From: Deepsea Dawn Date: October 17, 2007 10:07:46 AM PDT To: ppgis@lists.oregonstate.edu Subject: Dawn's notes from the PPGIS session this morning Greetings to everyone in the PPGIS class, Glad that mostly all of you had a chance to participate this morning. As you could see, these lectures are extremely interesting and vital to the course. So I will be checking in each week now to make sure that everyone "participates" by at least joining the conference and staying in for a significant amount of time. An extra kudos to those who posted questions and comments. If you foresee difficulties participating on the upcoming Wednesday mornings, please do let me know (or if there is more than one person on a single connection, where only one name can be identified in Marratech, thanks for continuing to let me know that). The material in these Wednesday lectures should also play a vital role in the material that you prepare for your group projects. As moderator David Unwin mentioned, he will be posting follow-up materials to the WUN web site. We will discuss all of this further on Monday, but for now, attached below are the notes and some critical slides that I gleaned for the class. Cheers, Dawn ------------------------- Google just bought Marratech limitations seen already in bandwidth - a research topic in and of itself Google Earth has allowed a bottom-up approach, but one of the problems is that it is outside of an institutional process, an institutional framework - without the framework, the activity of the person will not necessarily feed into the public policy process or framework [8:08 AM] May: Please highlight the key criticisms of GIS in the debate of GIS and society [8:09 AM] Dave: Why is 'elitism' necessarily wrong in a representative democracy [8:13 AM] Muki: I would say that between 1995-2005 you could identify two streams - technical focus and community focused [8:14 AM] DonaldDuck: Is there any class regarding data demand between top down and bottom up PPGIS (technical - positivistic data of the decision makers Vs qualitative - interprivistic data of the public)? [8:16 AM] Muki: But .. aren't you replacing intimidation of public meetings with the intimidation of technology? [8:19 AM] Deepsea Dawn: Could the speakers present some of their definitions of "empower," especially as it pertains to grassroots groups? [8:19 AM] Jeff: Can you also brifly discuss the success (or not) of PGIS in social systems that are not traditionally democratic. [8:20 AM] Amy: Does ppgis always have to involve interactions between the public and government, or could it also include interactions between the public and corporations? [8:21 AM] UWa: Can you use the OECD participation process to differentiate the debate about PPGIS and PGIS focus? [8:25 AM] Paris: are the differences between PGIS and PPGIS only "input" - based or can they be related to outcomes? [8:26 AM] Maria: In partnering with stakeholders on the collaborative step of the ladder, how does financial possibility influence the collaboration process? [8:32 AM] SteveC: ... but the type of people who respond at the different scales also changes - they are not necessarily the same populations? [8:35 AM] Eugene: Even if we work to be more public participatory, the institutionalization tends to lead the procedure more 'representative', I think. [8:37 AM] Dave M: I'm a member of a citizen's panel, where local government has recruited a group of 'interested' citizens to answer regular questions about local policy, planning, strategy etc. This is not an entirely open process but is widely used - I've often thought they could make use of some kind of PPGIS for this: do you know of similar instances? [8:37 AM] Muki: In any case, assumptions that a fully bottom-up democracy is the best way of governing is quite naive. In such a system, the marginalaised groups will suffer first [8:39 AM] UWa: What REALLY is the TOP and the BOTTOM to which you refer? There are actually many variables involved. The metaphor gets us only so far. Let's see if we can calrify. [8:39 AM] Paris: i can't imagine any situation where a PPGIS effort could be entirely one or the other (top-down or bottom up) [8:42 AM] Deepsea Dawn: So is there ever a place for the "individual" in PPGIS? We discussed this in class Monday in the context of Sarah Elwood's 2006 and 2007 papers. [8:42 AM] Cassandra: can you elaborate on that Dawn? PRIVATE EXCHANGE: ----- [8:44 AM] Deepsea Dawn: Hi Cassandra - just wondering if an individual can ever be an agent for change or empowerment within a community, using PPGIS. I'm new to PPGIS however, and I have been discussing this with the PPGIS seminar that I am leading at Oregon State U. [8:46 AM] Cassandra: I think your comment is very interesting because I am involved in a local project and am fascinated with the different personalities involved and how the combination of individual personalities has influenced the process. [8:47 AM] Deepsea Dawn: yes, extremely interesting! what university are you from? [8:47 AM] Cassandra: UW Madison ----- [8:43 AM] UWa: Who are the public in relationship to citizenship, residence or even proximity? Is a citizen of France entitled to participate in a UK nuclear plant decision situation? Is an illegal immigrant entitled to participation? [8:45 AM] Maria: So maybe the issue about PPGIS public participation is whether temporal or spacial relations are more imortant [8:46 AM] York:SIL: (PeterH) my primary interest is to enable dispersed communities to re-engage, rather than primarily to mirror the institutional consultation approach. Put crudely, to facilitate discussion rather than shooting. ICT has a number of opprotunities in this but ... [8:49 AM] UWa: Batty's criticism can be leavied against GIS in the early days. The stakes are huge when the impacts are "on the ground". Later in the seminar series I will talk our experiment PGIS for Transportation in relation to a public vote [8:50 AM] Muki: As PeterH noted - the importance of community mapping and PPGIS can be in 'social capital' in the community and not just about the impact on the decision [8:50 AM] Carlos_Rios: So, What would be the minimun requirement the Pulblic Participate, really? i.e. Urban Planning in Neighborhoods which do not have