Nurturing Community Empowerment: Participatory ... - CiteSeerX

lZ@ - Ramasubramanian, L. 1999. Nurturing Community Empowerment: Participatory Decision Making and Community Based Problem Solving Using GIs, in M. Craglia and H. Onsrud (eds.) Geographic Information Research: Trans-Atlantic Perspectives, Taylor & Francis, pp. 87-102.

Chapter Eight

Nurturing Community Empowerment: Participatory Decision Making and Community Based Problem Solving Using GIs I

Laxmi Ramasubramanian 8.1 INTRODUCTION

In cities and communities across the world, architects, planners, decision makers, and individuals, are using Geographic Information Systems (GIs) and related information technologies to understand and evaluate specific problems occurring in their physical an8 social environment. In the United States for example, the city of Milwaukee monitors housing stock (Ramawbrarnanian, 1996), while Oakland's Healthy Start program has analyed the high incidence of infant mortality (King,1994a). GIs are being used to descrii and explain diverse phenomena such as school drop out rates and provide decision support for a wide range of tasks, for example, the coordination of emergency service delivery in Nal areas. These advances, as well as many other innovative uses of information technology and spatial analyses are reported in technical journals such as the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA) Journal, and in the popular press through magazines like Time, and US News and World Report, as well in trade journals such as GIs World. The use of information technologies and spatial analysis concepts promise many benefits to individuals and communities in our society a society in which data, information, and knowledge have become commodities, seen as assets much like land, labour, and capital (Gaventa, 1993). At the same time, several thinkers, researchers, and analysts observe that information technologies can become inaccessible, thereby making the promise they offer disappear (e.g. Pickles, 1995). For example, William Mitchell, the Dean of MIT's School of Architecture 'and Planning, observes, "While these technologies have the potential to become powem tools for social change, create opportunities, and broaden access to educational opportunities, jobs, and s e ~ c e s it, must be recognised that these benefits will not come automatically" (Mitchell, 1994, p. 4). There is considerable evidence which suggests that individuals and community groups have di&iculty in acquiring and using information technologies. In parbcular, citizens and groups from low income communities and communities of colour are disproportionately affected by lack of access to information technologies (e.g., Sparrow and Vedantham, 1995).

-

88

GeographicJnfmation Research: Trans-AtlanticPerspectives

con

dill 8.2 SCOPE AND SIGNIFICANCE

In this context, this chapter explores the appropriateness and the lunitations of GIs to facilitate participatory, community-based planning. It is anticipated that spatial mapping and ill be valuable to community organisations and groups because it can be used analysis w skilfblly to identlfy issues, make comparisons, analyse trends, and support socio-political arguments thereby fxilitating policy analysis, sewice delivery, and community participation. There is a push and a pull which is making GIs use increasingly popular at the level of small groups. The push comes fiom the manufacturers of hardware and software and professional decision makers who are presenting GIs as a panacea for problem solving to a new market segment, while the pull comes fi-om these small groups themselves who are seeking more control over decision-making processes about issues that affect them and see GIs as a useful tool for this purpose. These groups can be characterized as having immediate and local problems, special interests, Limited but well defined decision making powers, and limited technical knowledge. To facilitate real participation of community residents in planning and decision-making processes, it is vital that the community has control of, and access to public information. While planners and decision-makers routinely use data and information from any community in order to make decisions for that community, the same information is seldom available or accessible to community residents. Tdtionally this disparity in information access has been attributed to the unavailability of both processes and technologies which could involve community residents in traditional planning and decision-making processes. This chapter argues that GIs can be effectively used to facilitate decentralised, community-based decision-making, planning, and mearch thereby contributing to the creation of an empowered citizenry. While conventional thinking believes that GIs and related technologies tend to centdise decision-making, this author argues that end-usen, equipped with a critical world vim, will be able to think creatively about ways they can use data, information, and GIs technology in their day-to-day problem solving, thereby makmg decentralised decision-making a reality. The chapter also argues that Participatory Research (PR) is a viable conceptual and methodological approach to develop critical thinking skills among end-users.-8.3 LITERATURE REVIEW

Keeping with the scope of the chapter, this literature review addresses two themes - the nature of the technology and the context within which it will be used. The literature review discusses the organisational and institutional issues mounding GIs adoption and use. In addition, this section presents a brief discussion about the development of communities, their institutions, review and the decision-making processes that are typically encountered in this contexte. concludesby exploring the role that mformation plays in community-based decision-making. 8.3.1 Organisational and Institutional Issues Meeting GIS Adoption

While research in the area of GIs has tended to centre around the technological capabilities of the system, there has been a steady stream of studies which have shown that the adoption and use of GIs is dependent on factors other than those related to the technical capacity (hardware and software) of the system. The GIs literature addressingorganisational issues focuses on the

C;u

Wi Sta at 1 C01

Pr( CO(

Mi

SIX CO' CO

fat

a or de 1S in sy in W

al 01

is ir a1 0 C

tl tl C S

f i c

1 1 I

1

rntic Perspectives

~ n sof GIs to I mapping and d can be used socio-political i participation. :level of small ~dprofessional a new market seeking more 31s as a usem bate and local s, and limited I planning and . m s to public brmation from information is s disparity in id technologies xision-making decentralised, ~butingto the that GIs and that end-users, theyca can use

hereby making atory Research thinking skills

les - the nature wiew discusses n addition, this 2ir institutions, :xt. The review ision-making.

