Printer Friendly Format

Page 1 of 4
| Next |


Can Participatory-GIS Strengthen Local-level Spatial Planning? Suggestions for Better Practice

Michael K. McCall
Urban & Regional Planning and GeoInformation Management (PGM)
International Institute for Geoinformation Science and Earth Observation (ITC)
Netherlands



Introduction
Participatory mapping (P-mapping) and Participatory GIS (P-GIS) are usually assumed to be cost-effective, notwithstanding that their lower costs may be offset by lower standards of precision and maybe accuracy, than for full-blown GIS. Concomitantly P-mapping and P-GIS are considered to have superior effects in terms of relevance, usefulness, sustainability, empowerment, and meeting good governance objectives, due to their eponymous stress on participation and on utilising local knowledge.

But P-mapping and P-GIS are often used superficially and even falsely, for reasons other than supporting participation.

But, then there are 3 questions:
- what are the ramifications of employing a participatory approach in applying geo-information to spatial planning? what should the principles of PSP (participatory spatial planning) imply?
- how to operationalise the principles and concepts of the participatory approach?
- how much difference will it make in the end to the planning decision and activities?

The paper addresses mainly the first two questions, and the third peripherally.

The first three sections deal with P-mapping and P-GIS as applied over the past two decades in natural resource management and community planning, and at a more conceptual level, the categories of participation as a process. Section 4 examines five questions needed to evaluate applications of P-mapping and P-GIS –: Why a participatory approach is employed? Who is involved? What sorts of geospatial information is involved? When? – at what stages? How does the P-GIS function?, with particular reference to visualisation and presentation. Section 6 outlines key factors and criteria in a ‘good practice’ sequence for P-GIS.

P-Mapping, P-GIS and PPGIS
There must be more than 500 published examples of applying P-mapping or P-GIS in rural local resource situations, and hundreds more examples of urban community implementation. (McCall 2004) From these widely accumulated experiences can be derived a number of key factors and conditions related to ‘good practice’ for local communities using P-GIS methods.

P-GIS methods are widely used in North societies (with a few South examples) in urban community neighbourhood identification, problem prioritisation, and participatory planning. In South countries (with some in the North), applications are mainly in natural resource identification and management (especially forests), or for instance, environmental hazard mapping. Native (indigenous) peoples in both North and South utilise P-GIS for legitimising customary land and resource claims, e.g. Canada, USA, Australia, NZ, Philippines, Indonesia, South Africa, Brazil, Peru, et al.

To give a flavour of P-GIS in action, some instances below:
  • The Dene Mapping Project in northern Canada used digital 1:250,000 maps to designate land use and occupancy, 1890-1975. Boundaries were designated and spatial conflicts reduced, not only with Federal and Provincial governments, but also with neighbouring indigenous peoples. (Asch & Tychon IN: Johnson 1997)
  • In the Philippines, community GIS resulted in strengthening Ifugao community groups when preparing for negotiations with provincial & municipality authorities re. ancestral lands (Gonzalez 2000). P3DM (participatory 3-dimensional mapping) has been used in the Philippines for conflict analysis and resolution between indigenous groups, which should reduce possibilities of inter-group warfare over land resources. (Rambaldi & Callosa-Tarr 2002)
  • In Indonesia, NRM claims and village boundary conflicts between prior resource rights and recent claims in Kalimantan, were addressed through participatory mapping and GPS. (Wollenberg 1999; Fox 1990).
  • In Cameroon, P-mapping and P-GIS applied to the regularisation of communities’ customary entitlements to forest land - 2 phases from the Tinto case tabled below (Minang & McCall 2003)



Finding the P in the P-Mapping and P-GIS
A distinction might be made between P-GIS (Participatory GIS) as the tool, and PPGIS (Public Participation GIS) as the planning context, but the difference is not always clear-cut. [ ]

Definitions abound, such as: ‘PP-GIS refers to the uses and applications of geo-spatial information and GIS technology used by members of the public, individually or grassroots groups, for participation in public processes that affect their lives (and so, encompasses data collection, mapping, analysis, &/or decision-making) (Tulloch 2003). But strict definitions have little value, they will be interpreted differently anyway. What matters is the essence of P-GIS.

One end of a continuum sees P-GIS as a form of ‘participatory spatial planning’ (PSP) which makes use of maps and other GI output, especially GIS. Spatial planning can hardly not include maps, etc., though we could imagine ‘participatory planning’ without maps, such as the participatory planning of a school curriculum or a cultural policy. So the core here is the ‘degree of participation’ in the (participatory) planning, in which case the essential issues are: what are the processes, activities, measures, instruments, and procedures that involve participation? and what are the criteria and indicators to measure these?

The other end of the continuum equates P-GIS to ‘doing (technical) GIS with some degree of people’s participation – the participation could be simply in the data collection, or much more fundamentally, it could in the choice of data inputs, data layers, the analysis and presentation, data storage, and in data queries. Here the core activity is the GI outputs (maps, etc.), and the essential issue is what degree or intensity of participation is there in the design of the GIS and the mapping activities?


Page 1 of 4
| Next |