1 / 38

Unpacking the Complexities in Urban PPGIS

Unpacking the Complexities in Urban PPGIS. Dr. Rina Ghose Department of Geography University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee rghose@uwm.edu. PPGIS E-Seminar, 2007. Introduction. Long history of GIS use in urban planning in USA But digital divide along class, race lines

duard
Télécharger la présentation

Unpacking the Complexities in Urban PPGIS

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Unpacking the Complexities in Urban PPGIS Dr. Rina Ghose Department of Geography University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee rghose@uwm.edu PPGIS E-Seminar, 2007

  2. Introduction • Long history of GIS use in urban planning in USA • But digital divide along class, race lines • Urban PPGIS initiatives, where public denotes marginalized community organizations (CO) from inner-city neighborhoods, U.S.A • Planning, problem solving, service delivery tasks related to inner-city revitalization • Outcomes complex, context-dependent, uneven

  3. Presentation Goals • Explore urban PPGIS through lens of urban political economy • Politics of citizen participation in inner-city revitalization • PPGIS through collaborative planning • Effect of neoliberalism • Nature of GIS access and spatial knowledge production in Urban PPGIS • Role of internal characteristics of community organizations in shaping PPGIS

  4. Inner-city Revitalization in USA • Deindustrialization, disinvestment, unemployment, crime, blight, poverty • Revitalization through scaled networks • City Hall – planning agency at local scale • Community Block Grant Administration (CBGA) – local branch of Housing and Urban Development (national scale agency) • Philanthropic foundations, intermediary institutes (national and local scale) – Casey, Fannie Mae, LISC • Local quasi-state agencies, business groups etc.

  5. City of Milwaukee Casey Foundation, Fannie Mae WHEDA HUD University of WI-Milwaukee Community Block Grant Administration Data Center Program Local Initiative Support Coalition Nonprofit Center of Milwaukee Grassroots Community Organizations PPGIS in Milwaukee Scaled Networks Constructed by Community Organizations in PPGIS Practice in Milwaukee (Ghose 2007, E&P A)

  6. Networks of Associations in Participation • Territorial network in Milwaukee Community Block Grant Administration's NSP Program City of Milwaukee’s Area Plan Selected Community Organization

  7. PPGIS through Collaborative Governance • Citizen participation rhetoric • Public – private partnership with agencies via territorial network • Govt., quasi-govt., private • Formalizes participation of inner-city Cos • Provision of GIS, other resources • Affected by neoliberal ideology, entrenched power positions

  8. Problems in Collaborative Planning • Reduced state funding, COs to be entrepreneurial • COs compete with each other for limited funding resources • Devolution of state’s responsibilities • Foisting state agendas on COs (housing, economic development) • Providing insufficient resources to COs

  9. Problems in Collaborative Planning • Fragmented governance, fragmented service • COs compelled to navigate multiple government agencies, to duplicate planning process • Emphasis on top- down expert planning • Rise of a technocratic voice - emphasis on GIS • Critical role of intermediary entities (LISC), private sector actors • Manageable forms of citizen participation – unaltered power relations

  10. Uneven Participation • Who gets to participate? • COs selected by government agencies, private sector (size, capacity, leadership, responsiveness) • Act as representative of all community organizations in a neighborhood • Other COs unable to participate

  11. GIS Access in Urban PPGIS • Dependent upon commitment to equitable GIS access by planning agencies and stakeholders • Territorial network of support to provide free GIS/data/analysis access • Strong data/resource sharing among GIS actors – enables free GIS provision

  12. GIS Provision in Urban PPGIS • Community in-house GIS (rare) • Internet GIS sites hosted by local government agencies • University – community partnerships • Neighborhood GIS Centers

  13. Networks of Association for Data/GIS Access • Territorial Network in Milwaukee City of Milwaukee’s GIS Department Data Center Program of Non Profit Center University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee’s GIS faculty Community Organizations

  14. Internet GIS via Local Government Internet GIS sites : City of Milwaukee • COMPASS • Property, crime, health, census, community assets, community safety • Map Milwaukee • Detailed property and zoning data