acces to technology. [8:51 AM] SteveC: Does this assume that the ultimate aim has to be consensus amongst the public - as on CZM there may be lots of disagreement that would have to be resolved [8:52 AM] UWa: Can we differentiate how PPGIS impacts communities when we consider research design for the project? [8:52 AM] DonaldDuck: Planning takes place at different levels, national, regional, local and the strategic decissions at higher levels define the priorities at regional and local levels. If the interest in PPGIS is at a local level do you think that there is a class between the nature of the planning process and the PPGIS interest right now? Could the interest of PPGIS take place at hgher levels of planning or the deliberative form of democracy does not permit it?l [8:52 AM] Carlos_Rios: PPGIS --> Decision Support Tool? ot Democratic Involvement in Decision Making? [8:52 AM] Eugene: For Carlos question, the information feedback between the public and governmnet? [8:54 AM] Carlos_Rios: GI technological systems Vs. GI local knowldege: Finding the gap between the possiblities and the doable in the community! [8:55 AM] Muki: For SteveC point - Tim O'Riordan discussed the conflicts in CZM in his RSA lecture - Ted Happold Memorial Lecture: Adapting to a changing coastline in East Anglia - http://www.thersa.org/events/textdetail.asp?ReadID=865 . Also worth noting the concept of Post-Normal Science in thsi context [8:55 AM] York:SIL: but also the possibility of tapping into local gi knowledge [8:56 AM] Carlos_Rios: I agree York:SIL [8:57 AM] Jason: Sometimes the question of "who can participate" and "how can one participate" are actually answered in existing codes and laws, and you need to look outside the context of GIS to understand that there are sometimes institutionalized limits to participation. [8:58 AM] Muki: But Web 2.0 is very uneven in participation! - the rule is that participation is 99-1-0.1 - 99% lurk, 1% comment from very occasionally, and 0.1% engage... [8:58 AM] Carlos_Rios: So, What would be the minimun requirement the Pulblic Participate, really? i.e. Urban Planning in Neighborhoods which do not have acces to technology. [9:03 AM] Jason: In Oregon (US) land use planning, our land use laws often dictate who can provide public testimony because of their "standing" (sometimes laws will not allow someone outside of a jurisdiction to participate [9:03 AM] Jason: or.. sometimes laws dictate that decisions cannot be made UNTIL certain parties participate... [9:05 AM] Jeff: I think top-down vs. bottom up is very important, especially in the context of societies that are not "democratic" [9:05 AM] Susan: It is my understanding in the US that when it comes to ocean zoning, anyone can participate (public and stakeholders), even outside of coastal counties [9:07 AM] Carlos_Rios: Citizens and Community does not align necesarely! [9:08 AM] Carlos_Rios: Citizens can vote, kids are not citizens, So we need to be clear in slide 12 and seee the role among government, community and citizenship. And kids can be part of the decision making processes. I am really interested in PPGIS and Emergency Plans. Please send me more info. [9:11 AM] Kimberly Pettit: How realistic is citizen-led active participation as relates to funding the outcomes/methods of the participation activity? GENERAL DISCUSSION Dave Unwin (WUN) and May Yuan (U of Oklahoma): Does GIS really have a role? Back to May's question - what were the key criticism of GIS and how has PPGIS overcome those criticisms. In the Google Earth/Virtual Earth time that we are in, are the criticisms still valid or do we need to sort out the issues that have been taken care and which still need research? Robin: Awful lot of testing needed, more consistent practice, longitudinal research - lots of little projects going on but not enough of a long-term look (Dawn thinks of LTER, Long-Term Ecological Research sites, as a physical science analogue) Tim Nyerges (UW): People participating - the nature of participation - not much useful, off-the shelf, commercialized participatory technology out there - there are still very few research projects that can support REAL participatory efforts along the models that Richard and Robin have presented Richard: always dealing with a unique situation, difficult to pull of one tool to fit - do we want to aim for that or recoginze that PPGIS is very complex Tim: debate of PGIS and PPGIS - top down and bottom up - can we use the OECD model (Organization of Economic Dveleoment)? Richard - citizen led active participation (PGIS rather than PPGIS) OECD Citizens as partners handbook: http://www.oecd.org/LongAbstract/0,2546,en_2649_37441_2672752_119669_1_1_37441,00.html Tim: still not convinced of differences posed today for PGIS vs. PPGIS governance vs. government governance not shown on slide of OECD - what ranks from 1 to 5 on slide 12? individual's voice and decision in the process 1 to 5 is what Richard put in there himself - numbers are not ranks but merely references back to OECD no single process that is top down or bottom up, but how much of govt, or corp or special interest etc. is the motivating force for getting something done. What is the motivating factor to convening ANYTHING with regard to participation, then go to what is the nature of participation in terms of amount of voice and technology. Carlos: community vs. citizenship please? what about kids who are not citizens, cannot vote. Can we consider and value them as community members? Robin: representative and participative democracy - you must be a voter or of a certain state of mind to vote - in the UK they refer to themselves as citizens but they are subjects in a monarchy. Richard: see neighborhood initiatives foundation also which involves children - www.nif.org.uk Tim - also the concept of "resident" is important and not all "residents" may be included in a process models related to risk not necessarily talking about emergency response or planning, but citing nuclear facilities had a max of 50 people in the seminar - remarkable proof of concept ----------- Dawn Wright | Professor | Department of Geosciences Oregon State University | Corvallis, OR 97331-5506 http://dusk.geo.orst.edu | 541-737-1229 phone | 541-737-1200 fax