data standards in archaeology. International Journal of Heritage in the Digital Era, 2(4), 491-507.Google Scholar

  • De Roo, B., Bourgeois, J., & De Maeyer, P. (2016). Information flows as bases for archaeology-specific geodata infrastructures: an exploratory study in Flanders. JASIST, 67(8), 1928-1942.Google Scholar

  • Demoule, J. (2007). Scientific quality, control and the general organization of French archaeology. In W. J. H. Willems, & M. H. v. d. Dries (Eds.) Quality management in archaeology, (pp. 135-147). Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar

  • Demoule, J.-P. (2012). Rescue Archaeology: A European View. Annual Review of Anthropology, 41, 611-626.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Demoule, J.-P. (2016). Preventive archaeology: Scientific research or commercial activity? In P. Novaković, M. Horňak, M. P.Google Scholar

  • Guermandi, H. Stauble, P. Depaep, & J.-P. Demoule (Eds.) Recent Developments in Preventive Archaeology in Europe: Proceedings of the 22nd EAA Meeting in Vilnius, 2016, (pp. 9-19). Ljubljana: Ljubljana University Press.Google Scholar

  • Dries, M. V. D., & Vuuren, M. V. (2012). Het selectiebeleid van gemeenten : Kiezen voor bekende thema’s. Archeobrief, (pp. 32-37).Google Scholar

  • Everill, P. (2012). The Invisible Diggers : A Study of British Commercial Archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2 ed.Google Scholar

  • Faniel, I., Kansa, E., Whitcher Kansa, S., Barrera-Gomez, J., & Yakel, E. (2013). The challenges of digging data: a study of context in archaeological data reuse. In Proceedings of the 13th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries, JCDL ’13, (pp. 295-304). New York: ACM.Google Scholar

  • Faniel, I. M., Kriesberg, A., & Yakel, E. (2016). Social scientists’ satisfaction with data reuse. JASIST, 67(6), 1404-1416.Google Scholar

  • Fleischmann, K. R. (2013). Information and Human Values. Santa Barbara, CA: Morgan & Claypool.Google Scholar

  • Geser, G., & Selhofer, H. (2014). D2.1 First Report on Users´ Needs. Tech. rep., ARIADNE, Prato.Google Scholar

  • Gnecco, C., & Dias, A. S. (2015). On contract archaeology. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 19(4), 687-698.Google Scholar

  • Goudswaard, B., Bos, J., van Roode, S., & Pape, H. (2012a). Forward with reverse archaeology. Heritage & Society, 5(1), 101-115.Google Scholar

  • Goudswaard, B., Bos, J., van Roode, S., & Pape, H. (2012b). Reverse heritage. Heritage & Society, 5(1), 137-144.Google Scholar

  • Green, W., & Doershuk, J. F. (1998). Cultural resource management and american archaeology. Journal of Archaeological Research, 6(2), 121-167.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Groarke, L., & Warrick, G. (2006). Stewardship gone astray? ethics and the SAA. In C. Scarre, & G. Scarre (Eds.) The ethics of archaeology, (pp. 163-177). Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Google Scholar

  • Haggren, G. (2014). Haloo muinaisjaannosrekisteri: kylat mukaan! SKAS, (1), 2.Google Scholar

  • Hill, M. (2005). The impact of information on society : an examination of its nature, value and usage. Munchen: KG Saur.Google Scholar

  • Huvila, I. (2006). The ecology of information work - A case study of bridging archaeological work and virtual reality based knowledge organisation. Abo: Abo Akademi University Press. Diss. Abo Akademi UniversityGoogle Scholar

  • Huvila, I. (2012). Information Services and Digital Literacy: In search of the boundaries of knowing. Oxford: Chandos.Google Scholar

  • Huvila, I. (2014a). Archaeologists and their information sources. In I. Huvila (Ed.) Perspectives to Archaeological Information in the Digital Society, (pp. 25-54). Uppsala: Department of ALM, Uppsala University.Google Scholar

