THE CHANGING PARTICIPATORY ROLE OF NGOs IN NEW JERSEY GIS

David L. Tulloch and Tamara Shapiro

Grant F. Walton Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis

Cook College

Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey

INTRODUCTION

New Jersey’s environmental non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have played a significant role in the statewide development and distribution of public geo-spatial data and systems. As advocacy organizations, they also provide an important point of access for public participation in environmental decision-making.  The ability of NGOs to coordinate inter-organizational data acquisition, sharing and distribution directly affects the quality and nature of public participation in environmental decision-making in the state.

This study examines the flow of geo-spatial data across governmental units and between environmental NGOs in New Jersey:  How are data developed and disseminated?  What are the institutional barriers to data sharing?  Who has access to geographic information and at what level?   What is the quality of data available?  While many issues affecting geo-spatial technology development and data sharing in the state are similar to issues elsewhere, there are particular dynamics specific to New Jersey.  Its unusually rigid home-rule system, dense population, and significant natural resources all lend themselves to New Jersey’s unique NGO community.

We sought to:  1) identify active users of geo-spatial technologies through their participation the New Jersey Non-Profit GIS Community,  2) interview key personnel in these organizations about the extent and nature of their use of technologies, including resource commitment, data acquisition, development and distribution, projected outcomes, and their perceived barriers to optimum system effectiveness, and 3) identify and illustrate inter-organizational issues and dynamics that positively and negatively affect technology development, data sharing, and outcomes within the community of New Jersey environmental NGOs. 

BACKGROUND

New Jersey provides a rich and unique environment in which to study public participatory GIS. It is the most densely populated state in the nation, continues to develop quickly, has significant natural areas, and retains a relatively archaic government structure. While much of this has been discussed elsewhere (Tulloch 1998, 2002), it is worth reviewing as background.

Attempts to provide any regional approach to planning are stymied by the dominance of the municipal governments under the state’s tradition of strong home rule. The state has 566 independent municipalities controlling land use and related environmental issues with few able to support municipal-level development of GIS. With a strong lobbying presence in the state capital, Trenton, the municipalities have objected an impressive array of state and regional efforts. This creates a particularly difficult challenge for the development of NGO systems because local governments have proven an important source of foundational spatial datasets in other parts of the country. In most discussions of New Jersey, home rule is described as a negative factor for NGOs who find themselves stymied by the lack of local data. However, this local data void has created a special need for some NGOs in New Jersey; some NGOs are trying to produce their own complete local datasets while others have focused on ways to encourage or assist the municipalities within their sphere of influence to advance their GIS efforts.

Strong home rule has also contributed to the environmental and growth management problems in New Jersey (Mansnerus 1998). New Jersey has been severely limited in its ability to address land use and environmental problems occurring at the local level. Much of New Jersey's sprawl comes as a result of the state's municipalities competing against one another for new development (and property taxes). Strong home rule has also had the unintentional outcome of promoting fragmented landscapes that are inefficient for providing community services, make farming difficult, and create landscapes ill-suited for ecologically desirable native species.

NGO role in participation

Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in New Jersey are finding themselves, and as a result the citizens they represent, increasingly empowered as users of GI and GIS in New Jersey. A commonly presented concern regarding geospatial technologies is that the systems require significant technical knowledge in order to be properly applied to a problem. As such, finding a way in which citizens can participate in the application of a community-based or community-oriented system is a challenge. Special interest groups purporting to represent various segments of the larger community within which they exist can serve as the interface between these citizens and government by operating, evaluating, or opposing publicly developed and maintained GIS.

A basic assumption of the previous work has been that NGOs “serve either:

A) as interfacing with an otherwise inaccessible public system, thus rendering it a PPGIS despite the system's initial failings, or

B) as developing a system, despite parallel local government efforts, on behalf of members of the community, which can then serve as a PPGIS.” (Tulloch 2002, 192)

New Jersey has unique physical and social conditions acting to accelerate the need for environmental response in the state. A state of over 8 million residents, New Jersey is home to unusually dense urban areas (e.g. Newark, Camden, Paterson), extensive sprawl, intense industrial areas (e.g. pharmaceuticals, petrochemical), and significant transportation systems (e.g. Port of Newark, Newark International Airport, New Jersey Turnpike, Amtrak's Northeast corridor). This intense development is squeezed into a relatively small state along with some impressive natural areas including the Pinelands, the Meadowlands, the Delaware Water Gap, and the Highlands.

