The Potential of Public Participation Geographic Information Systems in UK Environmental Planning: Appraisals by Active Publics

Abstract

The paper draws on an empirical study of two workshops in which the issues that arise from the use of GIS as a planning tool in public participation settings where explored by local residents who take an active interest in local planning matters in their London borough. The paper demonstrates how issues concerned with the democratisation of GIS and Public Participation GIS (PPGIS) informed the structure and conduct of the workshops and the qualitative analysis of the workshop discussions. Key themes raised by participants include the potential of PPGIS as a means of extending knowledge networks; issues of data ownership and the responsiveness of data providers to public concerns, and the role that institutional norms and practices play in democratising information availability and the transparency of the decision-making process. The paper concludes that the potential of PPGIS as a planning tool cannot be separated from public concerns about the legitimacy of the planning process or local government.2

Applying geographic information systems to support strategic environmental assessment: Opportunities and limitations in the context of Irish land-use plans

“…GIS were also perceived as potentially assisting in the definition of mitigation and monitoring measures, and facilitating monitoring processes with their ability to rapidly update and display additional data -although this could not be confirmed in this research. These perceived advantages compare with the reported benefits of GIS (Antunes et al, 2001;Harrison and Haklay, 2002;João, 1998;Vanderhaegen and Muro, 2005).…”

“…Land use plans at that scale tend to be more spatially-specific, explicitly zoning lands and evaluating potential environmental issues in great detail. The reported benefits of GIS in EIA (Antunes et al, 2001;Harrison and Haklay, 2002;Vanderhaegen and Muro, 2005) would be equally applicable in these lower SEA tiers that resemble EIA frameworks. At this local level, the effects of space, place and proximity become relevant fostering greater public interest and participation and, arguably, greater uptake of public participation GIS (Carver, 2003).…”

“…Although, as the case studies have demonstrated, it is argued that participatory GIS cannot be effective on its own, there is strong international support for the use of GIS as a complementary tool in public participation processes (González et al, 2008b). However, the apparent risk to the interests of developers, assessors or decision-makers influencing the filtering and representation of spatial information (Towers, 1997;Harrison and Haklay 2002;Siebenhüner and Barth, 2004) needs to be carefully addressed. Information manipulation was apparent in the Mayo CDP website, where fear of disclosure affected the comprehensiveness of the information conveyed to the public and, as a result, the scope and validity of public consultation.…”

“…This statement was supported by the interviewed practitioners and validated by the comparative assessment of SEAs, which revealed that the inclusion of spatial data articulated and enhanced the comprehensiveness of ERs. Notwithstanding that greater precision and more data do not necessarily mean better results, this inference was based on the premise that spatial data can facilitate more accurate assessment and that maps can improve information delivery (Antunes et al, 2001;Budic, 1994;Harrison and Haklay, 2002;João, 1998João, , 2007Vanderhaegen and Muro, 2005). The review outcomes indicated that the content of the ERs prepared with the aid of GIS were more spatiallyspecific, concise and precise (as opposed to the broad descriptions, non-spatial references to environmental considerations and vague assessments observed in the ERs that did not avail of the visual and analytical benefits of GIS).…”

“…Presenting baseline data in graphic form improves the delivery of information, enhancing the understanding of the distribution, patterns and linkages between relevant environmental factors (DEHLG, 2004a;ODPM, 2005;Vanderhaegen and Muro, 2005). Therefore, GIS have the potential to facilitate a more robust spatial analysis as they enable integrating various datasets and visualising the juxtaposition or cumulative nature of different impacts (Harrison and Haklay, 2002). In addition, they enable the reuse of "old" datasets; combining them with current information incorporates a time-scale which facilitates the prediction of the cumulative effects of plans and projects over a number of years (Vanderhaegen and Muro, 2005).…”