GIS , Information TechnPlogy and Spatial Planning

Geographic informati:on systems haae been introd,uced local and regional planning seu-eral stages. They haae influen'ced tfu uchnique of pUkig O"tinly to a lesier extmt the proced,ures of planning and t-he netindo.togl o{pla2-making. Mme recently, inform,ation technology 'has chaltlenged tile uhote concept of pianning as an expert-ind-govemrnent nirptoy. Howeuer, legal frameworhs haae not refncted the subsiltntial change in the potmtials of the technology r ,.,.-r Lt --^^ .. Ary ffirt to refl|a the nei technology wilt face noionly institutio-nal inertin, but inueasingly -ako the human capacity of uw,: lf lloT *g 1i.i.,'iecision-lrnakers, ad,ministratoir, ,nninotaerfl, nlmely the lirnited extent of oaerail n' literacy, uhich restricts the possible beryeft of the technologl. The dimension of access to and eipowertnent in playnin^g ma) reWear i,n the context of new technologies, uith neu professional1equirements for plinners, beyond the cotnputer, GIS and information technologg'

ff CIS generalists (Godschalk and McMahon 1992:223) ' Drummond (1995) noted the emerging gap between GIS as a technological means and the needs of land-use planners, economic developers and other types of city planners; public works engineers, tax assessors' and municipal IS specialists' Even if the gap is gradually eliminated by the increasing user-friendliness of GIS technology and by improving "GIS literacy" among planners, the application of GIS technology itself proves to be unable to move out of the domain of technical, expert-made planning.The circle of users is strictly limited to the staff of governmental and planning agencies directly linked to the GIS data by means of local networks or CD.Any communication with "the outside world" has to be achieved by non-digital GIS media.Thus the efliciency of the isolated digital GIS itself is low because each piece of information has to be translated from non-digital to digital format (inwards) or from digital to non-digital format (outwards)' As result, the initial fascination with the potential of the technology was later increasingly replaced by the issues of the accesi and "information economics".Keeping data and, consequently, the relevant information in line with the actual needs of users/clients became the prerequisite for the efli- ciency of GIS itself.This is more an issue for those who attempt to open the GIS up to the public' Nedovic-Budic 1999:285 concluded in their study of the practical effects of GIS technology thut: [d'espite tlu signifcant inaeshwnt of rcsources in GIS technologl "the most intriguuxg ind:cationfom the research done to date is thc l,a'ck of substantial bmef'x in decision rnaking".
The Internet obviously provides a technology for opening up the digital transfer of data/information: the collection ai'well as the dissemination of data/information can be done directly, without any transfer to or from non-digital format' Moreover, it enables better provision of information for property owners and residents and for widespread public participation.This new potential has been discussed by many international authors.According to Drummond (1989), computer information systems can open up technical planning to public scrutiny and inputwhen they are designed to facilitate partici-pation.The ease with which GIS can incorporate new param_ eters and examine additional alternativesl and the power of GIS to illuminate complex concepts and data sets, makes it a very useful tool for public discourse and deliberation.
Carver et al (1998) made a list of ways in which the internet web has been used in a number of .ur",for public participation: fiom online questionnaire surveys to 3D vir- tual reality systems.The potential for more user-friendly information for the public is immense bur, as Gill (lggg) noted, many of the projects that enable "lay", non-GIS expert participants to query and share their view on development policies were at a relatively early stage of developme nt: 'few haae dzaelnped.bEond, prototype applir.ations".
The New Charter of Athens proclaimed by the European Council of Town Planners (ECTP) in 1998 described the possibilities of new information technologies as follows: "[...] znformation technology increases the possibititics for com- manication and the dh;ersity of experiznce.The democratic processes may ako be enlmnced,, by proaid,ing information to those who traditionally did, not haae access to it.potentialll, it can enable the citizen to become inuolued,in the management of the city, prouid,ed that there is equinble access to resources.[...] Plannang should encourage the optirnum use of information technology, with equinble access, so as to obtain the m.aximum benefits for the ci,tizen." A careful reading of this ar first glimpse, oprimistic proclamation, will reveal several restricting conditions.trirst: in- formation technologies cannot improve communication by themselves.Like anr other technology, they are just a means that can bring benefit, or can remain unused or even be mis- used, Many of those aflected by changes lack access ro the internet, and even in future not allwill have easy access to it or will be able to make use of it.The possibilities of democrat- isation and enabling participation in the process of planning may also be constrained by other circumstancesstarting from the abstract, poorly intelligible slang sometimes used by professionals and ending with arrempts ro make the data on territory into a goods accessible only by paying the provider for it, ignoring the fact that this data was usually obtained from public sources and/or by using public resources.The mere internet presentation of some fragments of planning data, even if these are the statutory regulations, may not im- prove communication among administrators, planners and stakeholders: citizens, developers, property owners, etc.
