Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems - Chapter 3

Chapter 3 Models for making GIS available to community organizations: dimensions of difference and appropriateness Helga Leitner, Robert B. McMaster, Sarah Elwood, Susanna McMaster and Eric Sheppard 3.1 INTRODUCTION The research agenda addressing public participation GIS is, broadly speak-ing, evolving in two different directions. First, there is research examining the conventional use of standard GIS technologies by organizations with strong traditions of direct democracy; addressing issues of access; and whether or not this GIS can empower such groups, particularly those already occupying a marginalized social or geographical location (cf. Allen 1999; Jordan 1999; Kyem 1999). Second, some researchers, concerned that such GISs are not necessarily empowering, are beginning to examine alternatives to conventional use of GIS (cf. Krygier 1996; Harris and Weiner 1998; Shiffer 1998). These alternatives extend from the integration of narratives and local knowledge within current GIS software, to multimedia GIS, the design of collaborative decision support systems, and the use of non-hierar-chical systems of information flow. While the latter body of work was the inspiration for theorizing GIS2 and then PPGIS, and began in discussions at the NCGIA Initiative 19 specialist meeting (Harris and Weiner 1996), this chapter is within the former tradition. We seek to investigate the appropriateness of current GIS technologies for neighbourhood and grassroots organizations (henceforth ‘community organ-izations’), in their tasks of articulating and pursuing the interests of those whom they are supposed to represent. The work reported here is based on a variety of experiences with models designed to make GIS available to community organizations in Minneapolis and St Paul (cf. Elwood and Leitner 1998). Rather than report in detail on these experiences, we seek to abstract from them and to position our experiences within a conceptual framework. This chapter is organized as follows. First, a discussion is provided, in general terms, of the different ways in which the appropriateness of GIS for com-munity organizations can be assessed. Second, different models for making GIS available to community organizations are conceptualized and described. Third, a discussion of the putative advantages and disadvantages of these © 2002 Taylor & Francis 38 H. Leitner et al. models for empowering community organizations seeking to use GIS is provided. 3.2 THE APPROPRIATENESS OF GIS FOR COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS1 The appropriateness of GIS for advancing the interests and concerns of communities can be assessed at three levels (Leitner et al. 1996). First, is the question of how GIS is made available to community organizations (Yapa 1991; Hutchinson and Toledano 1993; Barndt and Craig 1994; Sawicki and Craig 1996; Barndt 1998; Clark 1998; Elwood and Leitner 1998; Harris and Weiner 1998). GIS availability will be governed by financial considera-tions and the ability to purchase and maintain the appropriate hardware and software; by the expertise available locally and the geographical and techni-cal skills necessary to make use of GIS; and by the availability of data, often depending on the openness of government agencies and freedom of infor-mation regulations. Some of these barriers are falling as computing costs decline and expertise spreads, although this is mitigated by an increased tend-ency of local governments to charge for the use of their databases. Second, is the question of how successful implementation of the technology affects democratic processes in the community. The literature on organizations is full of cases where a new technology or body of expertise creates divisions within the organizations adopting them (cf. Bikston and Eveland 1990; March and Sproul 1990). The adoption of GIS may reduce the cohesion of the com-munity organization as rifts develop between the new experts and often longer-term members of the organization. These rifts can be particularly acute in community organizations where goals are often negotiated through com-municative action rather than being given by bottom-line imperatives. Third, apparently successful and democratic implementation of GIS with-in an organization need not advance the participation of all of those that the organization is supposed to represent. Indeed, increased use of GIS may alter the priorities of the community organization such that it becomes less representative of the community at large. This is more likely to happen when the community is heterogeneous, and when diverse local concerns and understandings cannot easily be made consistent with the technology. Rundstrom (1995), e.g. expresses the fear that use of GIS by Native American organizations is inconsistent with Indian understandings of space and place (see also Brown et al. 1995; Jarvis and Spearman 1995; Kemp and Brooke 1995; Nietschmann 1995). Since this research is taking place at a time when community organiza-tions in Minneapolis and St Paul are just beginning to use GIS (Craig and Elwood 1998; Elwood and Leitner 1998), it is too soon to make any judge-ments about the second and third aspects of appropriateness sketched above. © 2002 Taylor & Francis Models for making GIS available to community organizations 39 Instead, in the sections that follow, issues affecting the first dimension – that of the availability of GIS to community organizations – will be examined. It is recognized that, in practice, community organizations will use a variety of ways to assemble the expertise they believe to be advantageous to their goals. This mix of expertise may constantly shift as circumstances change. Furthermore, the efficacy of different ways of making GIS available will vary with the context of the organization concerned, for no single way of pro-viding GIS to community organizations is necessarily superior. In this sense, the evolution of GIS-related practices within community organizations would be characterized by the path-dependent dynamics associated with the development of any social technology in use, and as conditioned by the par-ticular context of those using it. This evolutionary aspect is addressed more generally by those examining the intellectual history of GIS (Chrisman 1988; Sheppard 1995; Harvey and Chrisman 1998). Nonetheless, in order to gain insight into why certain ways of making GIS available may be favoured in certain circumstances, abstractions are drawn from these complexities to compare and contrast different models for making GIS available to com-munity organizations. In the following section, a conceptual framework is proposed for distinguishing between different models of GIS access; a frame-work that can be applied to categorize models already in use and to think about other possibilities. This framework is then applied to six models, drawn largely from our experiences to date in the Twin Cities. 