Unpacking the Complexities in
Urban PPGIS
Dr. Rina Ghose
Department of Geography
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
rghose@uwm.edu
PPGIS E-Seminar, 2007
Introduction



Long history of GIS use in urban planning in USA
But digital divide along class, race lines
Urban PPGIS initiatives, where public denotes
marginalized community organizations (CO) from innercity neighborhoods, U.S.A
 Planning, problem solving, service delivery tasks
related to inner-city revitalization
 Outcomes complex, context-dependent, uneven
Presentation Goals

Explore urban PPGIS through lens of urban
political economy

Politics of citizen participation in inner-city revitalization
 PPGIS through collaborative planning
 Effect of neoliberalism
Nature of GIS access and spatial knowledge production
in Urban PPGIS
Role of internal characteristics of community
organizations in shaping PPGIS


Inner-city Revitalization in USA


Deindustrialization, disinvestment,
unemployment, crime, blight, poverty
Revitalization through scaled networks




City Hall – planning agency at local scale
Community Block Grant Administration (CBGA) –
local branch of Housing and Urban Development
(national scale agency)
Philanthropic foundations, intermediary institutes
(national and local scale) – Casey, Fannie Mae, LISC
Local quasi-state agencies, business groups etc.
PPGIS in Milwaukee
City of Milwaukee
Casey Foundation, Fannie Mae
WHEDA
HUD
University of WIMilwaukee
Community Block Grant
Administration
Data Center Program
Local Initiative Support
Coalition
Nonprofit Center
of Milwaukee
Grassroots Community Organizations
Scaled Networks Constructed by Community Organizations in
PPGIS Practice in Milwaukee (Ghose 2007, E&P A)
Networks of Associations in
Participation

Territorial network in Milwaukee
Community Block
Grant
Administration's
NSP Program
City of
Milwaukee’s
Area Plan
Selected
Community
Organization
PPGIS through Collaborative Governance
Citizen participation rhetoric
 Public – private partnership with agencies
via territorial network


Govt., quasi-govt., private
Formalizes participation of inner-city Cos
 Provision of GIS, other resources
 Affected by neoliberal ideology,
entrenched power positions

Problems in Collaborative Planning
Reduced state funding, COs to be
entrepreneurial
 COs compete with each other for limited
funding resources
 Devolution of state’s responsibilities
 Foisting state agendas on COs (housing,
economic development)
 Providing insufficient resources to COs

Problems in Collaborative Planning






Fragmented governance, fragmented service
COs compelled to navigate multiple government
agencies, to duplicate planning process
Emphasis on top- down expert planning
Rise of a technocratic voice - emphasis on GIS
Critical role of intermediary entities (LISC),
private sector actors
Manageable forms of citizen participation –
unaltered power relations
Uneven Participation

Who gets to participate?
 COs selected by government agencies,
private sector (size, capacity, leadership,
responsiveness)
 Act as representative of all community
organizations in a neighborhood
 Other COs unable to participate
GIS Access in Urban PPGIS
Dependent upon commitment to equitable
GIS access by planning agencies and
stakeholders
 Territorial network of support to provide
free GIS/data/analysis access
 Strong data/resource sharing among GIS
actors – enables free GIS provision

GIS Provision in Urban PPGIS
Community in-house GIS (rare)
 Internet GIS sites hosted by local
government agencies
 University – community partnerships
 Neighborhood GIS Centers

Networks of Association for
Data/GIS Access

Territorial Network in Milwaukee
City of Milwaukee’s
GIS Department
Community
Organizations
Data Center Program
of Non Profit Center
University of
WisconsinMilwaukee’s GIS
faculty
Internet GIS via Local Government
Internet GIS sites : City of Milwaukee

COMPASS
 Property,
crime, health, census, community assets,
community safety

Map Milwaukee
 Detailed
property and zoning data
Internet GIS
Easy to access, free, COs use sites
extensively
 But contains only public data, no inclusion
of local knowledge
 City decides on data type, resolution
 Many functions never used (Query)



Cos do not understand SQL
Outdated hardware, lack of broadband
Neighborhood GIS Center

Data Center program of Nonprofit
Center
Funds from CBGA - free GIS to COs
 Customized spatial data analysis, maps
 GIS trained staff interact closely with COs,
more responsive to their needs
 Integration of public data and local data

Maps showing crime data at multiple scales
Neighborhood GIS Center
Serves many community organizations,
stretched thinly
 As a non-profit organization, has resource
constraints - seeks funding from local/national
scale actors
 Resource substitution: Data Center’s
collaborative relationship with UWM – free
GIS interns