The trend of providing informarion selectively is anorher pitfall on the way toward full usage of the technological po- tentials of ITs.Another myth of technology-initiated change in planning may be born, if we starr ro believe that informa- tion technologies necessarily change the nature of planning.
In fact, not much can change if it is only proposals and ap- proved plans thatwill be displayed for the public.In this case, the change will consistjust in more accessible media, but the gain in participation and involvemenr of "ourside" parties will be minimal if any at all.Presentation on the inrernet can even discriminate against those people who do not have access or are unable to use the internet.Real change can be achieved only by effective demand for information and response to it on the part of governments by making the data a public good.Pickles (1995) warned that "Opening GIS to ttu pubtir, e.g. through intemet, nury raise problnrns'concining ethical ksuu aid equiry".Earlieq Godschalk and Mc Mahon (1992) described the concern in greater in detail: "Somc fanilt1 ruty swpea that computer phnning systems can und,ercut tfu d,ernocratit fucision- -mnhtng process, parfirularly on issuzs of socinl poliry,inuolu.ingpoor and minority groups.Thq reasan that th.ese groups will not h.aaeacuss to tfu fui,nbases and, anaQtic progra,ms used b1 goaernrnent planners to prepare poliq recommendations uhbh may afeA thcn.t...1 Improperb wed, GIS coul.d,become away of shutting out citizzns frorn decision making.On the other hand, it coul.d,jwt as easily haae the reaerse effect".
Planners may also feel threatened by the general accessi- bility of data relevant for planning and development.In this way they may lose their "informarion monopoly"..2 Alternatiae to statutory plans: interactiue, c omrn unicatiu e plannin g?An effective combination of GIS and IT can lead ro a re- definition of the requirements for statutory planning.Instead of the existing focus on fixed, periodically reviewed and re-elaborated plans as collections ofcontrols and regulations for the use of land, the dominant value for decision-mak- ing would consist in constantly upgraded sets of relevant information on the potenrials for and the impact of prospective development.It can be believed, in line with the arguments of Habermas (e.g., 1985Habermas (e.g., ,1987) that, however con- tradictory the particular inreresrs of stakeholders may be, the individual decisions are mostly of a rational nature, and this is the "communicative rationality" that helps to reach a consensus.Therefore the improved quality of information provided concerning the consequences of a prospective de- velopment may clarify the points and, in this way, improve communication among the stakeholders.
Following this argument, the technology of GIS com- bined with effective IT:supported communication, will lead to rationality and flexibility of planning in the face of the increasingly changing environment of planning.If there is a system of permanent data collection and updating, the continuous evaluation of the changing data, flexible adjust- ment of conrols and regulations can speed up the "surveyplanimplementationfeedback" cycle and can conse- quently, replace -at least partlythe traditional rigid plans.
The scope of the controls may not be so broad as is usual in contemporary practice, being to a significant extent replaced by relevant and reliable information.The "hard" limits and regulations presented by statutory conrrols can be to a significant extent replaced by "soft" information of the GlS-based data, interpretated and disseminated by IT 3 Specifics of planning-oriented GIS By their nature, planning-oriented GlS-based Spatial Decision-Support Systems (SDSSs) address only a selected population of planners, investors and developers.However they can be accessed openly, without any restrictions, their information value being limited ro the level of GIS data that does not provide data attached to particular plots/parcels.In this way their value for individuals is lower; in fact in this way they avoicl the threat of "trtunlisatiln 0f planning decisions" leading to'hintendo decision-nuthing" (Carver and Peckham: 387).
In fact, the central objective ofthe public presentation of nation-wide comprehensive GIS does not focus on participation but rather on transParency and equal access to data.The importance of feedback is low from the viewpoint of citizens while from the viervpoint of the authorities it will be legally enforced in the "duty to inform".
Even if not focused on Participation, nation-wide SDSS transmitted by internet is another level of the opening-up of planning.Three levels can be identified in the recent history of Czech planning in this resPect: l) The authoritarian model was applied in planning practice before 1989.There was a monopoly on data as well as information; it was the state bureaucracy that decided which data would be provided and also which information would be distributed.The decision-making was also most- ly controlled by the state, leaving just a minor role for individuals.
2) The "enlightenment" model of open information was introduced with the liberalisation of the 1990s.Data originating within the public domain is defined by law as public.There is no monopoly on converting it into information, but in the case of geographical data for planning, access is restricted by physical constraints: the i.ro,rr..t ofrelevant data are dispersed, and therefore it is only professional planners that can develop relevant information by collecting and interpreting the data' 3) The forthcoming SDSS model relevant to the information age opens access to GlS-based data for all citizens' This provides an opPortinity to transform the data individuatty and tailor-made into information.This opportunity can obviously be used best by those professionally involved in the investment and development process' while other stakeholders will have to rely on professional interpretations offered by planners.Better and more "independent" information will thus improve, above all the quality of the decisions made by "professional" stakeholdlrs.information disseminated by the internet will, however, also improve the quality of individual decisions made by small property owners and residents' on a very basic level, through "voting with their feet".