I capabilities of e adoption and lcity (hardware ; focuses on the

CommuniyEmpowerment Using GIS

89

diffusion processes of GIs in a variety of organisatiod contexts. Maser (1993) and Campbell and Masser (1996) have studied GIs difhLFion in British local governments while Wiggins (1993) has examined the same issue within public sector agencies in the United States. In addition, Huxhold (1991) has studied GIs diffusion in city government by looking at the development of GIs in the City of Milwaukee over a period of 15years. Croswell(1991), studymg organisationsthat had acqwed a GIs, developed a matrix of common problems associated with GIs implementation in the United States. The main problems identified in a hierarchical order of high to low incidence are: lack of organisational coordination and conflicts; problems with data and data integration; lack of planning and management support; and the lack of awareness of technology and training. Looking at GIs adoption in planning agencies in developing countries through a case study of a "successful' planning agency in India, this researcher found that developing country agencies follow a model of GIs implementation which is similar to developed countries. As a result, they tend to have the same problems. This research identifies seven factors that facilitate GIs implementation: achieving clarity in problem definition; conducting a user-needs assessment; establishing inter-agency coordination; training of personnel; organising the collection and management of data; d e s i p g an incremental system for development; and the important role of advocateswithin the organisation (Ramasubramanian, 1991). Obermeyer and Pinto (1994) argue that the GIs literature has typically consided the implementation procw as a bridge between the system developer and the user. When the system crossed over the bridge, it was regarded as successll. They recommend that implementation success must look at three criteria: technical validity - whether the system works; organisational validity whether the system meets the organisations and users' needs: and organisational effectiveness - whether the system improves the present working of an organisation. Masser and Onsrud (1993) propose that the central question in the area of GIs diffusion is to ascertain whether there is any diffe~ncebetween the diffusion process for GIs and for information technology products of similar kinds. The research issue is not what promotes adoption of GIs but what promotes the effeaive use of GIs. Organisational strategies are considered to be a critical element to enhance GIs use. Research to understand effective use centres around the question of measurement of effectveness. Looking at institutional issues, the authors argue that research needs to focus on isolating generalisable principles germane to the acquisition, implementation, and particularly the utilisation of a GIs. For example, some of the questions that could be asked are: "What are the organisational and institutional structures that enhance effective implementation and use?'; "What are the strategies that best facilitate the implementation of a GIs within and among organisations?'; "What factors influence implementation and optimal use?'; and "Under what arrangements and circumstances can information sharing more easily OCCUT?" W s e r and Onsrud, 1993). Huxhold and Levinsoh (1995) propose that organisations adopt GIs technology because they anticipate that it will provide new capabilities that will yield benefits to the organisation. Building on this assumption, they outline a conceptual framework to look at GIs adoption and diffiLion. This framework consists of four elements: the GIs paradigm, data management principles, technology, and the organisational setting. According to them, a GIs paradigm is the conceptual foundation for using geographic information that provides a common base of reference or focus for the other three elements; data management principles govern the logical structuring and management of large databases that contain map and other data that can be related to the geography of interest to the organisation; technologv comprises the effective combination of various hardware and software components that enables the automation of numerous geographic data handling functions; and the organisational setting

-

GeographicInfonationResearch: Trans-AtlanticPerspectives

implies the management environment that provides resourcesand enables changes to be made for incorporating GIs utilisation throughout the organisation. 8.3.2 The Context of GIS Application

8.3.2.1Development of Community-BmedDecision-Making

King (1981), commenting on community development in Boston over three decades in his

book Chain of Change suggests that a cornunity develops in stages. Initially, community midents rely on the good will of others to receive s e ~ c ehs m city, state,,federal, and nongovernmental agencies. He calls this the service stage. At this stage, they are not p t of any

I

':

decision-making process. Next, the residents organise themsehes into interest-groups to demand, seek and receive services that are appropriate to their needs. They get involved with the decisions that are made about the immediate community.This is the organising stage. Finally, the residents begin to develop and sustain community-based institutions which a d as representative voices for them. Community-based organisations SO created, then get involved in decision-making and attempt to iduence issues that affect the immediate community and the surrounding geo-political region. This is the institution-building stage. This model is us& to understand community-baseddecision-making because it is a study within spatially defined neighbowhoods over a period of time. Though it does not provide direct empirical evidence, it is written from the community's perspective and is reliable in understanding community-based decision-making. King's study compares favourably with another series of case studies that investigate the where the community has no say in the decisions that are made for i t This leads to discontentment, a period of conflit when the decision makers such as city and state agencies struggle with the community to maintain control over the pmcess. The conflict gives way to co-prodkction, a phase where both opposing groups resolve the conflict and create a shared decision-making model. It is important to note that the period of conflict can continue for an

1 ,!!'I

8.3.2.2Role of hifornation in Community-Based Decision-Making

Since a large part of GIs is related to data and its a c i e n t &splay and management, it is useful to notewhat information is seen as a complex source of power in the planning and decision-making process (Forester, 1989). At the same time, several people have argued that we have more data but less information, in short we know more about less (e.g. Friedmann, 1992; Naisbitt, 1994). Forester also suggests that decision makers often make decisions with incomplete information while Alexander (1984) points out that the rational paradigm of decision making is giving way to a host of other paradigms of decision making. King (1981) has presented a geo-political organising model for involving community residents in planning and decision making. One aspect of this model was the development of a computerised directory called the Rainbow Pages. The directory was designed to enable residents to get information about issues and activities that were affecting their neighbowhood. It also provided a way for residents to contact each other and solve problems collectively. This model emphasises self reliance, mutual self help, information availability, and information access.

