In assessing environmental hazards, one of the least researched areas to date has been the ways in which participatory democratic organizations (hereinafter referred to as grassroots organizations ) make use of GIS-based information in their attempts to identify, inventory, and deal with environmental hazards, either existing or proposed. Making use of the GIS of TRI sites for selected Twin Cities areas developed by Bob McMaster et al., we propose to examine the different ways that grassroots organizations utilize (or don t utilize) available information in dealing with environmental hazards.
The research problem is complicated by the fact that we need to deal with at least two major types of grassroots organizations: environmental movements (which may have more general, and less locality-based interests); and neighborhood organizations and other urban social movements whose thematic interests may be much broader than those of environmental groups, but whose level of spatial organization tends to be more parochial. In addition, these different types of groups may differ from one another in having different levels of access to GIS-based information (or the technology and skill needed to interpret it). Thus, we can conceptualize our proposed research as examining a four-cell matrix, using comparative case studies to look at organizations with broad environmental agendas or with more neighborhood-based concerns, each of which may have high or low levels of access to GIS.
As we examine our case studies, based on the reactions of community and environmental groups to TRI data in GIS format, there are four types of questions that we wish to ask. First, how available and appropriate is GIS information for grassroots organizations? Second, what impact does access to GIS-based information have on the participation and effectiveness of grassroots organizations in policy discussions and policy making? Third, does utilization of GIS affect the mission and outlook of grassroots groups? And fourth, what difference does availability and utilization of GIS-based information make for the wide variety of different groups affected by environmental hazards?
The first stage of this research builds on the GIS work being carried out under the I-19 initiative by Bob McMaster to establish the Twin Cities TRI landscape, and analyze the local geodemographic settings within which TRI sites exist. For this research project, we will choose groups from areas with different geodemographic profiles -- poor and rich, central city and suburban, predominantly white and largely minority.
The second stage of this research examines how the different types of community groups utilize (or ignore) the TRI data. We will carry out intensive case-study analysis of a limited number of grassroots organizations dealing with environmental hazards. For groups already utilizing GIS technology, we will examine the following questions:
For groups that do not yet have access to GIS technology or information, a different set of questions can be posed:
We can envision an experiment in which groups that previously did not use GIS are provided with access and data. We hypothesize that the following stages will occur:
Finally, we think it important to assess who gains and loses from a process in which grassroots organizations utilize GIS. What are the consequences for the larger community? For group participants? For those creating the GIS being used? Is it possible that community groups will become divided around issues of access and/or familiarity with GIS versus distrust or technological unease? Will some of the richness and diversity of opinions within larger communities be reduced to a basic set of issues and approaches that can more easily be modeled using GIS? (This problem is endemic to all forms of technical planning and not just the application of GIS-based information to environmental hazards research.)
Clearly, these research questions don t get at all of the societal divisions that could affect how grassroots organizations utilize GIS-based information. But studies of the effects of race, gender, and class, as well as the interrelationships among these variables (and their spatial distributions) seem more appropriate as follow-on studies, after this more basic research has been accomplished.
Given the complexity of issues that intersect with the use of
GIS-based information by grassroots organizations, comments and
suggestions from other I-19 researchers are particularly
solicited. We hope that the issues we ve outlined in this
proposal will stimulate a lively discussion, both social
theoretical and methodological.