|
|
|
The Integration of GIS into Policy Making through Intra-Urban Indicators, Case Study Rosario (Argentina)
Some of the criticism to “area-based” policy strategies to reduce inequalities argues that targeting is not based on needs and that the areas are not homogeneous (the ecological fallacy problem). To minimize the problems (and criticism) of ecological misleading outcomes, this research focuses on the use of small area units and low levels of aggregation and places stress on “need” more than any other distributive criteria. Furthermore, the construction of indicators outside a policy perspective is also widely criticised (Innes, 1990). Consequently, this research proposes to link the development and use of GIS-based indicators with policy.
The city of Rosario (Argentina) has different levels of housing needs and access to physical and social infrastructure. Rosario is taken as a case study and GIS-based indicators were used to measure spatial inequalities. Census data from 2001 was analysed together with
administrative data from the Public Housing Office. GIS-based indicators provide valuable information particularly if they are policy related and able to generate better decisions. For that reason, through a series of interviews it was analysed how policy makers perceive the problem of urban inequalities and how they deal with data and indicators on decision-related issues.
Overcrowding, education level, employment, tap water inside the house and access to primary schools were the five most important aspects of inequality according to policy makers. Diagnose and problems identification was the phase within the policy cycle where they would more appreciate the use of indicators. After the analysis, it was possible to identify the most disadvantaged neighbourhood areas and to measure the gap between the best off and worst off areas. Needs derived from indicators constructed from census data were complemented with point maps showing directly expressed need which proves to show “hidden” needs not captured by the derived indicators. Finally, factor analysis was applied to define a socio-economic factor which can be used to describe the socio-economic gaps in the city and as a proxy indicator of income.
Policy makers are currently encouraged to introduce area-based policies to target deprived areas, then set priorities, and reorient resources. GIS-based indicators prove to be a valuable tool to describe differences in the quality of life and access to services. To succeed in the GIS adoption and capacity building in developing countries, GIS should be able to respond to the local needs and be policy demand driven. The use of intra-urban indicators can contribute to the integration of GIS into policymaking as well as meet local problems and needs.
What are indicators and why GIS can help in its operationalization?
Indicators simplify complex phenomena into quantifiable measures that can be used for policy and decision-making. Therefore, indicators have three functions: to simplify, to quantify, and to communicate (Van Delft, 1997). Innes (1990) considers that an indicator focuses and renders intentionally selected areas of the reality. She puts it in this way: “An indicator is simply a set of rules for gathering and organizing data so they can be assigned meaning”
From these definitions, we can see the potential that GIS has to operationalize indicators. While constructing indicators, it is necessary to: organize data, to quantify and to communicate. These three indicators functions coincide with the usually acknowledged advantages of GIS: data organisation, spatial analysis and visualisation (Burrough, 1986 in: Huxhold, 1991; Webster, 1993; Ghose and Huxhold, 2002). Furthermore the spatial dimension of urban inequalities and the area-based policies that target deprived areas makes decision support suitable for analysis and monitoring with the use of GIS based indicators. Besides, in the late 1990s the value and potential of GIS to construct intra-urban indicators is increased by a combination of: a growing concern on intra-urban inequalities, the implementation of area-based policies and the developments in ICT and GIS technology.
Apart from rendering intentionally selected areas of the reality (Innes, 1990) GIS-based indicators can perform different functions which are related to the different phases in the policy cycle. Indicators can be classified as follows :
- Descriptive or Baseline indicators: used to present a certain state or process. They describe the present situation and are useful to target and identify need areas. They usually represent the starting point before policies are applied.
- Normative or Target indicators: used to evaluate and compare the result of an indicator to a standard that acts as a norm (usually related to policies). With these indicators goals and objectives can be set after the areas of need have been identified with the descriptive/baseline indicators.
- Performance or Outcome indicators: used to present achievements by measuring whether the policy goals have been achieved as well as the level of people’s satisfaction with the results.
GIS-based indicators to measure spatial inequality
GIS can be used to operationalize indicators in any of the policy cycles. Besides, it should be established which policy goal is considered and which phenomenon the indicators will describe. In this case study, indicators are used to describe spatial inequality and can be related to the policy objective of targeting intra-urban inequalities.
In this research and to justify that inequalities in cities really matter it is necessary to consider an approach from a social justice perspective. When there is a need to monitor or describe inequalities, it is implied that with the use of planning tools there is the intention to change, improve and/or solve this problem. Hence, there is a concern with what the city should be, and some form of redistributive or compensatory action. According to Smith (1994 p.2) “questions of social justice, morality or ethics are usually described as normative, concerned with what should be, as opposed to positive knowledge which is about what actually is”. Smith (1994) considers that justice involves treating people fairly, which in distributive justice means that whatever is being distributed should go to people in the right quantities. He expresses that “fairness” means that people in the same circumstances should be treated in the same way. A difference can be made between arithmetic equality and proportional equality. In arithmetic equality everyone is getting exactly the same quantity of something and in proportional equality the distribution is justified according to a certain criteria such as need or market demand. In this research a need approach within a social justice perspective is taken.
The spatial patterning of inequality and difference results in the segregation of certain segments of the population (Langlois and Kitchen, 2001). Actions against that problem are usually addressed with area based policies that target those deprived or segregated areas. Social justice it is concerned with the question of who gets what where and how, and more precisely who should get what where and how (Smith 1977 in: Pacione, 2001). We can clearly see from these definitions that the spatial aspect of inequalities justifies the use of GIS-based indicators.
In this research, spatial inequality is considered to be a heterogeneous, multidimensional and complex phenomenon with several aspects. Two axes are distinguished with the following domains:
(un)equal conditions of quality of life
- social environment
- physical environment
(un)equal distributions of opportunities / (un)equal access to
- social infrastructure
- physical infrastructure
- virtual infrastructures (nets, ICT- “switched off areas”-)
|
|
|