'icPerspectives

=s to be made

xades in his community ral, and non)t part of any =st-groups to nvolved with rnising stage. which act as get involved nvnunity and his model is thin spatially ect empirical nderstanding ',

ivestigate the

an countries. ision-making 'his leads to )Meagencies gives way to =ate a shared ntinue for an

gement, it is )Ianning and 2 argued that . Friedmann, xisions with paradigm of 5 community velopment of .edto enable 'ecting their h e problems I availability,

CommunityEmpwennent Using GIs

91

Kretzman and McKnight (1993) have developed a community development strategy which begins "with a clear commitment to discovering the community's capacities and assets". While information is critical for any community development strategy, Krettzman and McKnight argue that cities and urban communities are often defined solely in terms of their negative images. They observe that both academic research and pmactive problem solving initiatives begin with "negative" information about neighbourhood "deficits" or "needs". They present an alternative approach which begins to map community "assets" - an approach that emphasiises linkages between different resources or strengths that are present within any neighbourhood or community. Chen (1990), working with the Boston Redevelopment Authority on the South-End Master Plan (a neighbowhood of Boston), found that GIs was a usefbl way to begin to communicate spatial concepts to non-technical users. His work has been supported by other smaller studies in which non-technical users like high school students and community residents have used GIs to address problems concerning their neighbourhood (Ramasubramanjan, 1995). Huxhold and Martin (1996) observe that federal and local Mding agencies often require community organisations and groups seeking .financial assistance to use data and information. They argue that the use of data and information is beneficial to the h d i n g agency and the community organisations seeking h c i a l support. The h d i n g agency use the data to determine the relative merit of a grant application and to ensure that the organisation is following funding guidelines. The community organisation seeking financial assistance can plan a more strategic campaign by interpreting the data to demonstrate financial need and the appropriatenessof its intervention. In the 1990s' GIs applications have expanded to serve a wide range of users including those users who have typically not used them before. To illustrate with an example, let us take a look at the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People flAACP) v. American Family Mutual Insu~anceCompany redlining lawsuit, considered "one of the most important federal cases in Wisconsin history" (Norman, 1995: 12). In early 1995, the American Family Mutual Insurance Company agreed to settle a discrimination suit brought against them by NAACP and made a commitment to invest US$ 14.5 million in central Milwaukee. The NAACP had argued that the insurance company was discriminating against African-American residents in Milwaukee's Northwest side by allowing the practice of "redlining", that is a policy of systematic disinvestment in the area. While the case never actually went to trial, both parties had gathered a sigmficant volume of data and analyses to support their claims. For their part, the insurance company pointed out that they had a fhirly even distribution of insurance policies in Milwaukee using postal zipcodes as the unit of analysis. Their argument was countered by the NAACP who used their own maps to demonstrate that the company's policies were distributed unevenly, clustered in mostly white census tracts. The "zip code defence" fell apart since mapping the data by census tracts revealed information that was not previously evident in analyses based on zip codes. This is because in the US, Zip codes tend to be so large as to mask differences between white and black neighborhoods, while census tracts are smaller aggregations (Norman, 1995). The NAACP v. American Family case is a highprofile example which vividly portrays the usefblness of GIs. First, it demonstrates that having access to relevant information plays a vital role in iden-g issues and placing them within a problem-solving fiamework. Second, it demonstrates that information plays a sigdicant role in making comparisons, and analysing trends which were required to establish the case for discriminatory behaviour against the insurance company. Third, it demonstrates the power and the potential of spatial analysis and maps to force all parties involved in the debate to address the reality and the gravity of the situation. Finally, this example demonstrates that GIs and related technologies

92

Geographic Information Research: Trans-AtlanticPerspectives

are integral for mapping and analysis, storing large volumes of data, and for looking at different types of data such as demographic information and financial information simultaneously. Thus, if we stop to think about it, we begin to reoognise that the implementation of information technology and spatial analysis concepts has profound implications for people and communities everywhere, particularly those individuals who are unlikely to have used them before. 8.3.3 Synthesis of Literature Review

-

The literature review covered a broad range of issues on the one hand, it looked at GIs adoption and diffusion while on the other hand, it looked at community development and decision making. The development of GIs technology which began in the era of mainframe computers has kept pace with other innovations in computer technology. The mapping capacity has been enhanoed, systems have become more user-friendly, and most of all, GIs is now affordable to the individual user. At present, GIs software is available with data packages for use on personal computers and can be customised to suit individual needs. GIs has the capacity to analyse several issues that concern community residents, community planners, and decision makers within community-based organisations. However, GIs researchers have not studied GIs adoption and use by small groups such as communitybased organisations. Recognising this gap, the National Center of Geographic Information and Analysis has begun to grapple with the social and philosophical issues surrounding GIs adoption by a broader spectrum of society through its Initiative 19 (1-19) (see Daniel Sui, Chapter 5 of this volume). In the absence of research-based evidence to the contrary, it is safe to hypothesise that GIs adoption in community-based organisations will imitate processes of adoption and use in other contexts such as local governments. Information is invaluable to any community group that intends to work proactively with the local, state, or federal government because administrations tend to rely on empirical evidence and hard data to determine the relative merits of an organisation's request for fbnds. However, it should be obvious that, while a planner working for the local government and a community organiser may both use GIs (for example, to map the number of vacant parcels in the neighburhood), the conclusions they draw and the policy options they recommend to their clients or cogstituencies will be very different. Both organising models discussed in the literature review use empirical data and qualitative information about the state of the community as a basis for their community development strategies. These models assume that rational, logical, arguments work effectively in influencing decision making around social issues. At the same time, these mdels use objective information to redefine issues and change the nature of the policy debate. Learning from situations like the NAACP v. American Family case, community activists, informal community groups, and community-based organisations are beginning to view GIs as a useM package of tools and techniques. They are using GIs to understand and evaluate specific problems occurring in their physical environments in areas such as housing, health care, education, economic development, neighbourhood planning, and environmental management (Ramasubramanian, 1995). GIs provides an efficient way to document, update, and manage spatial information, thereby making it possible to conduct analyses over time. GIs has the capacity to level the playing field by assisting small groups to analyse, present, and substantiate their arguments effectively. It also allows them to raise new questions and issues. Environmentalists, for example, have successfblly used technologies such as GIs to negotiate their claims and resolve disputes (e.g. Sieber, 1997). Urban comnunities and their advocates can do the same.

