See www.wiley.com for ordering
http://www.innovativegis.com/basis/MapAnalysis/ChronList/ChronologicalListing.htm#Spatial_Reasoning
7 |
July |
1996 |
Don’t
Forget the Human Factor: An Experiential GIS — describes an early experience (1980) in
the application of |
It is often
said that "experience is what you
get when you don't get what you want."
The corollary to this universal truth is "learn from other's mistakes, so you won't have to make them all
yourself." As GIS moved from
its infancy in the early 1970's to its present maturity, the school of
hard-knocks coughed-up an ample set of good, bad examples. We might not know what is best for all GIS
environments, nor have the omnipresent formula for assured success, but the
growing layers of scar tissue in the GIS community clearly point to the paths
not to follow.
Given this
line of reasoning, let me describe an early experience in the application of
GIS to land use planning. It was a class
project for a graduate course in GIS at
Where we
went wrong was an attempt to address a "realworld"
problem. The town had recently completed
its Comprehensive Plan of Development and Conservation as a requirement of the
Coastal Wetlands Act. It was the result
of several years effort among citizen groups and town
officials. The plan consisted of
twenty-one policy statements, such as "protect inland wetlands ...from
contamination and other modifications," "preserve farmlands,"
and "encourage development near or within existing developed
areas."
Since all
twenty-one of the statements had a spatial component, it seemed natural to map
the conceptual model embodied in the plan.
Using a three-tier ranking scheme of suitable,
less suitable and unsuitable, each policy statement was
interpreted into a map of suitability for development. For example, the policy to "preserve
farmland" used the town's land use map to identify farmland and then
assign the areas as less suitable.
Similarly, the policy statement to "protect inland wetlands"
caused these areas on the sensitive soil map to be designated as
unsuitable. In contrast, the areas near
or within existing development indicated on the land use map were identified as
suitable for development. Following the
plan's organization, the statements were grouped into four submodels
of Water and Sewage, Growth, Preservation, and Natural Land Use, then combined into one overall suitability map.
Near the
end of the term, enthusiasm was high and success seemed imminent. That was until we hosted a town meeting at
the local high school to present the results.
Students served refreshments and proudly stood by their computer-generated maps draping the walls. As fledgling GIS technocrats, they were eager
to enlighten the audience as to the importance of the technology and the
elegance of the map analysis process.
However, the congregation seemed bored by the techno-babble and focused
their collective attention on the final map of suitability. Once they located their property (you know,
the parcel they were holding to pay for Sonny's college tuition), they did one
of two things-- 1) profusely thanked the students for an undoubtedly thorough
job and promptly departed to relieve the baby-sitter, or 2) lock the last
student in the reception line in animated debate and, once pried loose, sat
down in seething hostility. In less than
a half-hour we had distilled our audience to a residue of enraged citizens
holding "unsuitable" property.
We left about
So what
went wrong? We had done our
homework. We had developed an accurate
database. We had conscientiously
translated their policy statements
into maps and composited them as implied by their plan. We thought we
had done it all... and we had from a GIS-centric perspective. What we had missed is GIS's wildcard-- the
human factor. The textual rendering of
the comprehensive plan was comfortably innocuous as it lacked threatening
spatial specificity. It seemed natural
to outline a set of amorphous goals, then proceed with
incremental planning whenever a developer proposes a specific parcel. If contention arises, there are always
planning variances, exceptions, mitigation, and the ultimate recourse of
lawyers and judges. This is the way
things had always been done... the natural law of land use planning. The idea of an actual map of the spatial
ramifications of a comprehensive plan is akin to poking a stick into a den a
rattlesnakes. Any seasoned planner
knows, you plan, then move on before you implement... it's dangerous out there.
Being a
slow learner and somewhat bent on self-flagellation, I decided to extend the
project the following year. First, the
students refined both the database and the model, then
determined the most limiting policy goals by systematically relaxing criteria
in successive runs (sensitivity analysis).
Armed with this insight, we solicited the help of the three town
commissions instrumental in the plan's development; the Economic Development
Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Conservation
Commission. At working meetings,
policy-rating questions were posed to each group and their hierarchical orderings of the policy statements where used
for subsequent model runs.
The results
were three maps of overall suitability, expressing alternative interpretations
of the plan. For example, the
Conservation Commission's interpretation of "protect inland wetlands"
was emphatic. Since it's damp about everywhere,
83% of the town was deemed unsuitable for development. The Economic Commission, on the other hand,
believed sound engineering protects wetlands, thereby lowering the wetland
policy's rating, which resulted in only 21% being unsuitable. By simply subtracting the two maps, the
locations of agreement and contention were easily identified. The comparison map and the three alternative
interpretations by the commissions were published in the local paper... "healthy a priori
discussion ensued." Most
importantly, we minimized GIS student casualties.
The
_______________________
For more on this "watershed" experience, see Assessing Spatial Impacts of Land Use Plans, by Berry and Berry, 1988, in Journal of Environmental Management, 27:1-9; and Analysis of Spatial Ramifications of the Comprehensive Plan of a Small Town, Berry, et. al., 1981, in the proceedings of the 41st Symposium, American Congress of Surveying and Mapping.
AN UNDERSTANDING GIS
http://www.innovativegis.com/basis/MapAnalysis/ChronList/ChronologicalListing.htm#Spatial_Reasoning
8 |
August |
1996 |
Developing
an Understanding GIS — describes
the translation of mapped data to spatial information for decision-making |
Effective
GIS applications have little to do with data and everything to do with
understanding, creativity and perspective.
It is a common observation of the Information Age that the amount of
knowledge doubles every 14 months or so.
