|
GISdevelopment.net --> Proceedings --> GISDECO
Spatial Information Management and Local Governance Working document for GISDECO pre-conference Workshop on Local Governance and GIS, 15 May, 2002 Compiled by Erik de Man (ITC) (06-05-2002) 1. Introduction 1.01. In many countries, local government faces new challenges and responsibilities due to a variety of factors. Major factors in this respect are
1.02. Many of the public administrative functions have important spatial dimensions. Examples are
1.03. Good governance requires good information, most of which is spatially referenced. In addition, many decision processes at local level require or can benefit from spatial analysis and visualisation. Modern spatial technologies like GIS and remote sensing may offer a valuable contribution in addressing these complex needs. New highresolution satellites are of especially importance in data poor urban environments. Recent developments in the area of spatial and non-spatial information technologies enhance networking and sharing of data and information within and outside urban areas, and help create urban information infrastructures. 1.04. So far, knowledge about the impact of spatial information on local governance is scarce and hardly documented. The available literature in this field is limited to the management of spatial information within local government organisations. The available literature in this field primarily deals with developed countries1. A preliminary survey indicated the need for evaluation studies in this field in less developed countries as well (Van der Vegt, 2001). 1.05. Some preliminary observation regarding the role of spatial information in local governance can already be made:
1.06. These observations, in turn, lead to the assumption that the inclusion of local institutions in managing spatial information will support local governance. 1.07. Two examples may illustrate the meaning of this point. First, GIS can support real-property tax administration. However, a major condition for this is the degree to which the GIS-application is integrated within the existing institutions of taxation (including ‘tax compliance’). A second example is within the domain of local-level planning. Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) has appeared in the literature as promise for locally supported development. In order to meet this promise, PPGIS must go beyond aggregating different and scattered opinions of individuals. 1.08. In the subsequent sections, first, local governance as an emerging concept is briefly discussed. Then, the institutional dimension of local governance is highlighted. Next, managing spatial information locally is elaborated. At this level, two major issues deserve attention: access and participatory use of spatial information. Both access and participation are culturally and institutionally embedded. Consequently, approaches to deal with cultural differences are discussed as well. Finally, access to and sharing spatial data as well as participatory use of spatial data and information is briefly elaborated. 2. Local governance 2.01. The recognition that most of the government functions are carried out between government, private sector and citizens has lead to the appearance of the term ‘governance’ during the last decade. Governance goes beyond government only. Governance can even be without government or the state2. Many see the quality of governance as key to development and poverty reduction. 1 See, for example: Campell et al., 1992; Campbell et al., 1995; Grothe et al., 1996; Nedovi- Budi et al., 2000. 2 Kersbergen et al., 2001 2.02. The importance of local level governance is increasingly recognised. It is at this local level that government, market, and civil society directly and intensively meet. This recognition is reflected in the worldwide trend and efforts to devolve power from national to local levels of government. The Local Government Code of 1991 in the Philippines is a case in point. 2.03. Although ‘governance’ goes beyond government only, this actor has a major role to play. Local government, in particular, has executing as well as enabling and stimulating tasks within local governance. This implies growing and more demanding tasks and responsibilities for local government units with increased interactions between them and other local actors (e.g. citizen groups, farmer’s associations, private sector, environmental pressure groups, neighbourhood associations, and media). 2.04. From the preceding remarks it can be concluded that spatial information has an important role to play in this increasingly complicated field of local governance. This role, however, is far from trivial and ways and means to manage the required spatial information both effectively and efficiently are not clear as yet. 2.05. Local governance is – as this has been mentioned before – between local government, market and civil society. It is subject to both supra-local levels as well as, sometimes, international factors. Local governance thus deals with two dimensions: ‘horizontal’ interactions within local society and ‘vertical’ interaction with higher and, sometimes, lower levels of authority. 