3.3 CONCEPTUALIZING MODELS OF AVAILABILITY Models for making GIS available to community organizations can be differ-entiated along five important inter-related dimensions: The communication structures connecting community organizations with GIS facilities; the nature of the interaction with GIS; the physical (geographical) accessibility of the GIS to the community organization; the stakeholders involved in making the technology available; and legal and ethical ramifications (see Table 3.1). Communication structures include: (1) independent nodes, whereby each community organization operates its own GIS in relative isolation from one another; (2) radial structures in which community organizations’ use of GIS centres on separate use of a common facility; and (3) network structures, in which community organizations communicate directly with one another as they use GIS. The nature of interaction with the GIS can include: (1) no direct use at all; (2) passive use by individuals, where use is dictated by available databases and maps and by standardized GIS procedures; (3) active use, whereby users are free to develop their own operations and classifications of given databases; and finally (4) proactive use, where users can enter their own data and benefit from a variety of information technologies best suited to © 2002 Taylor & Francis 40 H. Leitner et al. Table 3.1 Differentiating models of availability Dimensions Communication structures Nature of interaction with the GIS Location of a GIS GIS stakeholders Legal and ethical issues surrounding GIS use Attributes Independent nodes Radial connectivity Network connectivity No direct use Passive use Active use Proactive use In-house GIS Virtual (web-based GIS) Remote GIS (outside the community) Local & non-local state agencies Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) Private industry Educational institutions Within community stakeholders Ownership of/responsibility for spatial databases Access to publicly held information Issues of privacy and surveillance Checks and balances governing appropriate GIS use those data (cf. Harris et al. 1995; Weiner et al. 1995). The interaction can also vary from individual to collaborative user interfaces, with the latter facil-itating collective negotiation and decision-making (Couclelis and Monmonier 1995; Nyerges et al. 1997). Models also differ in the geographical location of the GIS, ranging from local access in the community (in-house GIS), to vir-tual access over the information networks (e.g. Web-based GIS), to remote access, where physical travel to a location outside the community is necessary in order to use GIS. These three dimensions relate directly to questions raised within research into public participation in GIS (Brown et al. 1995; NCGIA 1996; Barndt 1998; Dangermond 1988; Obermeyer 1998). Yet another dimension involves the stakeholders. Stakeholders include individuals and institutions external to the community, such as local and non-local state agencies, NGOs, private industry and educational institu-tions. These actors and institutions have their own priorities and interests that can affect the responsiveness of the GIS system to community organiza-tion needs. This dimension relates directly to research addressing the insti-tutional perspective on GIS and society (cf. Onsrud and Rushton 1995; Ventura 1995; Tulloch and Niemann 1996). In addition, community organ-izations often represent diverse communities within which there are local stakeholders with conflicting understandings and priorities. A final dimension involves legal and ethical issues. Legal and ethical issues, a separate area of research in GIS and society (Onsrud and Rushton © 2002 Taylor & Francis Models for making GIS available to community organizations 41 1995), refers in general terms to questions of intellectual property rights in spatial databases, access rights of citizens to publicly held information, privacy rights and principles, liability in the use and distribution of GIS data and products, and ethical issues in the use of geographic information (Onsrud 1992a; 1992b; 1995; Sheppard et al. 1999). Models for making GIS available to community organizations will differ in terms of several factors. Some of these include: (1) who has legal ownership and respons-ibility for the accuracy of the spatial databases used or created by these organizations in GIS analysis; (2) whether the communities represented by community organizations have access to publicly held information; (3) the potential for abuse of the privacy of those in the community; and (4) the checks and balances that can guard against this and other unethical activ-ities related to the use of the GIS. Models for making GIS available to community organizations will differ from one another along one or more of these dimensions, which represent a means for differentiating and classifying models that are currently in use (as we seek to demonstrate in the subsequent section). They can also aid in both normative reasoning and in conceptualizing the desired attributes of other models not net developed. One might speculate, e.g. that a model might be particularly advantageous for community organizations if it were charac-terized by: (1) a network communication structure; (2) a collaborative proactive use of GIS; (3) no other stakeholders with conflicting interests or goals; (4) local accessibility; and (5) where community organizations care-fully regulate legal and ethical responsibilities. 3.4 SIX MODELS OF GIS AVAILABILITY In the first column of Table 3.2, we list six models for making GIS available to community organizations. In this section, the nature of these models is discussed, and the differences among them based on the conceptual frame-work of the previous section are laid out. Table 3.2 Six models for making GIS available to community organizations Community-based (in-house) GIS University–community partnerships GIS facilities in universities and public libraries ‘Map Rooms’ Internet Map Servers Neighbourhood GIS centre (e.g. Powderhorn Park, Prospect Park) (e.g. Urban GIS class, Macalester Action Research, University Neighborhood Network) (e.g. ACIC, St Louis Public Library) (e.g. City of Minneapolis Map Room) (e.g. Phillips Neighborhood Environmental Inventory) (e.g. Milwaukee Data Centre) © 2002 Taylor & Francis ... - tailieumienphi.vn