|
Article Excerpt
Graeme Aggett and Chris McColl
Introduction
Involving the public during the development of alternative land-use scenarios leads to a more sustainable, legitimate, and democratic decision-making process and more effective land-use plans (Abbot et al. 1998; Al-Kodmany 2001). Geographic information systems (GIS) have been found effective in the facilitation of continuous public participation by providing an opportunity for citizens to contribute complementary knowledge, review technical data, visualize development proposals, and subjectively test the validity of assumptions that underpin many spatial planning decisions (Forrester et al. 1999; Al-Kodmany 2001; Ventura et al. 2002). The inclusion of GIS technology in decision-making processes as a tool to engage, blend public knowledge and concerns with expert information, and ultimately empower citizens, has developed into a broad body of research generally referred to as public participatory geographic information systems (PPGIS) (Nyerges et al. 1997; Harris and Weiner 1998; King 2002).
The PPGIS research has closely examined the social implications that may arise due to the application of GIS technology to decision-making processes involving marginalized communities (Obermeyer 1998; Craig et al. 2002; Warren 2004). Cautionary issues have arisen noting the negative impacts PPGIS could have upon differentiated social groups within communities. For example, inequitable access to the information, technology, and expertise of GIS could potentially disadvantage the ability of small or less wealthy groups to fully engage in decision-making processes where spatial analyses have been used to validate decisions (Harris and Weiner 1998; Elwood and Ghose 2001; Ghose 2003).
Additionally, PPGIS research has focused considerable attention to applying PPGIS frameworks that can more effectively engage and empower citizens during the public decision-making process (Elwood and Ghose 9001; Kyem 2001; Sedogo and Groten 9002). However, existing GIS technologies used within public participatory contexts have limited abilities to support decision-making processes due to a lack of system transparency, the need for expert training, the cost of hardware/ software, limited visualization capabilities, and inaccessibility of required data (Barndt 1998; Elwood and Leitner 1998; Al-Kodmany 2001). To address these short-comings, modified GIS tools have been developed to support successful PPGIS applications for democratic decision making. Several terms are used to describe these modified geographical information and communication technologies, such as spatial decision support systems (SDSS); decision support systems (DSS); and in some instances, planning support systems (PSS) (Jankowski and Nyerges 2001; Klosterman 2001; Geertman 2002). Herein we refer to these systems collectively as DSS instruments.
Increasingly, DSS are tightly coupled with, and/or developed upon, GIS platforms to better address the spatial decision-making processes of local governments and communities, and to support growing numbers of PPGIS practitioners (Brail 2001; Geertman 2002). Decision support system development has focused on integrating the analytical capabilities of GIS, including improved visualization technology, which operates within a "real-time" format to promote and support public debate (Shifter 1998; Jankowski and Nyerges 2001; Geertman 2002). These modified GIS instruments are developed with the intention of creating systems that are more transparent to users rather than the so-called "black box" systems, a label GIS has often fallen prey to (Klosterman 2001; Drew 2003).
Attempts have been made to design DSS to be easily understood and operated by users and flexible in application. Superior graphic and visualization capabilities have been incorporated to promote clearer communication of ideas (Al-Kodmany 2001; Geertman 2002; Haklay and Tobon 2003). These rapid advances have raised many questions regarding the development of new DSS and their ability to support PPGIS applications, including the following:
* How effective are emerging DSS at supporting various stages of participatory decision making, not only in terms of functionality hut also utility?
* How can communities be supported in determining which DSS will fulfill their spatial decision support requirements and expectations?
* What level of user-needs assessment is required to aid communities in selecting an appropriate DSS?
The National Consortium for Rural Geospatial Innovations (RGIS) (1) consists of eight sites across the U.S. working to improve the accessibility of geospatial technologies to rural communities through technology transfer, pilot studies, and educational efforts (see www.ruralgis.org) (RGIS 2000). In 2002, prior to engaging in PPGIS pilot projects, RGIS undertook an evaluation of several DSS for community support applications. Results were published and disseminated to the respective DSS instrument developers, and selected communities (Niemann and Limp 2004). Efforts focused on assessing the appropriate application of each instrument to specific public participatory settings.
Different settings and issues require different combinations of tools to effectively tackle spatial decision-making challenges facing each region served by the Consortium. Therefore, it was necessary to identify a collection of tools and their associated strengths, separately or in combination, to meet the needs and expectations of local governments and interested stakeholders. A critical limitation to this exercise was the shortage of literature describing DSS performance. Initial evaluation was thus based on a rapid immersion (3-5 days of formal training) in each tool, with each site selecting a DSS for their particular application.
Each site further evaluated their DSS of choice based on project experience and outcomes. Four DSS instruments were reviewed: CommunityViz 1.3 (Scenario Constructor; Policy Simulator; SiteBuilder 3D); ESRI's ModelBuilder; Place It!; and What If?. Application within the context of a community development pilot extension project provided a convenient opportunity to evaluate the effectiveness of a specific DSS in supporting different stages of group decision support from the perspectives of both the researcher and the participants. Moreover, opportunities were generated to assess the ability of the DSS to engage and facilitate community debate regarding landuse conversion and associated environmental, economic, and social impacts.
The initial shortage of information regarding the capabilities and utility of these tools to support various successful PPGIS applications was noted. Few communities or even agencies have resources for the type of evaluation RGIS deployed at the start of this project. Recognized were the limitations of DSS assessment based on static, formal (software) training, providing little indication of potential performance in different community settings. Making a relatively uninformed decision concerning which DSS to apply prior to each site's respective project motivated our site to closely monitor the utility of the selected DSS, CommunityViz, to support community-based, spatial decision-making processes from the perspective of both the technologist and the citizen. Thus, the key objectives were to:
* Survey community members to extract their perceptions regarding the benefits/limitations of the DSS used to assist them with participatory spatial decision making;
* Compile project technologists' perceptions of the DSS via post-meeting discussion; and
* Develop a DSS Evaluation Matrix (DSSEM) that can be used by PPGIS practitioners and participants to evaluate a variety of DSS within a range of project settings.
The construction of DSSEM was supported by a detailed review of PPGIS literature and our project experience. Common elements of functionality and utility were identified and used as indicators to assess the potential of a DSS to engage, facilitate, and support community debate and spatial decision-making processes. To achieve the stated objectives, an initial phase incorporated a case study approach. Multiple workshops were presented to a rural community to demonstrate the utility of a DSS in supporting spatial decision-making processes. Recorded participant feedback provided insights into their perspective concerning DSS technology development and its appropriate application--information critical for guiding future DSS development and applications. A second phase develops a functionality/utility assessment from the perspective of the GIS technologist. Evaluation results provide communities with information regarding the potential effectiveness of a particular DSS to support specific applications.
Conventional DSS Evaluation and PPGIS Project Design
Initial Selection of DSS
Initial exposure to all DSS evaluated was based on formal classroom training lasting 3-5 days. All eight RGIS sites were in general agreement in identifying an instrument that came close to the perceived ideal DSS: the prototype "toolbox" of Geertman (2002). Designed to bridge the gap between participatory planning and GIS support, this would be a collection of several stand-alone instruments that could effectively communicate with each other, and be selectively applied in various combinations to support particular phases of the planning process. Geertman's (2002) tools were comprised of (i) a geographic mapping tool; (ii) a concept mapping tool designed to record and connect ideas developed through group brainstorming activities; (iii) a group interactive sketching tool that supports participants in creating intuitive planning designs; (iv) a multi-criteria analysis tool that enables participants to quantitatively determine the importance of selected evaluation criteria by adjusting weights assigned to...
|