University/Community Partnership
UWM’s free customized GIS analysis
through university/community partnerships
 Emphasizes integration of experiential
local knowledge with public data


Offers sophisticated analysis, research –
ranging from multi-scalar indicator based GIS
to customized Internet based CIS
University/Community Partnership
Highly responsive to CO’s needs
 But only serves select COs
 Not all COs aware of this opportunity
 Subject to university calendar, faculty
convenience/research agenda

Usage of Spatial Data/GIS
Types of data
Detail
Sources
Housing
Property ownership, zoning, land use,
assessment, tax information (e.g.
exemption, delinquency), structural
information on buildings, building code
violations, raze status, vacant lots,
boarded-up homes
COMPASS; Map
Milwaukee; DNS;
Treasures’ Office;
Assessor’s Office;
neighborhood housing
survey
Crime
Aggregated incident data (e.g.,
shootings, murders, burglaries, car
thefts) at police district level. Some
organizations get more detailed data
(such as nuisance ticket with actual
addresses)
MPD; Sheriff's Departmentthrough COMPASS; DA’s
office; courthouse;
residents’ report
Table 1: Types and Sources of Data Community Organizations Gathered
Usage of Spatial Data/GIS
Types of data
Detail
Sources
Environment
Neighborhood clean ups;
garbage pick up, etc.
Map Milwaukee;
neighborhood survey
Health
Lead abatement data
City health department
Economic development Business owners; population
The city; census
information; income data
Client/demographic
data
Membership; block captains;
youth information
Table 1 continued
Self-collection; census
How Do Community
Organizations Use Data/Maps?

Legitimize local issues to obtain action,
formulate strategies
For planners “anecdotal is good but hard
data first”
 E.g. mapping sanitation survey


Monitor neighborhood conditions,
predict changes

E.g. mapping crime hot spots
How Do COs Use Data/Maps?

Prepare for organizational tasks, funding
recruitment efforts


COs emphasize needs through maps, data
Generate new information from local data
to enhance service delivery tasks

Experiential data superior to public data
How Do COs Use Data/Maps?

Explore spatial relations to challenge or
reshape urban policy


Using multiple indicators over time –
residential TIF district
Strategic use – COs use language of
planners to gain more effective voice in
planning
Selective Usage of Spatial
Data/GIS

Housing data prioritized over others
Powerful actors focus on housing
revitalization, increase of owner occupancy
over other issues
 Powerful actors - CBGA, Housing and Urban
Development, Wisconsin Housing and
Economic Development Association, Local
Initiative Support Coalition, City Hall
 Capital accumulation in built landscape more
tangible

Selective Usage of Spatial Data/GIS
Simple thematic maps extensively used –
power of visualization
 Complex maps not used due to poor
understanding of GIS
 Scale of representation critical


Neighborhood scale most critical,
disaggregated data preferred
Negotiation and Contradiction of GISbased Knowledge Construction

Complexity of GIS a continued challenge:

COs do not have GIS training
 Overlays, buffering, querying, density maps
Lack of GIS training due to lack of money,
time, and low staff numbers
 Savvy COs form special networks of
support with local GIS actors
 Funding cutbacks drastically affecting
CO’s GIS usage

Variability
PPGIS impacts, effectiveness,
sustainability highly variable despite
similar local contexts of participation and
PPGIS opportunities
 Organizational context of PPGIS
production


Four interlinked factors
Organizational Context
1. Organizational knowledge, experience
With modes of participation
 With technology
 With local opportunities: GIS, revitalization
 With locally effective strategies (building
political influences, financial/technical
resource acquisition, navigating urban
governance)

2. Organizational ability to create network of
collaborative relationships with key
individuals
in other community organizations
 in public/private institutions (awareness of
local opportunities)
 Pursuing multiple formal collaborations

3. Organizational stability
Duration of leadership
 Staff turnover
 Consistency in organizational mission
 Consistency of funding support
 Affect retention of organizational knowledge,
networks

4. Organizational type and status
CDC:economic, housing development focus,
ties with private/corporate funding, large
capital investment projects
 CBO: community organizing activities, greater
reliance on public funding
 CDC structure now economically, politically
more advantageous

Three Questions for Urban PPGIS
How can COs negotiate the power
relations and effects of neoliberalism in
terms of their participation process?
 How can COs negotiate the challenges of
GIS in the face of severe staff/funding
shortage?
 Can GIS really make a difference in the
face of entrenched power positions in local
politics of participation?

Thank You!
Questions?