?rspectives

Community Empowrment Using GIs

ooking at formation that the profound j who are

The next section will present a conceptual and methodological approach called part~cipatoryresearch and explain why it is an appropriate framework to introduce GIs use to a community group or organisation comprised largely of non-technical users. It is anticipated that this approach will overcome some of the common problems assaciated with GIs adoption and its use, particularly issues such as fear of technology and resistance to change.

93

8.4 PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH CONCEPTS

at GIs ment and

3d

residents, However, mmunityformation ding GIs aniel Sui, ,. it is safe ocesses of ively with empirical for h d s . lent and a parcels in nrnend to data and ~mrnunity :nts work me, these cy debate. ommunity Jinning to stand and s housing, ronmental brmation, level the uguments talists, for laims and the same.

In order to understand participatory research, one first has to understand the basic concept of participatory planning. Friedrnam's (1987) classification of planning traditions is a useN h e w o r k to look at participatory planning. The four traditions he identilies are: policy analysis, social reform, social learning, and social mobilisation. Friedrnann sees these traditions on a continuum with the policy analysis tradition working to maintain the status quo and social mobilisation working to create change. Positivistic research never discusses the role or value of participation seriously. Participatory planning, on the other hand, accepts 'participation' as an implicit condition. Discovering that most of the literature advocating participatory planning comes f'rom the social leanzing and the social mobilisation traditions should come as no surprise. Why should one look at partxipatory planning at the present time? Friedmann (1992) and Sassen (1991) argue that it is not possible to plan effectively on behalf of people and states given the changing nature of the economy, the political landscape, and most of all, given the speed at which these changes are occurring, especially in the cities and urban areas of the world. They also suggest that the specialisation of knowledge makes it impossible for one group to plan and determine optimal solutions on behalf of the world community. Brown and Tandon (1991) state that the problems of poverty and social development are complex and require multiparty collaboration. Korten (1986) sees participatory planning as a fundamental construct of a larger strategy supporting peopleentred development. Additionally, participatory planning is a model that is working well in situations where it has been undertaken with a genuine commitment to implement change. Thus, it deserves to be studied and seen as a viable social methodology. Finally, participatory planning invokes a basic principle of empowerment - of building the capacity of the community to speak for itself and address issues with the skill and confidence to create change W g , 1992). In his book, Man and Development, Nyerere argues that: "... For the truth is that development means the development of people. Roads, buildings, the increases of crop output, and other things of this nature and not development, they are only tools of development" (Nyerere, 1974, p. 26). Placing people at the centre of the planning and decision making process changes the nature of the debate dramatically. There are several models of participatory planning including Action Science (Argyris et.al., 1985), People-Centred Planning (Daley and Angulo, 1990), Transactive Planning, (Friedrnann, 1992), ComrnunityBased Resource Management (Korten, l983), Participatory Action Research (Whyte, 1991) and Participatory Research (Hall, 1993). The concept of parb.cipatory research (PR) stems f?om larger values of democracy and citizen participation and from within the participatory planning traditions mentioned above. Individuals and communities have come to see participation as an essential approach to effect change. For the purposes of this chapter, PR can be defined as an approach that: 1. develops the capacity of the participants to organise, analyse, and discuss concepts to the level required by the particular endeavour they are involved in; (

94

Geographic InformationResearch: Runs-Atlantic Perspectives

2. develops a process to incorporate the pat~cipantsin the research and decision-making process which includes the formulation of the hypotheses, selection of the research design, and methods of evaluation; and, 3. returns research data and results to the parkipants. The long term goal of a PR project is to empower people psychologically and politically to effect social change. In the short term, a PR project engages people affected by a particular problem in the analysis of their own situation and emphasises self-reliance, ~e~assertiveness, and self-determination. According to Gaventa (1993), there are three ways of conducting research within the general framework of the participatory paradigm. The first approach re-appropriates dominant research knowledge. While it is effectivein the process of empowerment, it is still based on gaining access to and control of knowledge that has already been codified by others. The second approach which evolves fiom the first approach aspires to create new knowledge based on people's experience and makes it possible for people to produce and define their own reality. He recommends a third way where the people are involved in all stages of the research process including problem definition, setting the research agenda, and determining w h e the ~ results or findings would be used. He argues that once people see themselves as researchers, they can investigate reality for themselves. The role of the outside researcher is changed radically when the research paradigm sees popular knowledge as having equal value to scientific knowledge. The PR perspective presented in Figure 8.1 sees the community as "insiders" who have information and knowledge gained through practical experience. Their knowledge has not been analysed to recognise patterns nor has it been synthesised within any larger societal bmework. Individuals in communities live in isolation and their experiences are not connected. Researchem, advocates and mnsultants are "outsiders" who have seen similar situations and therefore are able to understand patterns and have theories and strategies because of their understanding of existing theoretical £tameworks. PR sees these two groups corning together to participate in a mutual learning experience. This phase is dependent on developing effective communication strategies and attitudinal changes in the researcher. The local theory provides context pmfic cause and effect relationships and it can be shared with insiders to test through action. At the same time, outsiders can take this knowledge and use it to generate theory. This author-advocates the use of this participatory perspective in any efforts to use GIs for community-based planning and decision making. GIs advocates taking the role of the "outside" researcher will be able to communicate more effectively with the community in its attempt to use GIs. The technology will become less of a black box and more of an interactive tool which can be manipulated according to the needs of the users.This hmework facilitates decision-making which is based on social learning. It is most effective in context bound situationsand in work with small groups. Having briefly discussed participatory research concepts and its usefulness as an approach and a method to introduce GIs to community groups, this chapter will now look at one example in which this approach was attempted. 8.5 REPAIRERS OF THE BREACH -,ADVOCATES FOR THE HOMELESS

The Repairers of the Breach is a non-profit advocacy organisation in Milwaukee that works with the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless. The organisation is typical of many community-based organisations in that it runs on a very small budget and relies for the most part on the kindness of strangers and the dedicated service of volunteers.

