Citizen participation is a crucial democratic practice in many western societies. In contemporary societies, different social agents utilise information and communication technology (ICT) using Internet-based systems, to establish two-way communication in order to promote citizen participation. One such approach is Volunteered Geographical Information (VGI). It is considered that VGI provides a new space for citizen engagement, as well as an arena for political contestation, however little attention has been paid to the reasons, drivers and limitations for voluntary citizen participation. Although there is an extensive literature on both VGI and citizen participation, this rarely considers how much citizen participation is necessary to run a VGI platform, what are the drivers for non-participation, and what happens within a democratic political space when citizens are apparently not interested to participate with a VGI deployment These topics are explored in this paper, through the lens of a particular case study of a University deployment for VGI developed in Mexico and a wider analysis of other VGI deployments taken from the literature. By critically assessing the extent to which the VGI deployments have enabled citizen participation, and the degree and quality of this participation, we draw conclusions as to how far and under what circumstances VGI can support government agencies to engage citizens in a meaningful dialogue as part of democratic governance initiatives. This leads us to identify key areas for further research by geographers and related social scientists exploring these socio-technical systems and their effects on democratic societies.
The dominant paradigm in disaster risk reduction (DRR) policies has been seriously contested because of its reliance on interventions based on technocratic expertise. In the Mexican context, the influence of informal practices such as clientelism and cartelisation of the political system produces environmental degradation and vulnerability to disasters within the communities in the study site. This paper contributes to understanding of failed institutional processes and parallel practices that intensify vulnerability to disasters by contrasting the discourses of agents within a peri-urban community in central Mexico. Employing the Situational Analysis Approach as a methodological framework, the study identifies divergent views and practices within the community, leading to different responses to disasters and to different perceptions regarding institutional performance. In addition, it finds that institutional decision-making, based only on scientific and technical expertise, has resulted in unintended consequences that influence ongoing vulnerability to floods in the site under review.
Urbanscapes of disaster are socially and environmentally constituted. Drawing upon the theoretical framework of social vulnerability to disasters, the concept of urbanscape is enriched and empirically verified. This paper highlights how urban social hazards are more relevant for vulnerable people than the risk of experiencing the negative effects of extreme natural events. The analysis of floods in a slum located in a Mexican city reveals intricate socioenvironmental conditions underpinning a disaster process. Findings reveal that social, political, and economic hazards (including criminal hazards), imposed by the urban model on its inhabitants, are the most difficult to cope with and adapt to. This paper contributes to the wider literature on disasters, presenting an in‐depth qualitative analysis of the factors propelling urban dwellers to endure in a vulnerable urbanscape, regardless of the physical and environmental conditions at the site.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.