![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
Abstract
Problem: Despite the widespread availability of geographic information systems (GIS) in local government, there is some evidence that the potential of GIS as a planning tool is not being fully exploited. While obstacles to GIS implementation in local government have been investigated, most of these investigations are either dated or do not focus on planning applications.
Purpose: We aim to add to the limited literature on the current barriers hindering GIS use in public planning agencies. We also offer some insights into how to mitigate these barriers and help planning agencies move beyond using GIS simply for routine tasks of data access and mapmaking.
Methods: We analyzed responses to a 2007 web-based survey of 265 practitioners in Wisconsin's public planning agencies and follow-up interviews with 20 practitioners we conducted in 2008.
Results and conclusions: Planning departments still face a range of technological, organizational, and institutional barriers in using GIS. Training, funding, and data issues appear to be the most significant barriers preventing greater use of GIS for planning purposes, suggesting that organizational and institutional issues are more pertinent than technological barriers. Our literature review indicates that the barriers to GIS use in local government are similar to those of the past, but not identical. Furthermore, our observations indicate that, in general, practitioners are not aware of the full potential of GIS and planning support systems (PSS).
Takeaway for practice: Increased funding alone is not likely to move a planning agency beyond routine applications of GIS. Improved access to training that is geared toward the planning process and planning applications may help alleviate many barriers planners face in using GIS in general and in incorporating more sophisticated GIS functions in their work.
Research support: This work was supported in part by the Consortium for Rural Geospatial Innovations, funded by the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and in part by the University of Wisconsin–Madison College of Agriculture and Life Sciences and the University of Wisconsin–Extension.
Acknowledgments
We thank Amy Seeboth for her assistance with conducting the surveys; Ting-Li Lin for statistical consultation; and Jack Huddleston, Brian Ohm, and four anonymous reviewers for their invaluable feedback on earlier versions of this article.
Notes
1. We obtained contact information through personal communication, web searches, and from the Wisconsin Land Information Association and the Wisconsin chapter of the American Planning Association.
2. These respondents were a subset of a total of 521 respondents that included practitioners from other departments, such as land and water conservation, public works, engineering, and GIS.
3. Of the 265 respondents, 46% practiced in small planning agencies with five or fewer nonsecretarial staff. A majority (71%) held planning positions, while 17% held GIS positions, almost 40% held management positions, about 50% held nonmanagerial professional positions, and around 10% held technical positions. Ninety percent stated that they used GIS for their work and 48% had been using GIS for over 10 years. Of these respondents, 31% reported that their main source of training was instruction in an academic classroom, 24% reported attending workshops and seminars, 37% reported receiving on-the-job training through coworker interactions, and 9% reported that they were self-taught. As with any survey, the sample may be biased toward those who had an interest in the topic. This sample may also be skewed toward those who feel they are the most qualified person in an agency to answer the survey about GIS use for planning. Nonetheless, the high response rate from individuals with different backgrounds implies that the study could offer solid insights.
4. CitationCroswell (1991) identified the following categories of obstacles: apathy/fear of change; funding availability or justification; planning/ management support; organizational coordination and conflicts; training/ understanding of technology; staffing availability/recruitment; software complexity/maturity of technology; data communications and networking; data structure and source materials; data and software standards/data; and miscellaneous. Within the data structure and source materials category we included Croswell's original suggestions of problems managing large databases, problems in database design/data conversion, and problems in quality or format of source data as well as two new subcategories: accessing data and difficulty in data creation. For more information on the framework used, please contact Z. Aslıgül Göçmen.
5. We originally identified 37 survey respondents from planning departments as interview candidates based on each individual's willingness to be contacted again, the type of jurisdiction in which he or she worked, the type of position the individual held, the part of the state in which he or she practiced, and the richness of the individual's responses to the original survey. Of the 37 we considered, we were unable to contact 10 in three trials, 3 had changed positions, and 4 believed they did not qualify to be part of the follow-up interviews. Of the 20 actually interviewed, 7 worked for counties, 7 worked for cities, 4 worked for regional planning commissions, and 2 worked for towns; 6 were planners, 5 were directors, 5 were GIS professionals, and 4 were managers, administrators, or assistant directors. The interviews were conducted by telephone by a graduate assistant and recorded with the respondent's permission.
6. The survey found that only three (1%) of the respondents had regularly used one of the four GIS-based PSS specified in the survey (What-if?, CommunityViz, UrbanSim, and Index) whose functionalities and data requirements all differ somewhat. Most respondents had never heard of these or other PSS software. For more information on these and other PSS, please see Brail and Klosterman (2001) and CitationBrail (2008). Furthermore, only three interviewees mentioned that their department conducted any type of modeling or used PSS. The most common uses of GIS modeling and predictive capabilities were in the transportation field. Only one interviewee mentioned using an alternative scenario evaluation application to assess land use change impacts on the quality of water resources.
7. If we expect funding to follow management support, it seems illogical that lack of management support was mentioned as a barrier to GIS by only 5% of respondents, while funding-related issues were mentioned by 43%. However, these are public agencies and their funding decisions are usually made by elected councils or commissions who are removed from day-to-day management and the use of GIS.
8. For example, any of the following activities qualified as advanced GIS use: land suitability analysis, sociodemographic data analysis, other spatial analysis, public participation, or creating and evaluating alternative scenarios.