'cPerspectives

Community Empinwrment Using GIs

sion-making m h design,

Since 1992, the organisation has been concerned about the @lacement of low income people, and people of colour in central Milwaukee. In order to confirm what they had documented through anecdotal evidence, key members in the organisation sought to use GIs to monitor displacement. These members were actively involved in defining the research agenda, designing the research questions, and determining the scope and nature of the analysis. While the actual data manipulation and the computer mapping tasks were conducted by university students, the research was directed by the needs and interests of the organisation.

nd politically a partmlar wrtiveness, :h within the -appropriates ent, it is still ed by others. w knowledge ine their own 'the research ng where the ; researchers, r is changed p a l value to rs" who have dge has not uger societal aces are not seen similar nd strategies e two groups iependent on mcher. The 2 shared with Ige and use it ts to use GIs [e role of the ununity in its an interactive ork fBcilitates ontext bound

ulnas as an 1now look at

ESS

x that works is typical of relies for the

Implicit Ways of knowing; Individual and Fragmented m v v e ld g e

I

95

Theory based on experience in other settings

L

Testing ttuwgh collecthre actkn Groups and individuals receive new understandingof problems, leam how to leam (problem pose), and use their new knowledge actively

Scholars and professional researchersare able to generate theory that can be tested in other settings

Figure 8.1 Using GIs from within a Participatory Research Paradigm

Building on this preliminary work, the organisation has decided to use GIs to facilitate community-based research and analysis in order to: create a comprehensive computer-based socioeconomic and environmental profile of the areas they serve in Milwaukee; customise this profile to include qualitative data and information of particular relevance to people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless; and, develop the skills of neighbourhood residents to gather, analyse, and use data and information about their neighbourhood.


96

This model provides one example of how a community can effectively use computerbased technologies like GIs. Presently, key members in the organisation have a very sophisticated conceptual understanding of GIS. Initially, the relationship between the community-basedorganisation and the university which provided the technical assistance was similar to what King (1981) describes as happening in the service stage. The organisation did not intend to take an active part in the research and analysis but anticipated that the university would provide assistance by addressing their concerns. Over time, leaders in the organisation decided that it is invaluable for those directly affected by the displacement and gentrification trends to be involved in the research and analysis. As the Director, MacCanon Brown points out, "... one concept inspiring this project is a desire to move a system of knowledge into the hands of the people who are often subordinated by the exploitative use of systems of knowledge" (Repairers of the Breach, 1994, p. 9). The experience with this organisation demonstrates that there are several benefits to using a participatory process to work with commun.i@&asedorganisations, particularly if the work involves the introduction of GIs concepts and analysis techniques. Playing the role of outside researcher, the university was able to assist the project without dominating the research process. The university students who worked on the project perfected their technical skills while learning about the policy and pragmatic implications of their research from organisation members who were dealing with the issues surrounding homelessness on a daytoday basis. The organisation members on the other hand were able to address their concerns fiom a position of strength, playing a leadership role in the research and analysis. This organisation is currently developing a research proposal to study homelessness in central Milwaukee and has raised money to sustain a drop-in centre with computing facilities to serve the needs of its constituency. The organisation's actions are one indicator that the participatory approach used for the p r e l m m q research was a catalyst in transforming those individuals who are typically seen as research subjects into researchers. With their enhanced critical thinking skills, the members of this organisation are demonstrating that they can participate with power in decision-making processes. The next section of this chapter will discuss some of the benefits that can accrue and constraints that community-based organisations face as they attempt to acquire a conceptual and technical understanding of GIs. . >&.-

8.6 BENEFITS AND CONSTRAINTS OF USING GI!!

The use of GIs within a participatory paradigm bridges the gap between research and pqctice by creating divergent problem solving perspectives. For example, questions explored through a GIs gain special meaning because demographic, economic, and environmental data can be visually linked with actual features on a map like a house, a tract of land, a stand of trees,or a river. (Audet et.al., 1993). In addition, end-users tend to ascribe meaning to the data they are looking at because it is familiar and concerns them directly. For example, it is not uncommon to find community residents browsing through the database searching for their street, or their home and using address matching features to spatially locate familiar landmarks. As stated earlier, GIs facilitates analysis of spatial patterns and trends over time. A community can analyse the growth and decline of their neighbourhood using common indicators like the number of vacant parcels and the number of building code violations. At the same time, the technology makes it possible for non-technical users to come together to discuss context specific issues. By tallung and sharing information, users learn fiom each other. For example, a community organiser with access to a GIs system can present information about drug arrests in the neighbourhood over time and use the spatial patterns to

ntic Perspectives

use computer- , have a very between the assistance was ganisation did the university .e organisation gentrification Brown points fledge into the of systems of ral benefits to titularly if the mg the role of minating the their technical research from ness on a day-

mcem from a s organisation lilwaukee and he needs of its approach used ,oare typically ing skills, the vith power in an accrue and :a conceptual

h and pqctice )lored through a1 data can be d of trees, or a :data they are lot uncommon street, or their B,

over time. A sing common violations. At ne together to un from each I can present id patterns to

