Welcome to the Geo-Ethics Committee (GeoEC) at the University of Twente (UT). The GeoEC is installed and supported by the Faculty of Earth Observation and Geo-Information Sciences (ITC) and acts to advise on research ethics. We are one of four domain-specific ethics committees at the University of Twente, as outlined in the UT Research Ethics Policy (2019). The goal of the GeoEC is to facilitate that research conducted at ITC is in-line with relevant ethical principles, norms, and standards through quality geo-ethics review procedures.
Geo-ethics is about recognising and mitigating ethical challenges in geoscience and spatial research. Engaging in geo-ethics requires that researchers critically evaluate their work's local and global social, political, economic, and environmental implications.
The GeoEC is specialised in ethics reviews for research in the spatial and geoscience domains and conducts ethics reviews for research linked to those domains. Our expertise aligns with ITC’s key focus areas, including technical and social research projects and those that combine social and technical approaches.
In our reviews, we consider a broad range of ethical dimensions, including, but not limited to:
- Protection of human or animal subjects and the environment.
- Data ethics, including (location) privacy, informed consent, data minimisation, and secure handling.
- Artificial Intelligence ethics, such as explainability, and avoiding compounding negative effects.
- Accountability and transparency in analysis.,
- Reflection on possible bias in analysis.
- Undue influence of external parties such as corporate actors, governments, etc.
- Power dynamics, for example, between researcher and participants, or researcher and funder.
- Future impact on the environment, society, economy, politics.
- Potential for dual use or misuse.
Current members
- Dr Fran Meissner (Chair)
- Dr Caroline Gevaert (Vice-chair)
- Dr ir Rolf de By (ITC member)
- Dr Elinor Meredith (ITC member)
- Lorraine Trento Oliveira (ITC member, PhD representative)
- Dr Naomi Jacobs (external member, BMS)
- Masoome Shariat (professional secretary)
- Irene de Graaf (administrative secretary)
Current appointed reviewers
In addition to the committee members, reviews are also conducted by the following delegated reviewers:
- Prof dr Karin Pfeffer
- Dr Paulo Raposo
- Dr Divyani Kohli - Poll Jonker
- Dr Islam Fadel
- Dr Roelof Rietbroek
- Prof dr ir Claudio Persello
- Dr Michael Marshall
- Dr Frank Osei
Former members
Dr Azadeh Akbari Kharazi (external member, BMS)
Dr Francesco Nex (ITC member, Vice-chair)
Brian Masinde (ITC member, PhD candidate)
Prof. Dr Karin Pfeffer (ITC member, chair)
Dr Michael Nagenborg (external member, BMS)
Dr Ana Maria Bustamante Duarte (professional secretary)
Dr Marga Koelen (professional secretary)
Prof dr ir Alfred Stein (ITC member, chair)
Prof dr Yola Georgiadou (ITC member, chair)
Why ask for ethics review
In accordance with the UT Research Ethics Policy, broader societal and ethical implications of research conducted by members of the university must be considered. Formal ethics review is strongly recommended if possible ethics issues related to, for instance, artificial intelligence applications, the environment, dual-use aspects, work in low-income countries, and other research power asymmetries are identified. Submission of research for ethics review is mandatory if research involves human subjects and/or potentially sensitive data about or from individuals, groups, or organisations. Beyond UT requirements for ethics reviews, increasingly funders and publishers require that research has undergone ethics review. Ethics review needs to be sought before research commences and again as issues emerge.
Ethics Review Timeline
The initial ethics review with GeoEC takes approximately 15-20 working days after supervisor approval. Because the review may involve iterative feedback, we recommend that researchers submit their applications at least 6 weeks before commencing their research activities (e.g., fieldwork, data collection, code development, etc.). This timeframe allows for any necessary iterations and ensures a smooth review process. Submissions close to or during the committee's yearly holiday periods will have to account for this time in addition to the average reviewing time. The holiday periods are: (UT Summer holiday and between 15th December – 15th January each year.
Ethics Review procedure: step-by-step
With ample time before any research project begins, researchers should perform a self-assessment to identify potential ethical concerns that may arise during the various research stages (including the initial design of the study, its implementation and data analysis, and the possible future impact of research findings). The guiding questions help you reflect on possible ethical considerations.
If, during the self-assessment, you identify any ethical issues or if the research involves human subjects and/or potentially sensitive data about or from individuals, groups or organisations, you need to submit an ethics review request through the UT Ethics Review Tool following the steps outlined below:
- Log in to the UT Ethics Review Tool with your UT account.