3. Local institutions 3.01. Local societies are – as most other social systems – complex, evolutionary and adaptive (‘complex adaptive systems’ – CAS). Social groups – and thus local societies – are tied together through culture and institutions. Culture is the shared ways of thinking and believing that grow out of a group experience and are passed from one generation to the next. It is the way of life, the knowledge, beliefs, customs, and skills available to its members. An institution is an established way of organizing social life and a pattern that is valued by the group. It is a stable cluster of norms and normative behaviours that develops around a basic social need. One of the distinguishing characteristics of an institution is its normative impact on behaviour of individuals. In this sense, institutions are part of the host culture. (See for more thorough elaborations of cultural and institutions; Broom et al., 1981. See for an elaboration of cultural conditions for the application of GIS; Van den Toorn and De Man, 2000.) 3.02. The World Development Report 2002 of the World Bank views institutions as the rules, including behavioural norms, by which societal agents interact – and the organisations that implement rules and codes of conduct to achieve desired outcomes. In short, institutions are viewed as rules, enforcement mechanism, and organisations. 3.03. Institutional arrangements matter for the information flows within society. Institutions deal with subjective perceptions about the world. In local institutions the flows of communication and information are often in terms of narratives (stories) and images rather than in texts and tables. Visualisation, PPGIS and other participatory approaches in using spatial information are most relevant in such cases. However, integration and linkages with other kinds of information will generally be necessary. 3.04. The growing interest in institutions is reflected by several ‘land marks’ in the literature:
3.05. Some view modern information and communication technologies, like e-mail and internet, their promises for participation, and, specifically, their ‘virtualisation’ of reality as adding to or, sometimes, replacing earlier institutions of the state. For instance:
3.08. Informal institutions often embody local indigenous knowledge and this poses a challenge for local spatial information management. 3.09. Institutions are not static. Existing institutional arrangements may become less effective due to changing conditions within the local society and within its external environment. Some existing institutions may weaken or even cease to exist. New institutions may emerge. Because social systems are evolutionary and adaptive, their institutional arrangements evolve as well. This dynamism is particularly significant for (local) geospatial data infrastructures. On the one hand such infrastructures have to adapt to changing institutional contexts but, on the other, emerging infrastructures may assume institutional roles themselves. 4. Local spatial information management: access and participatory use
4.03. Access to spatial data and information, and their use depend on social context. They are culturally and institutionally embedded. Access to spatial information and its usability are relevant concerns whenever people seek information when meeting or anticipating spatial problems. Culture is a major factor in the definition of problems. 4.04. Access to and use of spatial information is schematically situated ‘between’ spatial information and its providing technology on the one hand and spatial problems on the other. Participatory approaches in using geographic information deal both with access to and use of geographic information. Participation in the use of geographic information is embedded in specific culture and institutional arrangements (see figure). 4.2. Cultural differences 4.05. Describing cultural differences in operational terms is prerequisite if culture is a crucial condition for access and use of (spatial) data and information. Geert Hofstede’s well-known four-dimensional model to describe different cultures seems attractive and promising to this end. However, an alternative model to deal with different cultural ‘biases’ proposed by Mary Douglas and others is worth to be mentioned as well. 4.2.1. Four Dimensions of Culture (Geert Hofstede) 4.06. Hofstede found that (national) cultures differ by: (1) social inequality (including the relationship with authority), (2) the relationship between the individual and the group, (3) concepts of masculinity and femininity, and (4) ways of dealing with uncertainty (1980, 1997). These terms seem to reflect reasonably well the basic (cultural) problems each society faces. Together these dimensions form a four-dimensional model explaining, as Hofstede claims, around two-thirds of the value differences among national cultures. 