This hypotheses is similar to the "enlightenment" sce- nario ofCarver and Peckham (1999:389)' which also does not anticipate that "the responsibiLihes of strategtg planning decisions wiIL, without d'oubt, rentain finrtly uith the professiornl and trained pbnners, mnnagers, gouemntent rninisters and politicinns" ' 4 Constraints of multi-usert web-communicated SDSS While SDSS designated for a predefined group of users can be tailor-made for legitimate users, the starting position is much less clearwhen on-line GIS information about the SDSS is to be provided for a broader range of diverse, undefined When designing a GIS as information to be made avail- able to the general public, several areas ofconstraints have t0 be considered.

1 Technolo gical consi'derations
Internet presentation limits the users to those who have access to the internet.In this way, the first level of exclusion is executed.Among the remaining potential users, the level of technological equipment is very varied.It is essential thatin order not to exclude potential users -the requirements of the presentation should fit with the most basic quality of hardware ind internet links that can be expected arnong the users.On the other hand, if the presentation is adjusted to the poorest anticipated equipment, the resulting quality will hardly be satisfactory for more frequent and obviously much better equipped users, e.g., professional planners.
To ensure that as many users as possible may benefit from on-line access to GIS information, the internet presentation will have to manage only with sofnvare that is generally avail- able, i.e., freeware.Any requirement for additional software is a barrier for occasional users, who will probably not buy such softrvare just a single piece of information.However, a presentation that uses only freeware tools may not be satisfactory for everyday professional users, whose requirements tor, e.g., a combination of particular elements of the GIS and links benveen the geographic data and other databases, can- not be successfully met by standard freeware.
Two different approaches can be adopted to solve the apparent dilemma between excellence and affordability: o A compromise is sought between the desired qualiry and the range of users.This requires reasonably good informa- tion onlhe range ofhardware and linkage in general use' With this data available, the optimisation can take into account the number ofusers or, rather the number ofcases of use.Some optimism is fully legitimate, as innovation in computer hardware and sofnvare is very rapid' This same conslderation, however means' that any research is soon out-oi-date.This makes any optimisation a guess rather, than a solid basis for decision making.
r The presentation is split into two qualitative grades: (a) the basiCgrade, available for all, as simple as possible in terms of technical requirements for the technology, and (b) the "advanced" for frequent users which assumes certain level of equipment and may also require for some special soft- ware on the part ofthe user.
In the long mn, the constraints of technology will tend to diminish.Therefore, the basic standard of presentation may become high enough to meet the requirements of GIS pre- sentation on a equipment.This consideration, however, may prove to be false, asthere may be a group ofusers ofvery old equipment, as in the case for cars.

Human capacitY
Human capacity and technical considerations coincide and overlap considerably.There are diverse potential users' from occasional, one-time users to professionals who need GIS information every day as a part of their business' -fhe public presentation should be as user-friendly as possible, in L.der not to discourage the occasional users, who may not be quite well informed about the kind of service that of internet GIS offers.Also the capability ofone-time users to operate the internet presentation will be limited, and this again is a reason for rather simple architecture to avoid deadlocks caused by less competent user.
Frequent users will have no problems with operating the presentation, but they will require the presentation to enable special adjustments to their specific needs.Lengthy introductory information about how to operate the presentation will fiustrate them, if they are not able to skip these procedures.
The ways of dealing with the diverse human capacity of users are similar to those for diverse technology.
r The compromise approach consists in stratified architec- ture of the presentation that will enable a user to operate the presentation on different levels of "internet skills".It is essential that instructions and advice provided to the users should be tested on different persons with different skills in order to avoid gaps in the instructions, where professional slang is used instead of generally comprehensible language.The more complicated tasks should be in a higher layer, in order not to disturb the unskilled user.
o If the approach of nuo grades of quality is accepted, the advanced, more complicated level of instructions can form a part of the "advanced" grade of the presentation.Even the "advanced" level should be stratified, because unskilled users also use highJevel technology.
Unlike the technology, the human capacity cannot be expected to improve much even in the long run.Userfriendliness will remain an important issue, not only for less-skilled users (increasingly as computer and IT literacy will be essen- tial for almost all population) but also for those for whom seeking information on the internet and work in a GIS environment is their everyday business.