- Fill in the general information and choose the Geo Ethics Committee for research involving geospatial components. If you are uncertain which committee is most suitable for your research, contact us at ethicscommittee-GEO@utwente.nl for guidance.
- Complete different sections of the UT Ethics review questionnaire.
- In section 3: Upload research information (if working with human participants). These include, for example, research information leaflets, participant consent forms, and third-party consents (if applicable). For details about the informed consent procedure and, informed consent form template, visit the Humanities and Social Sciences (HSS) Ethics Committee website. If you collect personal data for your research, you must report this via the GDPR registration tool. There are UT recommendations for the appropriate use of personal data in scientific research according to the GDPR.
- In section 6: Upload supplementary material to provide a better context to the reviewer(s). This material can be, but is not limited to, research design protocol, interviews/focus group scripts, drafts of surveys, etc.
- Submit your questionnaire. If you are an MSc Student or PhD candidate, your application will first be reviewed and approved by your supervisor before it is forwarded to the GeoEC reviewer.
- Wait for the reviewer to review your questionnaire. If the GeoEC reviewer requests modifications, you will receive notification emails. Respond to modification requests (if any) and resubmit.
- Receive review advice. Once the review is finished, you will receive an email notification. Open your submission in the UT Ethics Review Tool and download the PDF version of the form. The PDF includes: reference ID, submission details, supervisor comments (if any), and reviewer’s advice on ethical considerations.
- Implement the reviewer’s advice in your research.
Once you have started the review procedure via the UT Ethics Review Tool, please make sure to use the tool’s comment function for all of your queries and communications with the GeoEC reviewer. This is important for documentation purposes.
We value transparency and you will know who your reviewer is. Please, DO NOT email the reviewer directly about your application – e.g., trying to pressure them into expediting your application, as doing so will not expedite the processing of your review request.
. Queries about the review process should always be directed to: ethicscommittee-GEO@utwente.nl.
Note for MSc StudentsMSc supervisors guide the student to do the ethics self-assessment. The reflections on this and the insights gained must be included in a chapter or a supplement to the MSc Research Proposal and the final MSc Research thesis documents. In these sections, the identified research ethics issues should be discussed (including risks and threats), and mitigation strategies should be proposed.
If a formal ethics review through the GEO EC is required (always when ethics concerns have been identified), it may take place either before or after the proposal defence, depending on when sufficient details about the research are available. Crucially, the review must be completed before the student begins any data collection (see section Ethics Review Procedure above).
House Rules of the GEO-EC
The 'House Rules of the GEO Ethics Committee' provide detailed information on the committee's structure and operations. This includes details on the committee’s responsibilities, the review process, and the general operation of the committee.
General Research Ethics and Integrity
These are broad frameworks that provide guidance on responsible research conduct. They are particularly useful if you want to know about GEC instructions or general principles.
- The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 2018 sets out principles, standards, and duties of care to guide researchers and institutions in conducting ethical and responsible research in the Netherlands.
- The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 2023 provides a framework of principles and standards to promote responsible research practices and ensure integrity across the European research community.
- Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).
- The Netherlands Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 2018 sets out principles, standards, and duties of care to guide researchers and institutions in conducting ethical and responsible research in the Netherlands.
- The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity 2023 provides a framework of principles and standards to promote responsible research practices and ensure integrity across the European research community.
- Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).
Geospatial and Location Data
If your research involves collecting, processing, or analysing location data, these resources help you identify risks of unintended uses and ensure ethical handling.
- The International Association for Promoting Geoethics (IAPG) promotes Geo-Ethics through international collaboration with Associations and Institutions. IAPG is a multidisciplinary, scientific platform for widening the discussion and creating awareness about problems of ethics applied to the geosciences.
- Locus Charter proposes risks and solutions relating to the use of location data
- Ethical considerations in the use of geospatial data for research and statistics were developed by the UK Statistics Authority’s Centre for Applied Data Ethics in partnership with geospatial colleagues.
- Guidelines more specifically for human geographers: https://www.aag.org/statement-of-professional-ethics/
Artificial Intelligence
If your project develops, deploys, or uses AI systems, these documents provide essential guidance on ethical and legal responsibilities.
- The AI Act (Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence) sets out a clear set of risk-based rules for AI developers and deployers regarding specific uses of AI.
- Ethics guidelines for trustworthy AI contain a set of ethical principles that were translated into a set of key requirements that AI systems should meet in order to be deemed trustworthy.