Since at least to the 1950s, NGOs have responded to these conflicts that form at the convergence of the agricultural land, natural areas, and urban development. The tension between these broad categories of land use has caused both the destruction of irreplaceable resources and exciting living conditions for residents, and has contributed to the increased role of NGOs as purveyors of these solutions. As previously discussed (Tulloch 2002), this conflict-filled situation contributed to an environment in which NGOs became empowered as crucial PPGIS conduits.

A Changing Landscape

We became interested in revisiting the ideas first raised in 1998 (Tulloch) because of several changes that were impacting the non-profits in New Jersey.  Overall, there were some notable changes in data availability through new technologies including an increase in simple downloadable data (in contrast to the CDs that were prevalent previously) and the potential for online GIS through applications like ArcIMS.  The state of New Jersey promoted a new state clearinghouse (http://njgeodata.state.nj.us/) and the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) developed its own Environmental Data Exchange (ENDEX).  It seemed likely that the increase in Internet exchanges and displays of data would alter participation.

Governor Whitman created an Office of GIS and a GIS Council (through Executive order #122) to improve coordination of GIS in state government and promote its use throughout the state.  Previously, the support for programs (like the non-profit ArcView licenses) came through the DEP’s Bureau of Geographic Information and Analysis.  These licenses and the DEP’s data production and dissemination efforts were both at the center of the previous study (Tulloch 1998, 2002).  This change was seen has having significant potential to impact the non-profit community.

            Finally, much of the original study emphasized the role of the New Jersey Non-profit GIS Community (NGC) as a means for overcoming a variety of barriers to participation.  Funding for the NGC ended and left them seeking new ways to move the community forward.  Recently, the organization has been replaced by two new parallel units of existing non-profits: The GIS Center at Upper Raritan and The GIS Center at Stony Brook.  However, as yet, neither has received the substantial funding required for supporting community meetings or providing significant amounts of technical support for former members of the NGC.  As with most change, this is still a very dynamic situation, but we were interested in seeking information about how NGOs had managed while these organizations were being transformed.

NJ NGOs NOW: 2002 USE OF GIS

Methodology

We identified GIS users through their participation the NGC. We interviewed key personnel in these organizations about the extent and nature of their use of technologies, including: resource commitment; data acquisition, development and distribution; projected outcomes; and their perceived barriers to optimum system effectiveness. In some cases, we had brief telephone conversations with individuals whose organizations were not active GIS users. From the interviews, we identified organizational and inter-organizational issues and dynamics that positively and negatively affect technology development, data sharing, and outcomes within the New Jersey environmental NGO community.

Table 1: Organizations contacted for this study

Association of New Jersey Environmental Commissions (ANJEC)

Great Swamp Watershed Association

Heritage Conservancy

Hunterdon Land Trust Alliance

Isles

Morris Land Conservancy

New Jersey Conservation Foundation (NJCF)

Passaic River Coalition

Regional Planning Partnership

South Branch Watershed Association

Stony Brook-Millbrook Watershed Association

The Delaware Raritan Greenway

The Nature Conservancy (TNC)

Upper Raritan Watershed Association

Different decisions/different ways

New Jersey environmental NGOs participate in decision making processes in a variety of ways. Organizations sometimes take the role of advocate, attempting to influence land use decisions; and sometimes take the role of consultant, providing agencies with GIS services and data. We can place the decision making processes into three broad categories: municipal land use decisions; statewide environmental policy decisions; and state agency land acquisition decisions.

Municipal Land Use Decisions -At the municipal level, NGO’s use GIS technologies to map parcels and open space, work to strengthen land use and zoning laws, develop neighborhood projects, conduct build-out analyses, correlate land use with water quality and health data with pollution data. In many cases, they attend municipal planning board meetings with better information (particularly map products) than the planning board or developers.

Statewide environmental policy decisions – NGOs are using GIS to influence state regulatory policies. Several NGOs position themselves as advocacy groups using their information and systems to illustrate policy-related concerns and employing them in an attempt to improve state-level regulation of issues like wetlands and smart growth.

State agency land acquisition – A few of New Jersey’s NGOs have used their GIS-empowered status to aid (or oppose) state agencies in the development of land acquisition strategies. New Jersey passed a referendum directing the state to engage in a rather overwhelming task of preserving 1,000,000 acres of open space over a 10 year period. A few NGOs in New Jersey have used their technological sophistication to enter the discussions of what lands should be preserved.

