Implementing GIS for Planning Lessons From the History of Technological Innovation, Research Paper Example

According to Judith Innes and David Simpson (1993), we should get some lessons from the history of technological improvements. In that respect, taking the Geographic information systems that all already with the state and local authorities will bring about benefits for the policy makers, given that the ideas they present are ideal for planning. They should thus take advantage of those advancements since the groups that are competing for them are many, a fact that threatens the planners if the innovations in technology are to be taken by other groups.

The article is of the view that planners ought to understand GIS as a technology created socially, which includes not only software and hardware, but also the laws, practices, organizational agreements as well as skills that are necessary to use it. A strategic approach to the GIS implementation is recommended, one involving both technical as well as human systems. On giving an opportunity to planning, GIS recognizes the need for information accuracy where it’s made in such a way as to store, analyze, interrelate and display huge range of spatially referenced information[1].

Since the technology used in GIS helps in recording of new kinds of information, the relating of data from sources that are dispersed and the provision of information that is [2]more timely, that has never happened before, they present new possibilities to understand environments as well as communities that people charged with the responsibilities to plan can effectively use. Even though the technical abilities as well as user friendliness of GIS have increased and the systems have now become cheap, many of the conditions that hinder such efforts in the past e.g. communications and organizational difficulties continue to this day[3].

To make GIS meet their potential for planning will be much of a challenge that most proponents recognize. The duty will need an intricate strategic approach that will engage planners in basic ways. This article seems to recognize all the organizational planning needs, and thus examines the nature of technological advancements, relying on the authors’ detailed case studies of systems to plan for insights into the problem of implementing GISs. Organizations must keep up with technological advancements, lest they be left out of the race in organizational sovereignty of the century, Implementing GIS will see to it that such an occurrence is kept at bay.

The Failures of Economic Development Incentives

According to Allan Peters and Peter Fisher (2002), in the midst of the on-going controversy over American economic Development, the article focuses on three major effective issues, namely; economic development incentives as a way to encourage new employments and investments, secondly it looks into how the incentives target at economically depressed people, and thirdly looks into how costly the incentives are.  The article concludes with the view that goes against traditional economic development incentives; rather suggesting that there is a need for radical transformation of economic development policy in America[4].

The study documented in the article finds it possible that the incentives do induce considerable new growth, in which the growth’s beneficiaries are in most cases the ones with the greatest difficulty in the labor market, and that both the state and the local governments benefit financially from that growth. However, the study is of the view that after many years of studies and experiments, none has found out substantial evidence to that effect. There is only a good probability that all those claims are not true.

For policy makers, it would be important that radical transformation ideas on policies concern achievement of local economic growth and the way to get people working. The basic justifications given for incentive policy by local politicians as well as the State at large are therefore not supported by evidence in that study. Therefore, the preferred alternatives to traditional incentives for economic developments are the ones that have the chance to capture the attention of policymakers over the next decade. In order that the preferred one can come tom pass, the older notions discussed at the beginning of this article must be discarded.

The politicians and the rest of the policy makers must face the most crucial problem, in which many public officials seem to think that they can influence their state’s course or localized economies using incentives and subsidies. There is therefore need for lowering the anticipations concerning their ability to micromanage growth of economy and to make the case for a more levelheaded view of the Government’s role i.e. to provide the growth foundation through sound monetary practices, quality public infrastructure and good education systems. Then the economy will be left to take care of itself. Against that background as a matter of basics, the Government through its policy makers will have to focus more attention on worker mobility as well as employability and for efforts to community development[5].

Citizen Participation in Planning: the Relationship Between Objectives and Techniques

James J. Glass in this article is of the view that citizen participation has become an ordinary element in several planning efforts, but both planners and citizens often assess the participatory elements as being substandard. This article’s contention is that inadequate attention is being given to the design of participatory programs and that there is a specific failing in the matching of the objectives with the techniques.

This article has identified the five objectives of participatory programs as; exchange of information, support building, education, supplemental decision making, as well as representational input. The development of a participatory mechanism typology and techniques are then matched with their most ideal objectives. The article is essential for policy makers in that it concludes by suggesting that if the relationship between objectives and techniques is not taken seriously in the design of participatory program that decreases the probability of attaining a successful program.