ComrnuniwEmpowerment Using GIS

97

talk about the effectiveness of block club organising and neighbourhood watches in preventing drug-related crime. There are some limitations in using GIs to assist community-based planning. Will Craig, Assistant Director at the University of Minnesota's Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, says that "while the 1990 Census set a new precedent for sharply defined demographic information, community organisers must still depend on cities and counties for much of the other information they need. For example, the city assessor's office maintains property records. The police department tracks crime. Most public information lands in city computers. More often than not, cities do not distribute this information". Craig surveyed 3 1 major US. cities and six Canadian cities and found that while most had broad city data available, the results for 'subcity' or neighbourhood data were "dismal" (Nauer, 1994 6. Ramasubramanian, 1995). During interviews conducted with ten community-based organisations in Milwaukee, this author learned that many of them were experiencing difficulties in their efforts to access and use computer-based technologies. Several barriers to access were noted. They included lack of access to appropriate hardware and software, lack of access to appropriate data and information, lack of appropriate computer skills and research as well as analysis skills, and finally financial constraints. Eight of the ten organisations interviewed are affected by financial constraints. However, only one of the organisations insisted that the lack of financial resources was the primary barrier to access. Lack of access to appropriate hardware and soAware seems to a major problem affecting most of the organisations intewiewed. 'We don't have powerfd computers" and "No modems" seemed to be a constant refrain. "We are using seventies technology here", said one intewiewee sounding fiustmted about the quality of the computer equipment in her workplace. Another intewiewee clarified this point fiuther. She said that even when there are financial resources available to invest in new hardware and software, the end users are not able to get sound advice about what type of system to invest in. Qther interviewees appear to agree. Most organisations appear to have adopted a "let's wait and see" attitude because they feel that the technology is changing too rapidly to be of any use to their organisation. All the organisations surveyed agreed that another major barrier to using computerbased technologies such as GIs, was the lack of computer skills. Some organisations clariiied that the lack of access to hardware and software was linked to the issue of training. "Training doesn't help if we do not have the appropriate systems" says a community leader working with Asian-Americans in Milwaukee. He says that any training programs that his staff attended without actually having the appropriate technology in the workplace were useless. Some organisations said that it took considerable time before individuals could become competent users of the technology. Others indicated that the learning process took a lot of energy. The organisations actually attempting to use computer-based technologies in some way raised the issue that is usually a preoccupation of researchers and analysts - the lack of data and the varying quality of available data. For example, an activist working on issues that affect the American-Indian community pointed out that the census often undercounts American-Indians. In addition, there is very little data that is geared to the needs and interests of this sub-population. MacCanon Brown, the director of the homeless advocacy organisation discussed earlier in the chapter, agrees. She works with the homeless and those at risk of becoming homeless - an invisible population often undercounted and underrepresented in official statistics and analyses. In addition, two or three of the organisations interviewed clamoured for more data. The organisations working on long range planning said that they would like to use all the information pertaining to their neighbourhood that they could get. However, they are

98

GeographicInformationResearch: Trans-AtlanticPerspectives

beginning to realise that the data are sometimes not available in a form that they can use. For example, data about crime can be aggregated at census tract level, zip code level, or block group level. One organisation may find it wfid to look at crimes occuning within a block group to mobilise block watches and organise the neighbourhood while another organisation may prefer to look at larger patterns of criminal activity to design intelvention programs. One or two interviewees commented on the fact that community-based organisations are so busy maintaining routine operations that they did not have the time or energy to step back and look at the nature of computer-based technologies and the ways in which it could affect their organisation. "Most community-based organisations cannot look at the global picture we are different", said one interviewee. This author observed that many organisations were not able to conceptually integrate computer-based technology use within their current activities. For example, in one neighbourhood organisation, the computer education and resource c e n t . is designed to educate and entertain young people. It is likely to sente adults who want to gain some basic computing and word processing skills. However, the organisation does not appear to have explored the possibility of linking and enhancing their regular programs with the use of information technology. Several organisations are still doing maps with plastic overlays instead of using computer-generated overlays which increase efficiency and accuracy, and can be updated and maintained over time. At the same time, one or two of the organisationswere very clear about how they would solve problems using technologies such as GIs. They talked about using the results of the spatial analysis to achieve certain tangible organisational goals such as generating increased awareness of a problem among neighbourhood residents and generating increased resident participation These organisations also were aware of the value of looking at trends over time, something that is relatively easy to do using GIs. The interviews p i n t out that community-basd organisations have to spend a lot of time, energy and resources on gathering hgmented data fkom different sources and transform it to make it usable before they can use GIs for the neighbourhood scale of analysis. Small groups such as community-based organisations are easily deterred because of these start-up problems. However, this author believes that use of the participatory bmework discussed earlier will assist community organisationsin overcoming these dif!liculties. GIs technologies also exhibit certain unique characteristics that affect their diffusion and adoption. One cannot learn information technology concepts as one learns to use a standard computer: package. A user of standard computer software begins by learning to manipulate the so-. The data that become the focus of the manipulation are created by him or her prior to andlor during the process of working with the software. On the other hand, a GIs user works with several sets of data simultaneously. These data sets are usually created by other entities, for different purposes and with different goals in mind. Therefore, the end user is constantly conhnted with uncertainty about the accuracy and availability of the data as well as issues which relate to the capacity of the system and its accessibility, the content, ownership, and privacy of the information. For example, in order to understand the spatial mapping and analysis capabilities available through a GIs, a user has to understand the basic p ~ c i p l e of s computing and cartography and how data are stored on the system. 8.7 SUMMARY

This chapter has argued that GIs can be used effectively at the level of small groups such as community-based organisations to assist them in problem solving and decision-making. Accordingly, the literature review has discussed the nature of GIs adoption and its use and the context of that use. The literature review has also pointed out that information is used in

Con

COr orti!

the

detl COT

4' % '=q efli

arg urn likc tha

am

ani of 1

sm ant on inii h

mc thi am thir 8.8

It

l

thc

dir An pie

eu bal SO(

tra als Pa err tht en ad( k

de fol

CommunityEmpowerment Using GIs

heycan use. For e level, or block g within a block her organisation Progt*ams. organisationsare ergy to step back ;h it could affect : global picture -

'

ptually integrate ample, in one : is designed to gain some basic t appear to have with the use of plastic overlays and a n

-9

how they would he results of the :rating increased creased resident trends over time, ,

o spend a lot of me sources and scale of analysis. because of these atory framework 6culties. ;t their difbsion learns to use a s by learning to In are created by re. On the other I sets are usually mind. Therefore, ~davailability of accessibility, the 3 understand the as to understand I the system.