  15. Internet GIS • Easy to access, free, COs use sites extensively • But contains only public data, no inclusion of local knowledge • City decides on data type, resolution • Many functions never used (Query) • Cos do not understand SQL • Outdated hardware, lack of broadband

  16. Neighborhood GIS Center • Data Center program of Nonprofit Center • Funds from CBGA - free GIS to COs • Customized spatial data analysis, maps • GIS trained staff interact closely with COs, more responsive to their needs • Integration of public data and local data

  17. Maps showing crime data at multiple scales

  18. Neighborhood GIS Center • Serves many community organizations, stretched thinly • As a non-profit organization, has resource constraints - seeks funding from local/national scale actors • Resource substitution: Data Center’s collaborative relationship with UWM – free GIS interns

  19. University/Community Partnership • UWM’s free customized GIS analysis through university/community partnerships • Emphasizes integration of experiential local knowledge with public data • Offers sophisticated analysis, research – ranging from multi-scalar indicator based GIS to customized Internet based CIS

  20. University/Community Partnership • Highly responsive to CO’s needs • But only serves select COs • Not all COs aware of this opportunity • Subject to university calendar, faculty convenience/research agenda

  21. Usage of Spatial Data/GIS Table 1: Types and Sources of Data Community Organizations Gathered

  22. Usage of Spatial Data/GIS Table 1 continued

  23. How Do Community Organizations Use Data/Maps? • Legitimize local issues to obtain action, formulate strategies • For planners “anecdotal is good but hard data first” • E.g. mapping sanitation survey • Monitor neighborhood conditions, predict changes • E.g. mapping crime hot spots

  24. How Do COs Use Data/Maps? • Prepare for organizational tasks, funding recruitment efforts • COs emphasize needs through maps, data • Generate new information from local data to enhance service delivery tasks • Experiential data superior to public data

  25. How Do COs Use Data/Maps? • Explore spatial relations to challenge or reshape urban policy • Using multiple indicators over time – residential TIF district • Strategic use – COs use language of planners to gain more effective voice in planning

  26. Selective Usage of Spatial Data/GIS • Housing data prioritized over others • Powerful actors focus on housing revitalization, increase of owner occupancy over other issues • Powerful actors - CBGA, Housing and Urban Development, Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Association, Local Initiative Support Coalition, City Hall • Capital accumulation in built landscape more tangible

  27. Selective Usage of Spatial Data/GIS • Simple thematic maps extensively used – power of visualization • Complex maps not used due to poor understanding of GIS • Scale of representation critical • Neighborhood scale most critical, disaggregated data preferred

  28. Negotiation and Contradiction of GIS-based Knowledge Construction • Complexity of GIS a continued challenge: • COs do not have GIS training • Overlays, buffering, querying, density maps • Lack of GIS training due to lack of money, time, and low staff numbers • Savvy COs form special networks of support with local GIS actors • Funding cutbacks drastically affecting CO’s GIS usage

  29. Variability • PPGIS impacts, effectiveness, sustainability highly variable despite similar local contexts of participation and PPGIS opportunities • Organizational context of PPGIS production • Four interlinked factors

  30. Organizational Context 1. Organizational knowledge, experience • With modes of participation • With technology • With local opportunities: GIS, revitalization • With locally effective strategies (building political influences, financial/technical resource acquisition, navigating urban governance)

  31. 2. Organizational ability to create network of collaborative relationships with key individuals • in other community organizations • in public/private institutions (awareness of local opportunities) • Pursuing multiple formal collaborations

  32. 3. Organizational stability • Duration of leadership • Staff turnover • Consistency in organizational mission • Consistency of funding support • Affect retention of organizational knowledge, networks

  33. 4. Organizational type and status • CDC:economic, housing development focus, ties with private/corporate funding, large capital investment projects • CBO: community organizing activities, greater reliance on public funding • CDC structure now economically, politically more advantageous

  34. Three Questions for Urban PPGIS • How can COs negotiate the power relations and effects of neoliberalism in terms of their participation process? • How can COs negotiate the challenges of GIS in the face of severe staff/funding shortage? • Can GIS really make a difference in the face of entrenched power positions in local politics of participation?

  35. Thank You! Questions?

More Related