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?