Towards Participatory Geographic Information Systems for Community Planning and Environmental...
-
date post
21-Dec-2015 -
Category
Documents
-
view
218 -
download
0
Transcript of Towards Participatory Geographic Information Systems for Community Planning and Environmental...
Towards Participatory Geographic Information Systems for Community
Planning and Environmental Decision Making
Piotr Jankowski
Department of Geography
San Diego State University
Outline
• Community-based decision making and global sustainability: Global Local
• Participatory Geographic Information Systems (PGIS)
• PGIS for water resource planning and decision making
Local Decisions - Global Effects (?)
• Place-based decision making promotes sustainable use of resources
• Scaling up the impacts of sustainable communities• Processes and tools for community-based decision
making
Participatory Processes
• Federal and state laws (in the U.S.) mandate public participation in: - land use and natural resource development, - transportation planning
• As reported in research about local governance and public-oriented decisions, public participation still commonly involves little “meaningful participation”.
• Meaningful participation - access to voice and competence of knowledge that foster shared understanding about concerns.
Traditional Models of Public Participation
• Public hearings/town hall meetings (the U.S.)
• Citizen panels (Germany during 70s and 80s)
Analytic-Deliberative Model
• Analytic component provides technical information that ensures broad-based, competent perspectives are treated.
• Deliberative component provides an opportunity to interactively give voice to choices about values, alternatives, and recommendations.
Tools for Community-based Decision Making
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) combine hardware, software, data, people, procedures, and institutional arrangements to collect, store, manipulate, analyze, and display information about spatially distributed phenomena for the purpose of inventory, decision making and/or problem solving
Tools for Community-based Decision Making: PGIS
• PGIS:– Community-integrated GIS– Integrates local and expert knowledge with
participatory approaches including face-to-face (traditional meeting format) and distributed (on-line) processes
Research Questions
• Is PGIS effective in giving the public a stronger voice in shaping the use of natural resources in their communities?
• What PGIS designs and capabilities, particularly including GIS technology, can improve public participation in “analytic-deliberative” decision making?
Community-based Protection Planning of Drinking Water Supplies
• States are required to assess all public drinking water sources (Safe Drinking Water Act 1996)
• Voluntary assessment performed by communities is the preferred way
• Communities have been reluctant to respond• Would GIS-generated maps help engage the
communities?
Study Area in North-Central Idaho
• 12 candidate rural communities (pop. < 5000)
• 9 communities agreed to participate
• None of the communities had GIS mapping capabilities
Use of PGIS
• Large-size maps generated with standard GIS techniques and hydro-geologic models from land use, soil characteristics, topography, and subsurface geology
PGIS Maps and Water Protection Zones
Study Results
• Each of nine communities ended up creating and approving their drinking water source protection zones using GIS-generated maps.
• Although the water protection issues did vary among the communities they requested and used similar maps as information structures helping them step through a participatory process.
Conjunctive Water Management in the Boise River Basin
Conjunctive Management
An integrated approach governing the use of water from hydraulically interconnected surface-water and ground-water sources
New Irrigation between New Irrigation between 1937 and 19941937 and 1994
New Irrigation between New Irrigation between 1937 and 19941937 and 1994
Irrigated in 1937Irrigated in 1937Irrigated in 1937Irrigated in 1937
Irrigation / Land Use (1937-1994)Irrigation / Land Use (1937-1994)
No longer irrigated in 1994No longer irrigated in 1994No longer irrigated in 1994No longer irrigated in 1994 125125 125125 100100 100100 7575 7575 5050 5050 2525 2525
10101010 20202020 30303030 40404040 50505050 60606060 70707070 80808080YearYearYearYearF
eet
bel
ow s
urf
ace
Fee
t b
elow
su
rfac
eF
eet
bel
ow s
urf
ace
Fee
t b
elow
su
rfac
e
Lower Boise River Basin
Lower Boise River Basin
Idaho State Historical Society PhotoIdaho State Historical Society Photo
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S
#S#S#S
#S
#S#S#S
#S
#S
#S
Star
Kuna
Parma
NotusEagle
BoiseNampa
Weiser
Lowman
Emmett
Wilder
Stanley
Payette
Atlanta
Marsing
Caldwell Meridian
Mayfield
Middleton
Fairfield
Idaho City
Grand ViewSilver City
New Plymouth
Garden Valley
Mountain Home
Horseshoe Bend
Boise River Basin
The Problem Domain
The Goal
Decision Task
Designate specific management areas (where) for ground water users, who are junior to surface water users, and determine time and hydrologic conditions under which ground water pumping may be curtailed.
• Control Group: 10 stakeholders, 25 years of avg. experience– one shared display for the group – Facilitator
• Stakeholder representatives of:– Surface water users– Ground water users– Potable water provider – Municipality
Stakeholder Groups
Control Group
• Test Group: 10 stakeholders, 19 years of avg. experience– individual computers + shared display– facilitator– chauffeurs
Stakeholder Groups
Test Group
Process and Tools
• Two stakeholder face-to-face decision making sessions: May 2001 and Sept. 2002
• Off-the-shelf spatial decision support system (GeoChoicePerspectives) used in 2001
• Custom-built PGIS (WaterGroup) used in 2002
3D Visualization Window
Single Option Impact Window
Perc
eive
d Qua
lity
Gro
up B
ehav
ior
Solu
tion
Sat
isfa
ctio
n
Dec
isio
n Sc
hem
e Sa
tisf
action
Pers
onal
Tas
k Pa
rticip
atio
n
Neg
ativ
e So
cio-
Emot
iona
l Beh
avio
r
Softwar
e Hel
pful
ness
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
70.00
80.00
90.00
100.00
Stakeholder Satisfaction with the Process
Group 1(Control), Phase1, May 17, 2001
Group 2 (Test),Phase 1, May18, 2001
Group 1(Control), Phase2, September19, 2002
Group 2 (Test),Phase 2,September 20,2002
Stakeholder Satisfaction with Tools
Usability of Decision Support Software Rated by the Stakeholders
0
20
40
60
80
100
GCP, Contro
l Group, M
ay 2001
GCP, Test
Group, May 2001
WaterGroup, C
ontrol G
roup, Sep. 2
002
WaterGroup, T
est Group, S
ep. 2002
Rat
ing
Sca
le
Stdv
Mean
Findings
• Higher standard deviation of the mean ratings for the test groups reflects high heterogeneity of groups in respect to computer skills.
• Heterogeneous groups of stakeholders prefer facilitated decision processes, in which a facilitator relieves them of the burden of operating the software.
Conclusion
• Two studies representing different participatory processes and different tools
• Differences in study communities: – rural vs. urban
• Similarities:– participant input driving process outcomes– participant ownership of processes crucial for
“buy” into the process outcomes
Thank You !
Questions?