  • Huvila, I. (2014b). Introduction. In I. Huvila (Ed.) Perspectives to Archaeological Information in the Digital Society, (pp. 1-9).Google Scholar

  • Uppsala: Department of ALM, Uppsala University.Google Scholar

  • Huvila, I. (2016a). Awkwardness of becoming a boundary object: Mangle and materialities of reports, documentation data and the archaeological work. The Information Society, 32(4), 280-297.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Huvila, I. (2016b). ’if we just knew who should do it’, or the social organization of the archiving of archaeology in Sweden. Information Research, 21(2). http://www.informationr.net/ir/21-2/paper713.htmlGoogle Scholar

  • Kimble, C., Grenier, C., & Goglio-Primard, K. (2010). Innovation and knowledge sharing across professional boundaries: Political interplay between boundary objects and brokers. International Journal of Information Management, 30(5), 437-444.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • King, T. F. (2005). Doing archaeology: a cultural resource management perspective.Google Scholar

  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis : an introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

  • Kristiansen, K. (2009). Contract archaeology in Europe: an experiment in diversity. World Archaeology, 41(4), 641-648.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lowenborg, D. (2014). Recuperating gis data from excavations: On the use, or lack of use, of digital archaeological information. In I. Huvila (Ed.) Perspectives to Archaeological Information in the Digital Society, (pp. 11-23). Uppsala: Department of ALM, Uppsala University.Google Scholar

  • Luoto, K. (2015). Vastine Muinaistutkijan (3/2015) paakirjoitukseen “Firmat, kilpailu ja arkeologia”. Muinaistutkija, (4), 54-55.Google Scholar

  • Madden, A. D., Ford, N. J., & Miller, D. (2007). Information resources used by children at an English secondary school: Perceived and actual levels of usefulness. Journal of Documentation, 63(3), 340 - 358.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Museiverket (2016). Kvalitetsanvisningarna för de arkeologiska fältarbetena i Finland [Quality guidelines for archaeological fieldwork in Finland]. Helsingfors.Google Scholar

  • Pere, K. (Ed.) (2014). Kulttuuriympäristöstrategia käytäntöön [Implementation of the Cultural Environment Strategy]. Helsinki: Ymparistoministerio.Google Scholar

  • RAA (2015a). Uppdragsarkeologi : Rapportering, förmedling och arkeologiskt dokumentationsmaterial. Stockholm.Google Scholar

  • RAA (2015b). Uppdragsarkeologi: Det uppdragsarkeologiska systemet. Stockholm.Google Scholar

  • Riksantikvarieambetet (2012). Verkställighetsföreskrifter för uppdragsarkeologi : Återrapportering av regeringsuppdrag. Stockholm.Google Scholar

  • Rocabado, P. (2015). Neoliberal multiculturalism and contract archeology in northern chile. International Journal of Historical Archaeology, 19(4), 775-790-. Saastamoinen, M., Kumpulainen, S., Vakkari, P., & Jarvelin, K. (2013). Task complexity affects information use: a questionnaire study in city administration. Information Research, 19(4). http://www.informationr.net/ir/18-4/paper592.htmlCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Saracevic, T. (2016). The Notion of Relevance in Information Science: Everybody knows what relevance is. But, what is it really?. Santa Barbara, CA: Morgan & Claypool.Google Scholar

  • Savolainen, R. (2009). Information use and information processing: Comparison of conceptualizations. Journal of Documentation, 65(2), 187-207.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Savolainen, R. (2017). Information need as trigger and driver of information seeking: a conceptual analysis. Aslib Journal of Info Mgmt, 69(1), 2-21.Google Scholar

  • Seppanen, L. (2014). Is the output worth of input? Estimating the value of past excavations for new information. In Presentation at the CHNT 2014 conference, Vienna, Nov, 2014.Google Scholar

  • Shepherd, N. (2007). What does it mean ’to give the past back to the people’? archaeology and ethics in the postcolony. In Archaeology and capitalism: From ethics to politics, (pp. 99-114). Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press.Google Scholar

