Unpacking the Complexities in Urban PPGIS

1
Unpacking the Complexities in Urban PPGIS

• Dr. Rina Ghose
• Department of Geography
• University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
• rghose_at_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
PPGIS in Milwaukee
Scaled Networks Constructed by Community
Organizations in PPGIS Practice in Milwaukee
(Ghose 2007, EP A)
6
Networks of Associations in Participation

• Territorial network in Milwaukee

Community Block Grant Administration's NSP
Program
City of Milwaukees 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 states 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 Milwaukees GIS Department
Data Center Program of Non Profit Center
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukees 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
(No Transcript)
16
(No Transcript)
17
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

18
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

19
Maps showing crime data at multiple scales
20
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 Centers
  collaborative relationship with UWM free GIS
  interns

21
University/Community Partnership

• UWMs 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

22
(No Transcript)
23
University/Community Partnership

• Highly responsive to COs needs
• But only serves select COs
• Not all COs aware of this opportunity
• Subject to university calendar, faculty
  convenience/research agenda

24
Usage of Spatial Data/GIS
Types of data Detail Sources
Housing Property ownership, zoning, land use, assessment, tax information (e.g. exemption, delinquency), structural information on buildings, building code violations, raze status, vacant lots, boarded-up homes COMPASS Map Milwaukee DNS Treasures Office Assessors Office neighborhood housing survey
Crime Aggregated incident data (e.g., shootings, murders, burglaries, car thefts) at police district level. Some organizations get more detailed data (such as nuisance ticket with actual addresses) MPD Sheriff's Department-through COMPASS DAs office courthouse residents report
Table 1 Types and Sources of Data Community
Organizations Gathered
25
Usage of Spatial Data/GIS
Types of data Detail Sources
Environment Neighborhood clean ups garbage pick up, etc. Map Milwaukee neighborhood survey
Health Lead abatement data City health department
Economic development Business owners population information income data The city census
Client/demographic data Membership block captains youth information Self-collection census
Table 1 continued
26
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

27
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

28
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

29
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

30
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

31
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 COs GIS
  usage

32
Variability

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

33
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)

34

• 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

35

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

36

• 4. Organizational type and status
• CDCeconomic, 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

37
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?

38
Thank You!

• Questions?