Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems - Chapter 9

Chapter 9 GIS-enhanced land-use planning Stephen J. Ventura, Bernard J. Niemann, Jr., Todd L. Sutphin and Richard E. Chenoweth 9.1 INTRODUCTION – INFORMATION IN LAND-USE PLANNING The role of spatial information technologies in decision-making has been debated almost since the inception of their use in local government land information systems. An important question that often arises is whether land information is used to help make decisions, or is it used to justify deci-sions made for many other reasons? Niemann (1987) and Zwart (1988) epito-mized the debate in their point and counter-point conference articles about ‘better information’ resulting in ‘better decisions’ through modernized land information systems. At the local level, ‘just getting the job done’ public agency practitioners generally have not been concerned about the role or impacts of spatial infor-mation. If they take time to consider these issues, it is likely that most would follow disciplinary training and assume that improvement in quality and avail-ability of land information benefits the citizens and organizations they serve. If asked about ‘public participation’, they might also assume that improve-ments, particularly in data form and access, extend availability of information to audiences that otherwise may be excluded from decision-making processes. Little empirical evidence has been reported to support or deny this belief in a positive role for land information in land use decision-making in the contemporary US local government context. Zwart (1991) defined indica-tors of the impacts on decision-making, though noted operational difficul-ties in using them. A theoretical model of the role of information in local land use planning was developed by Knapp et al. (1998). They explicitly looked at the effect of information about local government infrastructure investments and land use regulations on the timing of development deci-sions. Their study did show that information modifies development deci-sions. However, the models were limited to interaction between local government and developers; it did not account for all the other actors in © 2002 Taylor & Francis 114 S. J. Ventura et al. development decisions, particularly actors who could be more influential if empowered by information. In the land-use debate, the difficulty of ascertaining who may be affected by land-use decisions (and how this might change with differences in access to information) is exacerbated by the diffuse nature of the decision-making process. Many citizens are affected by land-use decisions but may not be directly involved in the decision-making process. The optimistic view is that of a Jeffersonian democracy, where well-informed citizens exert an indirect influence on the process, through elections, meetings, surveys, and even through consumer choices. A cynical view suggests that various elite groups, particularly those that benefit economically from development, control the decision-making process. From an information standpoint, a question critical to understanding which view prevails may be ‘whose infor-mation?’...whose worldviews are represented in a data base and in analytic tools to understand the data, and do these representations exclude the views of segments of society? Questions about the role of land information in local government deci-sion-making have been difficult to resolve because spatial technologies are just maturing and because characterizing the decision-making process has been and continues to be difficult. In particular, it is difficult to determine what role land information plays in local land-use decisions because the process is influenced by so many other factors, including political, eco-nomic, legal, bureaucratic, personal and social pressures. And, the actors involved may not always be entirely open, knowledgeable or forthright about what has influenced decisions. Moreover, research must be done in situ; we don’t have the luxury of controlled experiments in which we can suffuse a jurisdiction with information to observe the result while control-ling or accounting for this host of other factors. Our project contributes to the discussion about the role of data and land information in land-use decision-making by purposefully improving the type, quality, and availability of land information and analysis in a jurisdic-tion with an on-going and highly charged land-use decision-making scene. We will attempt to gauge the influence and impact this has on land-use deci-sion-making processes and outcomes through first-hand observation, post-decision reconstruction, surveys, and other methods. Key questions include: 1 is new information being used? · in what form? · in what parts of the land-use planning process? · how is it used (to support decision-making or to justify decisions)? · does it or can it represent groups not traditionally empowered in decision-making? 2 who is using it? · do some groups use it more than others? © 2002 Taylor & Francis GIS-enhanced land-use planning 115 · are there technical barriers to fuller use by some groups? · what would users be doing without it? 3 has the improved accuracy, specificity, and availability resulted in dif-ferent decisions? · which of these information attributes are particularly important? · do the ‘using it’ groups have a real or perceived advantage in land use debates? · do any groups believe that information is missing or biased? 