1 groups such as kcision-making. id its use and the lation is used in

99

-

community community-based decision-making because of a push and pull effect organisations are beginning to believe that rational arguments supported by data can support their demands while h d i n g agencies are seeking data and sophisticated analyses to determine the relative merits of the requests for funding they receive. In the next section, the chapter proposed that Participatory Research is a viable conceptual and methodological approach to introduce GIs use to a community group or organisation comprised largely of non-technical users. This approach has been described and explained and firrther exempliiied through the example of the homeless advocacy p u p ' s effortsto use GIs. The benefrts of and constraints to using GIs have also been discussed. The critics who argue against GIs use in community-based decision-making often argue that it tends to centralise decision-making and separate it fiom the realm of understanding of non-technical users. While acknowledging this criticism, this author would like to emphasise that this criticism is more of an indictment about decision-making processes than about GIs and its use. To counter this critique, this chapter has presented a model that approaches decision making through a process of mutual learning between "expert planners and decision makers outside the community" and "community residents who are novice users of technology and information". This model is very appropriate in looking at issues that affect small groups and communities. There are several barriers to the access and use of information technologies in general, and GIs in particular. Most initiatives to increase access provide the technology, some work on developing data standardisation measures, and data sharing mechanisms. Still fewer initiatives provide access to tschnology, and data, while putting some rudimentary skills in the hands of end users. However, very few initiatives address what this author believes to be the most important barrier to access the lack of a critical world view which enables end users to think about ways they can use information technology and GIs in day-to-day problem solving and decision-making. The author is h o w that the participatory strategies mmmended in this chapter will go a long way in encouraging critical thinking among end users.

-

8.8 CONCLUSION

It seems obvious that computer-based technologies like GIs and the decisions made using them are going to affect the lives of ordrnary people in communities, even those who are not directly involved in using these technologies (Sclove, 1995). As exemplified in the NAACP v. American Family Insurance case example, it is likely that information will become the centre piece of the ''Civil Rights" debate in this decade as corporations continue to use racial and economic demographics to locate and provide services W g , 1994b). Gaventa (1993) argued that the production and control of knowledge maintains the balance of power between powerfid corporate interests and powerless individual citizens in a society that is becoming increasingly technocratic, relymg on the expertise of scientists to transcend politics. According to hrm, a knowledge system that subordinates common sense also subordinates common people. This author hopes that the use of GIs within a participatory m e w o r k will counter this trend and contribute to the self development and empowerment of community groups by placing information and sophisticated technologies in their hands. Community development is hdamentally concerned about individual and community empowerment. This domain approaches problems through a systems approach in that it addresses more than one problem at a time and makes connections between issues. It believes that community members should be involved in and guide decision-making regarding the development of the community. Lf research can be defined as a particular process of learning following some codified guidelines, then the question is "who learns?". In non-participatory


100

research, only the researcher learns; in part~cipatoryresearch as discussed earlier, all relevant stakeholders (those who choose to parhcipate in an endeavour) will learn. This learning will empower participants in at least three ways: it will provide specific insights and new understanding of problems; the participants will learn to ask questions and therefore discover how to learn; and the participants will have an opportunity to act using their new knowledge and create new opportunities for their community. Placing GIs as a communication tool within a participatory framework will enhance the quality of decision-making and contribute sigtllficantly to individual and community empowerment. REFERENCES ALEXANDER, E.R 1984. After Rationality, what? Journal of the American Planning Association, 50(1), pp. 62-69. ARGYRIS, C., PUTNAM, R, and SMITH,D. 1985.Action Science: Concepts, Methods, and Skillsfor Research and Intervention. San Francisco, CA.:Josey-Bass. AUDET, R,HUXHOLD, W.,and RAMASUBRAMANIAN,L. 1993. Electronic exploration: an introduction to geographic information systems, The Science Teacher, 60(7), pp. 34-38.

BROWN, D. and TANDON, R 1991.Multiparty Collaborationfor Development in Asia. Working paper fiom Institute for Development Research. Boston, Massachusetts and Society of Participatory Research, New Delhi, India. CAMPBELL, H. .andMASSER, I. 1996. Great Britain: The dynam~csof GIs diffbion, in Cragha, ha., Campbell, H., and Maser, I. (Eds.). GIS DtfJusion: the Adoption and Use of GeographicalInformation Systems in Local Government in Europe. London: Taylor & Francis, pp. 49-66. CHEN, W. 1990. Yisual Display of Spatial Information: a Case study of the South End Development Policy Plan, unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA. CROSWELL, P. 1991. Obstacles to GIs implementation and guidelines to increase the L Z A I Journal, 3(1), pp. 43-56. opportunitiesfor success, W DALEY, J., and ANGULO, J. 1990.People-centered community planning, Journal of the Community Development Society, 21(2), pp. 88-103.

ELDEN, M., and LEVIN, M. 1991. Cogenerative learning: bringing participation into action research, in Whyte, W. (Ed.) ParticipatoryAction Research. Newbury Park, CA.: Sage, pp. 127-142. L

FORESTER, J. 1989.Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. FRIEDMANN, J. 1987. Planning in the Public Domain: Fvom Khowledge toAction. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

FlUEDMANN, J. 1992. Educating the Next Generation of Planners, unpublished working paper, University of California, Los Angeles.

ch: Trans-AtlanticPerspectives

CommunityEmpowrment Using GIS

,d earlier, all relevant learn. This learning will tecific insights and new ~nsand therefore discover sing their new knowledge is a communication tool ~n-makingand contribute

GAVENTA, J. 1993. The powerfbl, the powerless, and the experts: knowledge struggles in an information age, in Park, P., Brydon-Miller, M., Hall, B. and JacksogT. (Eds.), Voices of Change: ParticipatoryResearch in the United States and Canada. Westport, CT: Bergin and b e y , pp. 2 1-40.