4.i Organisational and institutional constraints
Public access to data fiom the public sector is a legal right for citizens in most democracies, with the exception of secret information that is protected by law.On the other hand, some data was originally collected and information based on it was created outside the domain of the public sector.It is doubtful whether public resources can cover the costs for procuring and continuously upgrading the whole range ofdata needed for spatial planning and development.Moreovea if all this data is provided by the state, regional or local government to an unlimited general public, it will undoubtedly also be used commercially, e.g. for printing maps, by the private sector.
The current Czech practice in this respect is confused.
While the author's rights are covered by the Intellectual Property Law (2000), the very principle of authorship in the case of GIS data is difficult to follow precisely.Others can change the data set created by someone incrementally, which makes the rights and responsibilities unclear.Moreove6 with the privatisation in the 1990s of many organisations that collect and create GIS data, it is unclear whether the data sets are public property, especially if they were originally created with public funding but, since privatisation, they have been maintained and updated by a private company.5 User-determined alternatives of SDSS The following table shows the impact of the designated users to whom information llom GIS is distributed on the technology, media of delivery and organisation of data collection.Note that while the technology requirements on the part of GIS information providers are virtually the same in the all cases, the costs of rnedia to channel the GIS data to users decrease as the range of userS increases, and the organisa- tional costs for the data maintenance and updating soarwhen their use changes hom one-time periodically reviewed plans to everyday operational support for decision-making.
The costs expended for permanently collected and up- dated databases are becoming central issue as soon as the application moves from occasional, periodical reviews to- wards continuous support for decision-making.As the other costs are not immediately related in a significant way to the range of designated users or the purposes for which they use the GIS data and information, costs cannot be saved by restricting access to GIS.Consequently, as long as the GIS data is considered to be a public good, its widespread avail.abilitywill be the most economical way.In other words, establishing and running up-to-date GIS can be efficient and economicallyjustified only by widespread access and use.The economics of GIS within the public domain and its accessibil- ity are therefore intertwined.
On the other hand, if GIS data were a private goods, efficiency would involve optimising (a) the quality of the information provided by the GIS data (e.g.whether the data is up-to-date) and (b) the number of users/clients and the users that they implement.
The model for providing GIS data can combine both concepts.Here, the basic range of GIS data will be treated as a public good, with widespread dissemination and unlimited access.Additionally, specific data originating outside the pub- lic domain as well as ad-hoc information and evaluations compiled from publicly accessible data can be provided to customers on a commercial basis.It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss whether the commercial use of public GIS databases could be charged for and ifso, which criteria should be used.
Responsibility for the quality of the data rests with the manager.Thus the state, regional and/or local governments will have to guarantee the quality of public GIS data, and re- sponsibility for data and information offered on the market will be a matter of business law.
It is for the politicians to specify what the public domain in GIS data is, and to take responsibiliry for it' In the political arena, economic criteria are just one component for decisions.In a democracy it is the public choicewhich is dominant for political decision making, This makes the issue of public GIS extremely fragile: the general public is being offered something unfamiliar, of unclear use and probably with benefits that are not evenly spread.
As open access to GIS data and information breaks into some established monopolies on information, the very idea may not find many serious advocates.Planners will be among those who lose their privileged access to good information.
The position of private developers will be ambivalent: they will benefit from easy and free access to basic data, but at the same time they may also be exposed to the improved competence and intelligence of their "lay" counterparts' i.e' individual property owners.The major Potential benefit will be to civic society.Therefore, successfully introduced and well run public GIS data provided to everyone for free can be some kind of indicator of how strong civic society is compared to the bureaucracy and the business and professional lobbies, 6 The content of publicly presented GIS data, and level of participation In the next step of analysis of the use of GIS data, the famous ladder of public participation by Arnstein (1969) will be used to illuminate the relations between how and for what the GIS database is provided for the public, andwhat the level of participation is.
Our real-life experience hardly extends beyond the "rung"/level of consultation, so the imagination of an appropriate IT:accessed GIS... .some other Czech local and regional plans can be found on h ttp ://www.e gi s. czlVU C/ References lll Action Pbn of Snu Information Policy -Czech Republic, 2000.
Content and way ofuse of publicly accessed GIS data "Rung" level ofparticipation reversed flow ofdata and informationintroducing initiative proiects in GIS crtrzen control balanced two-way flow of data and information between authority and publicinterac- tive modules seeking for citizens' opinion on the presented projects and/or alternative proposals; opinion polls to identi$ locaVregional problems and seeking advice on horv to tackle them partnership continuous and unconstrained flow ofdata and information from authority to public -drafts and proposals for all projects before they are discussed at public hearings; allorving feedback comments from webpage visitors consultation "soft" data for development -evaluation of potentials for development, Propeny maPs informing "hard" data for development -statutory limits for development: e.g.protected zones, nature resenations and parks, water resource Protection...