  • Sinn, D., & Soares, N. (2014). Historians’ use of digital archival collections: The web, historical scholarship, and archival research. JASIST, 65(9), 1794-1809.Google Scholar

  • Skyllberg, E. (2013). Uppdragsarkeologins malgrupper - en utvardering av publik arkeologisk verksamhet och av hur de arkeologiska resultaten tas om hand i samhallsplaneringen och i skolan. Rapport, Lansstyrelsen i Uppsala lan, Uppsala.Google Scholar

  • Sohlenius, R. (2014). Förstudie FMIS-processen [Prestudy of FMIS process]. Stockholm: RAA.Google Scholar

  • Soomai, S., Wells, P., & MacDonald, B. (2011). Multi-stakeholder perspectives on the use and influence of ̈grey ̈ scientific information in fisheries management. Marine Policy, 35(1), 50-62.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Star, S. L. (2010). Ceci n´est pas un objet-frontiere! Reflexions sur l´origine d´un concept. Revue d´anthropologie des connaissances, 4(1), 18-35.Google Scholar

  • Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, ’Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420.Google Scholar

  • Stjernberg, F. (2010). Comments on assessing and measuring: On quality in development-led archaeology. Current Swedish Archaeology.Google Scholar

  • Talja, S., & Lloyd, A. (2010). Challenges for Future Research in Learning, Literacies and Information Practices. In A. Lloyd, & T. S. (Eds.) Practicing Information Literacy: Bringing Theories of Learning, Practice and Information Literacy Together, (pp. 357-364). Wagga Wagga: Centre for Information Studies.Google Scholar

  • Thomas, J. (2006). The Great Dark Book: Archaeology, Experience, and Interpretation. In J. Bintliff (Ed.) A Companion to Archaeology, (pp. 21-36). Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.Google Scholar

  • Tornqvist, O. (2015). Rapport fran Riksantikvarieambetet - inventering av data fran uppdragsarkeologin aktorer, data och forutsattningar for att ateranvanda informationen. Tech. rep., RAA, Visby.Google Scholar

  • Trompette, P. (2013). The politics of value in french funeral arrangements. Journal of Cultural Economy, 6(4), 370-385.Google Scholar

  • Vakkari, P. (1997). Information seeking in context: A challenging metatheory. In P. Vakkari, R. Savolainen, & B. Dervin (Eds.) Proceedings of an International Conference on Research in Information Needs, Seeking and Use in Different Contexts, (pp. 451-464). London: Taylor Graham.Google Scholar

  • Widen-Wulff, G. (2007). Challenges of Knowledge Sharing in Practise: A Social Approach. Oxford: Chandos.Google Scholar

  • Willems, W. J. H. (2008). Archaeological resource management and preservation. Geoarchaeological and Bioarchaeological Studies, 10, 283-289.Google Scholar

  • Willems, W. J. H., & Dries, M. H. v. d. (2007). Quality management in archaeology. Oxford: Oxbow.Google Scholar

  • Woudstra, L., van den Hooff, B., & Schouten, A. P. (2012). Dimensions of quality and accessibility: Selection of human information sources from a social capital perspective. Information Processing & Management, 48(4), 618-630.Google Scholar

  • Zimmerman, L. J., & Branam, K. M. (2014). Collaborating with Stakeholders. In J. Balme, & A. Paterson (Eds.) Archaeology in Practice: A Student Guide to Archaeological Analyses, (pp. 1-25). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.Google Scholar

  • Zorzin, N. (2010). The political economy of a commercial archaeology : a Quebec case-study. Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton, Southampton.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2017-03-09

Accepted: 2017-07-13

Published Online: 2017-09-08

Published in Print: 2017-09-26

Citation Information: Open Information Science, Volume 1, Issue 1, Pages 71–90, ISSN (Online) 2451-1781, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/opis-2017-0006.

Export Citation

© 2017. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License. BY-NC-ND 4.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in