9.2 BACKGROUND Dane County, Wisconsin (the County) is one of the fastest growing coun-ties in the Midwest. It also continues to be one of the most productive agri-cultural counties in the state, typically ranking first in the state and in the top 50 nationwide in gross agricultural sales. The City of Madison is cen-trally located in the county, and contains half the population (about 200,000 in 1998). Madison is a regional employment centre, including a major state university, the state capital, and a rapidly growing high-tech industry. It consistently ranks high in various liveability indexes, including designation as the ‘Best City’ by Money Magazine in 1998. For at least a couple of decades, the conversion of farmland to residen-tial and commercial purposes has been contentious. The County Board frequently splits along rural/urban lines on land-use issues, with pivotal votes coming from fringe suburban areas. More effective land-use planning was a major theme in the campaign of the current County Executive. She followed her election with an effort to shift control from a regional plan-ning commission that was regarded by some as ineffective, and incorporat-ing this function in the County’s more technologically sophisticated planning department. The Design Dane vision document (Falk 1998) embraces geospatial information and visualization technologies as part of a suite of tools to more effectively involve the public in land-use planning and management. A cooperative relation has existed between the County and the Univer-sity of Wisconsin-Madison Land Information and Computer Graphics Facility (LICGF) for almost two decades. LICGF has conducted research and development on land information technologies and applications in this ‘real world’ context with the County, essentially reducing the County’s risk in adopting innovative technologies. As a result, the County has a sophistic-ated automated land information system used primarily for real property listing, tax assessment, deeds recording, and soil and water conservation (e.g. Tulloch et al. 1998; Miskowiak et al. 2000). They have recently begun to use it for land-use planning as well. © 2002 Taylor & Francis 116 S. J. Ventura et al. A recent rejuvenation of the LICGF–Dane County relation represents initial evidence that the ‘whose reality is represented’ question must be considered in understanding how information is used. The County Executive’s interests were piqued when she was shown a very different picture of how much land could be considered ‘open space and farmland’ than that depicted in a 25-year land-use plan done by the autonomous Dane County Regional Planning Commission (DCRPC 1997), and shown in front-page graphics of a local daily newspaper as ‘Room to Grow’ (Hall 1995). We provided a different interpretation, from the County’s own databases, that countered the RPC’s suggestion of almost completely unencumbered open space beyond city boundaries. Our GIS-based analysis of land use classifi-cation from tax assessment roles indicated that less than 50 per cent of the county was developable farm and open space; in contrast, RPC used data for their land-use plan that showed 85 per cent of the county in this cate-gory, based on air photo interpretation. The tax assessors view includes all residences, including vacant lots slated for development, farm houses now used primarily as residences, and residences obscured by tree cover (Carl-son 2000). It is arguably closer to the land owners view of what its use is or could be (Heinzel et al. 1996). Figure 9.1 Patterns of Sprawl. This map displays patterns of development over three dec-ades in Dane County, Wisconsin. It alerted citizens to the idea that development has become more land consuming and less dense with population over time. © 2002 Taylor & Francis GIS-enhanced land-use planning 117 In Spring of 1998, the newly elected County Executive reviewed the com-parison of ‘open/undeveloped land’ in the RPC’s 25-year land-use plan with our tax-assessment-based version (Figure 9.1). She immediately grasped the significance of the difference and the implications for where and how the county could grow. It was apparent that development was scattered throughout rural areas, generally following amenities such as prime vistas, forested lands, and water resources, as well as other factors traditionally thought to influence land use patterns such as proximity to good schools, jobs, and transportation systems. Another study indicated that enforcement of local subdivision ordinance and related land-use controls substantially affected farmland conversion (Bukovac 1999). The County Executive thought the differing land-use interpretations were significant. As a result, we were asked to participate in County-led forums on land use and in sub-sequent activities. We have assisted the County in developing and disseminating land use information using a variety of venues and events. We have guided the County Executive’s staff in the analysis, display and dissemination of their own geospatial data, particularly information related to land-use, ownership, assessment, and resources. We have attempted to make high quality geospa-tial data and information readily accessible to anyone interested in using it in local land-use planning, in several forms and through several venues. In the Fall of 1998, Dane County was selected by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and Vice President Al Gore as the site of one of six Community Demonstration Projects. This led to a project that became known as ‘Shaping Dane’s Future’, a collaboration of the University, the County, FGDC, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and ESRI, Inc. The City and Town of Verona (two local units of government, adjacent to Madison) were selected as the project site because of significant land-use issues and interest from local officials in helping evaluate information technologies. 9.3 EVALUATING THE ROLE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGIES IN LAND-USE PLANNING To begin answering some of our questions about the efficacy and impact of various information technologies, we have been providing information and analysis tools while observing how decision-makers and interested citizens and organizations react to and use geospatial technologies and information products. These can be thought of as experiments about form of and access to information. As part of collaboration with Dane County and the Shap-ing Dane’s Future pilot project, we have conducted the following activities to learn about the role of information technologies in land-use decision-making. © 2002 Taylor & Francis ... - tailieumienphi.vn