Mapping local knowledge:  possibilities of  WebGIS in a planning process
Heli Rantanen, architect
 
Helsinki University of Technology
Department of Architecture , Laboratory of Urban Planning and Design
P.O. Box 1300, 02015 HUT, Finland
e-mail: heli.rantanen@tkk.fi
Tel. + 358-9-4514427

Abstract
Planning has been referred to “shaping places” (Healey 1997). GIS (Geographical Information System) could be called “mapping places”. GIS enables a user to link any amount or kind of data to a location with either geographic- or user-defined coordinates. Knowledge of a place is essential for the planner. However, the traditional planning system leans heavily on formal knowledge of a place – technical data, topography, borders, ownerships etc.  Often the research and development concerning GIS applications and planning analyses at the local scale -  neighbourhood level - are dealing with technical problems. For example, depending on the technique, the type of a GIS tool and the scale of census data to include can create significally different results (Schlossberg 2003). Knowing the techniques and understanding e.g. what is the difference with spatial extraction methods applied them to is surely important, but this kind of approach does not take into account the fact that not all the necessary local knowledge is there in the databases waiting for to be analyzed.
The traditional urban planning methods are mostly based on the skills of experts and professionals. The architects can use GIS to access and analyze data at the beginning of a planning project “rather than having to create it [data] and do multiple on-site surveys” (McGrath 2004). The data is available through a city’s or state’s GIS departments, but also the architecture firms themselves can become repositories of data for locations they work. In this kind of thinking the planner´s job is to make that data physical and experimental by taking it out of databases and to utilize it while solving environmental, housing etc. planning problems. But is it possible for a planner to carry out a comprehensive planning process based only on data collected from municipal databases and on his/hers own professional experience? And is it “progress” if a planner doesn’t have to go “on-site” at all?  
However, there is need for locally attached, informal spatial data, which doesn’t necessarily exist or show in a data bases at all. In fact, many planners in municipal organizations find local knowledge as a valuable resource especially in complex, multi actor planning processes concerning built environments (Puustinen 2003).  This local knowledge may consist of detailed functional data of the area (where are the most popular pathways, the best play grounds, most dangerous crossings?); knowledge of local history and nature; knowledge of unsafe places (“sensations of safety”) etc. Local knowledge is often tacit and difficult to express. How to gain information of issues like the meaning and identity of one’s home district?

