|
|
|
The Integration of GIS into Policy Making through Intra-Urban Indicators, Case Study Rosario (Argentina)
Javier A. Martínez MSc.
Urban and Regional Research Centre Utrecht (URU)
Faculty of Geographical Sciences - Utrecht University. Utrecht.
International Institute for Geoinformation Science and Earth Observation (ITC)
Netherlands.
Abstract
Policy makers are currently encouraged to introduce area-based policies to target deprived areas, then set priorities, and reallocate resources. GIS-based indicators can be a valuable tool to describe differences in the quality of life and access to services and identify trends. GIS-based indicators provide valuable information especially if they are policy related, and to some extent they are able to generate better decisions and evaluate the policy performance. This paper explains how the integration of GIS into policymaking can be achieved using intra-urban indicators and shows through a case study the advantages of GIS in constructing them. GIS-based indicators are constructed combining different data sources such as census and administrative data. This paper also analyses how policy makers perceive the problem of urban inequalities and how they deal with data and indicators on decision-related issues.
To succeed in the GIS adoption and capacity building in developing countries, GIS should be able to respond to the local needs and it should be policy demand driven and application context sensitive. The use of intra-urban indicators can contribute to the integration of GIS into policymaking as well as meet local problems and needs.
Introduction
By means of a case study this paper explains how the integration of GIS into policymaking can be achieved using intra-urban indicators. This section introduces the problem of inequality within cities and the growing demand of information to target disadvantaged areas. The second section describes what indicators are, their functions in policy making and why GIS can help in its operationalization. The third section deals with the case study area and its planning context where the methodology to describe the inequality phenomena with GIS-based indicators is applied. The fourth section starts by analysing the inequality aspects that policy makers consider more relevant and how they deal with indicators. Finally, it is shown the operationalization of a set of indicators and how they can help to identify gaps and rank areas.
The “Global Urban Observatory”, the UN-HABITAT international capacity building network, indicates that many cities suffer from an information crisis that undermines their capacity to develop effective urban policy. It also warns that these cities do not have a sustained or systematic approach to assess the urban problems and cannot evaluate the success of the implemented policies. Urban indicators are seen as a tool that can improve that situation (Moor, 2000). There is also a recognition that GIS can be used for the collection and analysis of urban indicators. A proof of that appreciation is that in February 2003 ESRI donated 15 million dollars to the Global Urban Observatory’s indicators programme .
Since the Agenda 21 declaration, the importance for a sustainable development of reducing inequalities and disparities within cities it is constantly mentioned (United Nations, 1992; European Commission, DG XI (1994) in Mega, 1996; UNCHS, 2001). Spatial inequality occurs in urban areas around the world. However, especially in cities in developing countries, inequalities in the habitat conditions or access to social and physical infrastructure are particularly evident. At the same time, local governments are encouraged to target those deprived areas. Problems related with deprivation or poverty show spatial concentrations in cities accentuating the problems suffered by people living in certain areas (Pacione, 2001 p. 291).
Socio-territorial indicators are being used since the beginning of the twentieth century. In the 1970s, there was a growth in studies of patterns of inequality and spatial injustice with an interest to influence public policy. Later on, postmodernism emphasized or “celebrated” diversity and difference (Smith, 1994). In the 1990s there was again a growing engagement of geographers with inequalities, moral and social issues, including the theme of the ethics of professional practice (e.g. Couclelis, 1999). This growing concern is particularly evident and it is reflected in different reports and initiatives of international organizations that are stressing the importance of monitoring spatial inequalities within cities (e.g. UNCHS, 1995; The World Bank, 1996; EC (European Communities), 2000; European Commission, 2000; UNDP, 2000; UNCHS, 2001; UNDP, 2001).
Even though there is growing literature about inequalities and attention for the importance of measuring it; there is not enough discussion about methods and tools (basically indicators), how suitable they are, and the use of GIS to operationalize them. This concern is also expressed as a problem of lacking of “spatially relevant indicators” (Kunzmann, 1998). Several studies of patterns of inequality and spatial differentiation within the city have been based on indicators of personal income (e.g. Smith, 1973; Smith, 1994; Chakravorty, 1996). However, as Knox and Pinch (2000 p.100) put it “While socioeconomic differentiation is arguably the most important cleavage within contemporary cities, it is by no means the only one”. Besides, for most cities there is also a data availability restriction, since data of personal income is not collected at low levels of aggregation. This is the case of many cities in the developing world as well as in developed countries (see: Broadway and Jesty, 1998; Wessel, 2000).
|
|
|