- Living guidelines on the responsible use of generative AI in research, developed by the European Commission in collaboration with various stakeholders, aim to support researchers and organisations in utilising generative AI ethically and responsibly.
The ethics committee provides advice, not approvals, because the responsibility for conducting ethical research ultimately lies with the researcher and the supervisor(s). The committee’s role is to offer an independent assessment of the ethical aspects of your research and to provide guidance to help you address potential ethical risks. Positive advice means that, in the committee’s view, your research plan sufficiently considers and aims to mitigate ethical concerns. Nonetheless, if you require official confirmation that your research has undergone ethics review, e.g., for publication or other research project purposes, the committee can request a formal letter, based on the advice given, from the dean of the faculty. Such a letter can only be requested if the ethics review was completed before data collection commenced in line with the due process outlined on this website and if no ethics concerns remain.
You can download a PDF of the Geo-Ethics questionnaire (including the clarifying notes accompanying each question) in the UT Ethics Review Tool at the top right, 'download example questionnaire' (e.g., to use when preparing the answers to the questions in advance) make sure to choose ‘Geoinformation Science (GEO)’ option in the drop-down menu.
Please note that this example shows all possible questions. Some of these questions will be skipped when filling in the questionnaire, depending on your answers.
The ethics review is about seeking and responding to collegial advice on research ethics. Transparency supports open and constructive dialogue between all parties involved.
The ethics review process typically takes 15–20 working days after your submission and after consent from the supervisor (if any). However, if revisions are required, the overall duration depends on how quickly you respond to reviewer feedback and resubmit your questionnaire.
We recommend submitting your ethics review request at least 6 weeks before starting any research activities (e.g., fieldwork, data collection, interviews, code development). This allows sufficient time for the review process, including any possible back-and-forth with reviewers if revisions are needed.
Please note that submissions made close to or during the committee’s annual holiday periods, the Summer and Christmas holidays, will take longer as those dates are not ‘working days’ of the committee. To avoid delays, plan your submission well in advance.
We advise against uploading your research plan into AI tools that use input data to train their models, as doing so compromises your intellectual property claims.
Submissions that appear to be AI-written, and/or do not show meaningful reflection or contextualisation, will be sent back to you BEFORE being reviewed, with a request to revise them to more specifically reflect your own project. Do not risk your questionnaire being returned on those grounds. It will significantly delay your ethics review.
The ethics review is intended to help you think through potential ethical risks and mitigation strategies specific to your project; generic or superficial answers, whether written by AI or copied from other ethics questionnaires, do not fulfil this objective.
You may choose to use AI tools, specifically generative AI, for example, to improve the clarity of your writing or to explore possible ethical concerns of your research. If you do so, be aware that AI-generated responses may contain inaccuracies or be too generic. These tools cannot truly understand the specific context or ethical dimensions of your project. For example, mitigation strategies suggested may not be suitable for your project. Since you are expected to act in accordance with the plans explained in your questionnaire, your answers must be based on your own understanding of the project and must reflect your critical engagement with its ethical dimensions.
You are fully responsible for the accuracy and originality of all content in your submission, and you are expected to act on ethics advice received.
If your research undergoes significant changes after the initial ethics review or if new research activities are introduced, you are required to seek further ethics advice from the GeoEC. Please follow these steps:
- Prepare an amendment letter referencing your previous application number and describing the changes. You can find this number via the UT Ethics Review Tool.
- Email the amendment letter and any necessary supplementary documents to ethicscomittee-GEO@utwente.nl.
- The committee will review your request and inform you whether a new submission is needed.
No, the ethics review is one component of ensuring responsible and ethics-aligned research practice. There are other actions you need to take in addition to the ethics review, which can differ by project:
- ALL PROJECTS: Making a plan for data management is essential for every research project. For every research project conducted within ITC, a DMP must be written using the UT DMP tool and regularly updated during the project. Research Data Management | Way of working | Home ITC. All projects should have a DMP, whether they require ethics review or not.
- ALL PROJECTS HANDLING PERSONAL DATA: If you process personal data in your research, you must register it through UT GDPR Registration tool. This is a requirement in place to ensure compliance with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).
- SOME PROJECTS HANDLING PERSONAL DATA: In some cases, a Data Protection Impact Assessment (DPIA), might be necessary. It is a process that helps to identify and mitigate potential risks to privacy and compliance with data protection law when processing personal data. To help researchers determine whether a DPIA is required, a Pre-DPIA form is available. For support with legal compliance when handling personal data, please contact the Privacy Contact Person of your faculty or the UT Data Protection Officer.