Internet based WebGIS applications seem to offer many possibilities for creating and collecting local knowledge. ‘Citizen GIS’  or ‘ soft GIS’ methods (Kyttä  etc. 2004) have been developed. Because these applications can be used in the Internet, many sophisticated functions, visualizations and data resources are now available for a significantly larger amount of people than before. Experiences in projects like Pirkanmaan maakuntakaava (2002 -2004) and Helsinki Metropolitan Area Council´s (YTV) SePe –project (“Access to Regional Registry via Web GIS- interface”, 2001 -) show that also the planners themselves can benefit from an easy-to-use Web GIS environment at their work.
So called ‘P-GIS’(Participatory GIS) or PPGIS (Public Participation GIS) methods has been developed as a reaction to expert- and technology-led  GIS. Many researchers point out that GIS technology should give voice to local people by putting them and their local (spatial) knowledge on an equal footing with external experts and decision makers (McCall 2003, Carver et al. 2001). P-GIS tries to translate the often invisible, tacit local knowledge into “official” language: it is “legalized” and formalized for the decision makers. P-GIS methods have been used in numerous studies and projects especially in developed countries and among indigenous people. The purpose was to “bring indigenous knowledge and scientific knowledge together” (McKinnon 2001). Participatory GIS projects in urban context have been carried out relatively few. Slaithwaite in Great Britain was one of the first experiments where an Internet-base public participation and on-line spatial decision support system – a Public Participation GIS – was applied (Carver et al. 2001).  Many P-GIS initiatives claim to foster accountability, transparency, legitimacy and other dimensions of governance. But can they contribute to the empowerment of communities and the people living there as they are often claimed to do?
While it is technically possible to build up GIS applications into the Internet to collect local knowledge, the planning organizations seem not to know how to exactly utilize this data. Comments and data provided by the citizens can be attached to places in the map, and the data can be easily shared and distributed - if only the municipalities decide to do so. What actually happens to this locally attached data? Does it affect the plans? Could this “social data” formulate a special layer in the planner’s GIS data base? The danger is that when using new ways to interact and make contribution to planning and development processes the citizens expect that their input has some impact too. It is not clear what part local “soft” data plays in formal planning institutions. Staffans (2004) points out, that the new participative practices – traditional and Internet based - often remain “external” and disconnected in relation to the official planning documents. GIS applications and eParticipation as a whole should support knowledge creation, planning and decision making during the process. But do they? 
Map tools have been tested in the past years in the Department of Architecture (HUT/TKK) in a number of projects, e.g. Home Street Project (1997-2002) and Nettimaunula-project (2001-2003). Minun Maunulani – map is an easy-to-use commentary map with specifically defined coordinates in which a citizen can comment and produce qualitative data about his or hers own city quarter. It is possible to view and sort the data through various criteria and categories. It seems that maps like Minun Maunulani could have a role in a local planning process, but they need to be embedded into official planning processes better and the results must be analyzed in-depth.
During the next three years these types of citizen generated maps are being studied further in OPUS project (‘Oppiva kaupunkisuunnittelu ja asumisen arki – Learning in Urban Planning Processes and Housing’) funded by Tekes.  A local development portal with a WebGIS –interface will be created in cooperation with local citizen organizations and the City Planning Department of Espoo.  The aim of OPUS is to make local knowledge more visible, create joint understanding and learning among a complex actor network, and to support decision making in development and planning processes in Espoon keskus and Suurpelto areas in the City of Espoo. 
References:
Carver, S., Evans, A., Kingston, R., Turton, I.: Public participation, GIS, and cyberdemocracy: evaluating on-line spatial decision support systems. Environmental and Planning B: Planning and Design 2001, vol. 28
Healey, P.: Collaborative Planning. Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies. MacMillan 1997.
McCall, M. K.: Seeking good governance in participatory-GIS: a review of process and governance dimensions in applying GIS to participatory spatial planning
McGrath, B. interviewed by Bill McGarigle in Architectural record June 2002: “Mapping places and Spaces”. 
McKinnon, J.; Mobile Interactive GIS: Bringin Indigenous Knowledge and Scientific Information Together. A narrative account. (2001) http://www.iapad.org/publications/ppgis/mobile_interactive_gis.pdf
Puustinen, S.: Osallistumisen sietämätön keveys – kommunikaation merkityksestä kaavoittajien työssä. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelu 2003:2, vol.41.
Sclossberg, M.: GIS, the US Census and Neighbourhood Scale Analysis. Planning, Practice & Research, Vol. 18, No, 2-3 (2003). 
Staffans, A.: Vaikuttavat asukkaat. Vuorovaikutus ja paikallinen tieto kaupunkisuunnittelun haasteina. Yhdyskuntasuunnittelun tutkimus- ja koulutuskeskuksen julkaisuja A 29. TKK 2004.

The Internet
Staffans, Rantanen, Kaaja, Merikalla: Virtual Nature Tour: interactive Nature Management Plan for the Public Works Department of the City of Helsinki (1999). www.kaupunginosat.net/Kotiluonto/sivut/kierros.htm
Kaaja, Horelli, Rantanen, Arpalahti: Interactive Planning Game for Children in Pihlajisto in cooperation with Public Works Department of the City of Helsinki (2000). www.kaupunginosat.net/seikkailu
Rantanen, Nyman, Arpalahti:. Minun Maunulani - My Maunula – An Interactive Local Neighbourhood Map.(2003). www.kaupunginosat.net/maunula/kartta
Resident associations of Maunula, researchers of HUT and the City Planning Department of Helsinki: Web Site for Development of Maunula Centre. www.kaupunginosat.net/maunula/ostari 
Kyttä. M., Espoo-Vantaa Institute of Technology: Soft-GIS application for the City of Järvenpää (2004). http://www.jarvenpaa.fi/pehmogis/