101

HALL, B. 1993. Introduction, in Park,P., B~ydon-Miller,M., Hall, B. and Jackson, T. (Eds.), Voices of Change: Participatory Research in the United States and Canada. Westport, CT:Bergin and Garvey, pp. xiii-xxii. HUXHOLD, W. 1991.An Introduction to Urban Geographic Information Systems. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

merican Planning :Concepts, Methods; jey-Bass.

b3. Electronic %eScience Teacher,

HUXHOLD, W., and LEVINSOHN, A. 1995.Managing Geographic Information Systems Projects. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. HUXHOLD, W. and MARTIN, M. 1996. GIsAssists Neighborhood Strategic Planning in Milwaukee, working paper, available from the authors. KING, M.H. 1981. Chain of Change: Stvugglesfor Black CommunityDevelopment. Boston, MA: South End Press.

KING,M.H. 1992. Community Development, unpublished working paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, available from the author.

Development in Asia. Massachusetts and :s of GIs diffusion, in he Adoption and Use of ye. London: Taylor & of the South End :nt of Uhan Studies and les to increase the ming, Journal of the

participation into 5. Newbury Park, CA.: Jniversity of California 'edge toAction. mpublished working

KING, M.H. 1994a. Personal communication with the author. KTNG, M.H. 1994b. Opening Remarks, Proceedings ofme New Technologies Workshop, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Community Fellows Program. KORTEN, D. (Ed.). 1986. Community Management: Asian Experience and Perspectives. West Hartford, CT: Kurnarian Press. KRETZMAN, J. and McKNIGHT, J. 1993. Building Communitiesj?om the Inside Out: A Path Toward Finding and Mobilizing a Community 'sAssets. Evanston, IL: Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, North Western University. MASSER, I. 1993. The dlffUsion of GIs in British local government, in Masser, I. and Drffusion &. and ) Use of Geographic Information Systems Technologies. Onsrud, I. (I! Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 99-116. MASSER, I, and ONSRUD, H. 1993. Extending the research agenda, in Masser, I. and Onsrud, I. (Eds.) D@usion and Use of Geographic Information Systems Technologies, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 339-344. MITCHELL, W. 1994. Opening Remarks, Proceedings of the Nau Technologies Workshop, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Community Fellows Program. NAISBm, J 1994. Global Paradox: The Bigger the World Economy, the More Powerful its SmallestPlayer. New York: Avon Books Inc. NORMAN, J. 1995. Homeowners ensure company does the right thinking, Milwaukee Journal SentinelMagazine, 26 November 1995, pp. 12-15.

NYERERE, J. 1974. Man and Development. London: Oxford University Press. OBERMEYER, N., and PINTO, J. 1994.Managing geographic information systems. New York: The Guilford Press.

102

GeographicInformationResearch: Trans-AtkmticPerspectives

PICKLES, J. (Ed) 1995. Ground Truth: The Social Implications of Geographic Information Systems. New York: The W o r d Press. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, L. 1991. Mapping Madras: Geographic Inforriation Systems Applicationsfar MetropolitanManagement in Developing Countries,unpublished Masters Thesis, Department of Urban Studies and Planning, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. RAMASUBRAMANIAN, L. 1995. Building communities:GIs and partxipatory decision making, Journal of Urban Technology 3(1), pp. 67-79. RAMASUB-, L. 1996. Neighborhood Strategic Planning in Milwaukee, a Documentation Project. Report researched and written for the Nonprofit Center of Milwaukee. Available from the author.

REPAIRERS OF THE BREACH. 1994. Proposal for support of a research project submitted to the Poverty and Race Research Action Council. Milwaukee, WI.: Available from the author. SASSEN, S. 1991. The global City.-New York, London, Tokyo. Princeton: Princeton University Press. SCLOVE, R 1995. Democraqy and Technology. New York: Guildford Press. SIEBER, RE. 1997 Computers in the Grassroots: Environmentalists, Geographic Information Systems, and Public Policy. PhD dissertation, Rutgers University. SPARROW, J. and VEDANTHAM, A. 1995. Innercity networking: models and opportunities,Journal of Urban Technology, 3(1), pp. 19-28. SUSSKIND, L. 1983. Paternalism, Conflict, and Coproduction: Learning@om Citizen Action and Citizen Participation in WesternEurope. New York: Plenum.

WHYTE. W. (EM.) 1991. Participatory Action Research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. WIGGINS, L. 1993. Diffusion and use of geographic information systems in public sector agencies in the United States, in Masser, I. and Onsrud, H. (Eds.) Dijrusion and Use of GeographicInformation Systems Technologies. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 147-164..

Geographic Information Research: Trans-Atlantic Perspectives

EDITED BY

MASSIMO CRAGLIA University of Shefield, UK HARLAN ONSRUD University of Maine, USA

ORGANISING COMMITTEE

HANS-PETER BAHR, KEITH CLARKE HELEN COUCLELIS, MASSIMO CRAGLIA HARLAN ONSRUD, FRANCOIS SALGE GEIR-HARALD STRAND

UK USA

Taylor & Francis Ltd, 1 Gunpowder Square, London, EC4A 3DE Taylor & Francis Inc., 1900 Frost Road, Suite 101, Bristol, PA 19007

Copyright O Taylor & Francis 1999 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, electrostatic, magnetic tape, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. ISBN 0-7484-080 1-0 (paper)

Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data are available Cover design by Hybert Design and Type, Waltham St Lawrence, Berkshire Typeset in Times 10112pt Printed and bound by T.J. International Ltd, Padstow, Cornwall Cover printed by Flexiprint, Lancing, West Sussex

.Preface European l: Contributo

1

PART ON1

2

3

4

5

6