Smart Growth: Why We Discuss It More Than We Do It

Anthony Downs in this article has a strong emotional as well as intellectual appeal than more of sprawl. All the same, since some places follow Smart Growth Policies, there happens to be an erroneous misconception that the application is automatic, thereby leading to much inefficiency. That is basically as a result of failure to adopt policies that result in long established traditions including home rule and living patterns mainly characterized by low densities[6].

Many Americans are not pleased with most of those intermediary steps, thereby having Smart Growth advocates among urban planners, Government officials, real estate developers, as well as environmentalists to focus their attention if they want to become successful. All stakeholders in any department involving complex decision making processes are advised against becoming emotionally depressed when the businesses are not doing well. Adopting the Smart growth policies will undoubtedly bring about success.

The Generators of Diversity

On this book, Jacob, the author is of the view that diversity is the key to growth and that all policy makers should capitalize more on creating diversities in all key areas of economic growth. Diversity in all city districts as well as in business transactions should be the key focus for the Government as well as the business people, who are advised to shun away from tendencies that would undermine diversifications. By following the four conditions for district growth, there will be no doubt about the success of the said programs.

The Need for Planning

Kara and Christopher exert pressure on the need for planning in all sectors involved in any economic wellbeing of a society. The two most important needs for planning are inter connectedness and complexity. The use of technology would be employed in making the process of planning a little easier. However, the complications brought about by technology makes things extremely hard for policy makers[7].

The question about the benefits of planning to the community ranges from shaping the pattern of growth in achieving a sensible as well as attractive land use pattern. Planners of cities, in relations with the private sectors ought to employ the need for proper planning if the reasons for giving residents’ proper housing are to be fulfilled. Schools and other social amenities will be achieved when proper planning involves openness in terms of the public expectancy, as well as the Governments oversight of the projects aimed at fulfilling the publics’ expectations[8].

Bibliographies

Judith E. Innes and David M. Simpson; “of the American Planning Association”, Vol. 59, No. 2, Spring American Planning Association, Chicago, IL, 1993

Allan Peter and Peter Fisher, the Failures of Economic Development Incentives Journal of the American Planning Association, winter 2004, Vol. 70, No. I

James J. Glass, Citizen Participation in Planning: the Relationship Between Objectives and Techniques 2000

Anthony Downs. “Smart Growth Why We Discuss It More than” We Do It Journal of the American Planning Association, autumn 2005, Vol. 71, No. 4

Richard Riley, “Intricacies of political Short Sightedness” Journal of Political Planning, 2007, pp 243

Urban Land Institute. Smart growth: Myth and fact. Washington, DC: Author 1999

Whoriskey, P. Space for employers, not for homes; Residents driven farther out as D.C. suburbs lure business and limit housing; Washington Post, p. Aoi 2004 (August 8)

Voith, R., & Cravkford, D. Smart groviT:h and affordable housing. In A. Downs (Ed.), Growth management and affordable housing: Do they conflict? {pp. 82-101).  Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press  2004.

[1] Richard Riley, “Intricacies of political Short Sightedness” Journal of Political Planning, 2007, pp 243

[2] Judith E. Innes and David M. Simpson; “of the American Planning Association”, Vol. 59, No. 2, Spring American Planning Association, Chicago, IL, 1993

[3] Urban Land Institute. Smart growth: Myth and fact. Washington, DC: Author 1999

[4] Allan Peter and Peter Fisher, the Failures of Economic Development Incentives Journal of the American Planning Association, winter 2004, Vol. 70 No I

[5] Whoriskey, P. Space for employers, not for homes; Residents driven farther out as D.C. suburbs lure business and limit housing; Washington Post, p. Aoi 2004 (August 8)

[6] Anthony Downs. “Smart Growth Why We Discuss It More than” We Do It Journal of the American Planning Association, autumn 2005, Vol. 71, No. 4

[7] James J. Glass, Citizen Participation in Planning: the Relationship Between Objectives and Techniques 2000

[8] Voith, R., & Cravkford, D. Smart groviT:h and affordable housing. In A. Downs (Ed.), Growth management and affordable housing: Do they conflict? {pp. 82-101).  Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press  2004.