4.07. The four dimensions of national culture in Hofstede’s model can be briefly described as follows: Power distance. Culture’s way to accommodate human inequality. Large power distance cultures are hierarchical, authoritarian, and elitist in the sense of accumulation of the good things in life at the higher levels in the hierarchy and of the bad things in life at the lower levels. Small power distance cultures demonstrate flat organisations and value participation; spread in the distribution of the good and the bad things in life. Individualism versus collectivism., Culture’s way to accommodate the individual and the ‘group’. Individualist cultures are composed of calculating citizens. In collectivist cultures group values are dominant. In such cultures, one’s sense of life is derived from one’s contribution to the common good; closely knit in-crowds. Masculinity versus femininity. Culture’s way to accommodate masculine and feminine ‘values’. Masculine cultures focus on achievements and success. They are aggressive; visibility of success. Feminine cultures are caring cultures emphasizing quality of life, networking and relationships as social values; egalitarian, compassion. Uncertainty avoidance. Culture’s way to accommodate uncertainty. Strong uncertainty avoiding cultures are characterized by little risk taking, minimal innovation, extensive institutions to bring security and stability, conservative, and thorough planning. Weak uncertainty avoidance cultures are innovative and creative, and tolerant of differences in views and behavior. Risk and excitement are greater values for such cultures than security and stability; play as it comes, incremental planning and few contingency scenarios. 4.08. Armoured with Hofstede’s multi-dimensional model we return to culture’s possible impact on access to spatial information and its participatory use. However, this can only be done speculatively at this stage ( see table). 4.09. Notwithstanding its merits, Hofstede’s model has some weaknesses. For example, data for the model was restricted to those countries with IBM-establishments. Moreover, within national cultures different sub-cultures can be identified. (See for instance Riggs 1962 and 1964.) Application of the model at the level of these subcultures is embryonic at most. In addition, Van Dongen (1997) argues that Hofstede is not analyzing culture but producing it by assuming homogeneity as a basis for his factor analysis, given that the assumption of heterogeneity would inhibit this analysis.
L,H = low, high cultural support Possible connotation of cultural dimensions vis-à-vis access to and participatory use of spatial information (Adapted from Van den Toorn and De Man, 2000) 4.2.2. Cultural Biases as Different Way of Life (Mary Douglas) 4.09. An alternative model is suggested by Thompson et.al. (1990) and describes different cultures as different ways of life. They build upon the grid-group typology proposed by Mary Douglas (1978). Douglas argues that two dimensions of sociality can adequately capture the variability of an individual’s involvement in social life: group and grid. Group refers to the extent to which an individual is incorporated into bounded units. The greater the incorporation, the more individual choice is subject to group determination. Grid denotes the degree to which an individual’s life is circumscribed by externally imposed prescriptions. The more binding and extensive the scope of the prescriptions, the less of life that is open to individual negotiation. 4.10. These two dimensions (group and grid) together produce four different ‘ways of life’ (summarized by Carver 2001): Individualism (low group–low grid). Decisions present opportunity, save those that threaten freedom of choice action; ‘the market’ will provide control, so there is no need for other kinds of control; Hierarchy (high group–high grid). Technological and environmental decisions should be left to experts; Fatalism (low group–high grid). Fatalists feel that they have very little control over decisions that affect them and accept whatever decisions are made on their behalf; and Egalitarianism (high group–low grid). Egalitarians fear risk to the environment, the collective good and future generations, and believe that power and influence should spread more evenly within society. 4.11. Thompson et.al. (1990) emphasize the dynamic character of these ways of life. Cultures are neither permanent nor singular. When conditions change, ways of life may change as well. Within one social group, different ways of life can be recognized and are in permanent dynamic imbalance; forming alliances though remaining competitors. 4.12. As compared with Hofstede’s model, this ‘way of life’-model lacks a quantifiable foundation (operationalization). 5. Access to and sharing spatial data 5.01. The multitude of organisational and institutional actors (public and private) and the diversity of problems they address using spatial data necessitates greater access to digital spatial data from a variety of sources as well the willingness to share these data. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| © GISdevelopment.net. All rights reserved. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||