This is the lessons I got from the paper read in class
today: Tool or toy? Virtual globes in
landscape planning by various authors. This article can be read in full at http://learnonline.canberra.edu.au/pluginfile.php/604346/mod_resource/content/2/futureinternet-03-00204.pdf
The article itself is
interesting and worth a read.
Technology is rapidly expanding and continuing to evolve.
Whilst it has the capacity to be an incredibly good tool for planners (and most
professions in general) it can severely hinder progress. Why? The single
biggest problem is… Misinterpretation. This can be in the analysis of the data
set or the use of the particular technology to manipulate such data. As a
planner in an ever complex world we too much continue to use different tools of
the trade but how do we stop this misinterpretation from happening?
To be more specific with my argument I am talking about
tools that follow on from GIS (Global information systems) in which are
accessed via the web which are interactive tools with many sets of data
attached into them. These can be great to communicate work with the public, due
to the simple reason they can be easy to read and people would rather look at
these rather then read 10 pages of work . I included an abstract from the
article which sums up the limits of this technology…
I think this shows how misinterpretation happens and how
planners must ensure that they educate stakeholders on what they are “seeing” .The
way planners can use this tool to stop misinterpretation is using the tool as
one that creates awareness in the community of issue in which is followed up
through the planning process. Part of this process is the interaction of the
planners and the public to ensure any faults of misinterpretations of
technology are limited. Therefore misinterpretation of technology through face
to face contact can be minimised.
Technology: Friend or
Foe? Friend only if we as planners use it correctly.
X
Nice work Bridget. So, would you follow Josh's recommendation that planners should still perform on-site visits?
ReplyDeleteAnd, with the whole idea of misinterpretation for stakeholders, do you think that GIS could actually be a step forwards? I say this because I get the feeling that stakeholders are more likely to misinterpret a plan without GIS, than with GIS, where you can actually start to picture a site, especially from it's simple 2D map point of view, that everybody can relate to.
Thanks for the comment.Yes I would agree with Josh. Planners in my view should always perform on-site visits in order to get the sense of place of an area, which I believe is not found on a computer generated program. I think GIS can be a step forward for stakeholders. I think if planners use GIS they have a responsibility to educate the public on what is found in the map and analyse these findings in order to ensure there is no misinterpretation of data. However if they do not wish to educate the public on how to use the tool, then definatly a simple 2D map should be considered.
ReplyDeleteDefinitely field work is important in planning. This is the only way to understand the sense of place as Bridget says but also to understand the very local issues which are not clear on maps. But still, technology is useful.
ReplyDeleteWEll-done to all your blog posts.