It is believed, with the advent of the information super highway, this
periodicity will likely accelerate. But
does more information directly translate into better decisions? Does the Internet enhance information
exchange or overwhelm it? Does the
quality of information correlate with the quantity of information? Does the rapid boil of information improve or
scorch the broth of decisions?
GIS
technology is a prime contributor to the landslide of information, as we
feverishly release terra bytes of mapped data on an unsuspecting (and seemingly
ungrateful) public. From a GIS-centric
perspective, we are doing a bang-up job.
Lest I sound like a mal-content, let me challenge that observation. My perspective might not meet the critical
eye of a good philosopher, but that's not the objective. The thoughts simply explore the effects of
information rapid transit on our changing perceptions of the world around us.
First,
let's split hairs on some important words borrowed from the philosophers-- data, information, knowledge, and wisdom. You often hear them interchangeably, but they
are distinct from one another in some subtle and not-so-subtle ways.
The first
is data, the "factoids" of our Information Age. Data
are bits of information, typically but not exclusively, in a numeric form, such
as cardinal numbers, percentages, statistics, etc. It is exceedingly obvious that data are
increasing at an incredible rate.
Coupled with the barrage of data, is a requirement for the literate
citizen of the future to have a firm understanding of averages, percentages,
and to a certain extent, statistics.
More and more, these types of data dominate the media and are the
primary means used to characterize public opinion, report trends and persuade
specific actions.
The second
term, information, is closely related to data.
The difference is that we tend to view information as more word-based
and/or graphic than numeric. Information is data with
explanation. Most of what is taught in
school is information. Because it
includes all that is chronicled, the amount of information available to the
average citizen substantially increases each day. The power of technology to link us to
information is phenomenal. As proof,
simply "surf" the exploding number of "home pages" on the
Internet.
The
philosophers' third category is knowledge,
which can be viewed as information within a context. Data and information that are used to explain
a phenomenon become knowledge. It
probably does not double at fast rates, but that really has more to do with the
learner and processing techniques than with what is available. In other words, knowledge is data and
information once we can process and apply it.
The last
category, wisdom, is what certainly
does not double at a rapid rate. It is
the application of all three previous categories, and some intangible
additions. Wisdom is rare and timeless,
and is important because it is rare and timeless. We seldom encounter new wisdom in the popular
media, nor do we expect deluge of newly derived wisdom to spring forth from our
computer monitors each time we log on.
Knowledge
and wisdom, like gold, must be aggressively processed from tons of near
worthless overburden. Simply increasing
data and information does not assure the increasing amounts of the knowledge
and wisdom we need to solve pressing problems.
Increasing the processing "thruput"
by efficiency gains and new approaches might.
OK, how
does this philosophical diatribe relate to GIS technology? What is our role within the framework? What do we deliver--
data, information, knowledge or wisdom?
Actually, if GIS is appropriately presented, nurtured and applied, we
can affect all four. That is provided we
recognize technology's role as an additional link that the philosophers failed
to note.
Understanding
sits at the juncture between information and knowledge. Understanding
involves the honest dialog among various interpretations of data and
information in an attempt to reach common knowledge and wisdom. Note that understanding is not a
"thing," but a process. It's
how concrete facts are translated into the slippery slope of beliefs. It involves the clash of values, tempered by
judgment based on the exchange of experience.
Technology, and in particular GIS, has a vital role to play in this
process. We not only need to deliver
spatial data and information, but deliver a methodology for translating them
into knowledge and wisdom.
Our
earliest encounters with GIS viewed maps as "images," with automated cartography providing rapid updating
and redrafting of traditional map products.
The field quickly progressed from computer mapping to spatial database
management by focusing on the derivation and organization of mapped data. It provides efficient storage and retrieval
of vast amounts of land-based data in both tabular and graphic form. From this view, GIS acts like a "cash register" to record
transactions on the landscape. More
recently, GIS is viewed as a "toolbox"
of map analysis operations in which entire maps are treated as variables and
related within a specific context. It is
the GIS toolbox that transposes mapped data into spatial information.
Tomorrow's
GIS builds on the cognitive basis, as well as the spatial databases and
analytical operations of the technology.
This new view pushes GIS beyond data mapping, management and modeling,
to spatial reasoning and dialogue focusing on the communication of ideas. In a sense, GIS extends the toolbox to a
"sandbox," in which
alternative perspectives are constructed, discussed and common knowledge and
wisdom flows.
This step
needs to fully engage the end-user in GIS itself, not just its
encoded and derived products. It
requires a democratization of GIS that goes beyond GUI interfaces and
attractive icons. It requires the GIS
priesthood and technocrats to relish the opportunity to explain concepts in
layman terms and provide access to the conceptual expressions of geographic
space through intuitive means divorced from macro code.
I hope we
consider the importance of knowledge and wisdom in the Information Age, and
eagerly grasp the opportunity GIS has in contributing to their derivation. I fear that GIS "factlets"
masquerading as knowledge in the Information Age will mask the importance of
wisdom. I fear that our all-consuming
focus on maps and "home pages" on the Internet will distract from the
assimilation of the significance embedded in spatial information and the
communication of the ideas it spawns.
GIS has an opportunity to empower people with new decision-making tools,
not simply entrap them in a new technology and an avalanche of data. What we have accomplished is necessary, but
not sufficient for effective GIS solutions.
Like the
automobile and indoor plumbing, GIS won't be an important technology until it
fades into the fabric of society and is taken for granted. It must become second nature for both
accessing information and translating it into knowledge... we must
refocus its emphasis beyond mapping to that of spatial reasoning.