Access

A recurring theme throughout the research was access to data. While New Jersey has some notable data access policies (Tulloch 2002), many NGOs complained that the data they needed were not readily available. While some data simply do not exist, others are tightly held by agencies that are less interested in sharing their data. The data that are available shape the ways that organizations participate in decisions.

Some datasets were clearly used more frequently than others. The most commonly mentioned are listed here. New Jersey NGOs acquire data from CDs and downloads from New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), New Jersey Geologic Survey (NJGS), and the Center for Remote Sensing and Spatial Analysis (CRSSA). These data include a broad array of data about the physical landscape including natural features, terrain, land use/land cover, soils, roads, aquifers, regional datasets (like the Highlands and Pinelands) and project-specific data. Organizations with national or regional resources also take advantages of private data sources such as IKONOS.

Although it is not fully explored in this paper, it is important to note the relationship between data access and participation in GIS-informed decisions. While it is often assumed that “no access” means “no participation,” we have argued for a different understanding of the relationship (Tulloch and Shapiro 2002). Clearly the relationship is often more complex than the simple assumption suggests. Still, it was not hard to find examples where the level of participation by NGOs did appear to be limited by a lack of access.

Barriers

Barriers to more efficient use of GIS include: Budget constraints; technical issues; and access to relevant data. Most organizations expressed a desire to expand GIS capabilities given more money, personnel and time. While some organizations are interested in GIS capabilities, hence their membership in the NGC, they have insufficient knowledge and training to institute GIS, let alone access data. A few of these NGOs depend on larger organizations to obtain and map data. Others simply don’t have the resources to commit to establishing a GIS. Others still don’t find GIS cost effective for their purposes.

A major barrier to efficient GIS production is the resistance or inability of government agencies to supply data. These data remain unavailable for the following reasons:

Suppliers unable to supply data because data is non-existent

Self-explanatory – i.e. certain municipalities do not have the ability to acquire or generate data.

Suppliers unwilling to supply data because data is “not ready to share”

Agencies are unwilling to release data that is not “perfect” or use as an excuse not to share, if NGO project is controversial for example. One county was named quite often because they had developed a reputation for not wanting to release a heavily-desired dataset.

Suppliers unwilling to supply data because data is sensitive -- Some data is sensitive and not meant for public distribution, such as heritage data or disease data.

Suppliers unwilling to supply data because they want to profit from data -- Agency or municipality has spent money to acquire and produce data and want to recoup costs or profit from data.

MOVING FORWARD

Over the course of the interview process, NGOs consistently mentioned a variety of things that would help them in their desire to participate in public decisions about the environment. Two categories emerged as a regular “requests”:

1) more and better data, and

2) increased connectivity of user.

Data Wish List – With an amazing consistency, New Jersey’s NGOs identified one single dataset as the one the wanted the most: a digital parcel map. Most were more specific saying that they sought a statewide parcel coverage, updated regularly, that included fairly robust details about ownership. Some of this awareness can be credited to a late-1990s push by the state mapping advisory committee to promote parcel mapping (Parrish 1998). But a significant basis of the interest comes in a recognition that the decisions being made are often made at the parcel-level, and comparable data is required if these organizations are to truly participate in the decision making processes. Several of the other datasets mentioned more frequently were related to parcels: zoning, preserved farmland, known open space, public lands.

These groups also felt that they would be able to participate better if they had better and more data about the physical landscape. Many expressed an interest in a finer resolution DEM (perhaps 5m), updates of the DEP’s Landscape Project (identifying habitat of key non-game species), and improved data describing the Pinelands. An interesting request came, not in the content of the data, but in the format. NGOs were interested in seeing more “Arc-readable data” since very few have software capable of any significant translation or transformation.

Relationships among users – The other common wish expressed by the organizations was that they would like to see a return to the tight connectivity of the NGO community. Specifically, a number of groups expressed a strong regret at losing the NGC and an interest in seeing the relationships that emerged from that rebuilt. The NGC provided a forum in which users could get to know each other, learn about available data, and share technical expertise. Some of the relationships established in the meetings have developed so that individuals feel comfortable calling each other for assistance when necessary. Every person we interviewed expressed a desire for the reestablishment of this type of forum.

The ongoing success of GIS integration and development in the non-profit sector is also dependent upon relationships between individuals across various organizations. There are two or three key individuals who act as de facto mentors to other users, providing technical support, occasional equipment use, and data access. Additionally some organizations have developed programs and received funding as part of their mission, to assist smaller organizations in the development of their GIS. Unless data is sensitive, or explicitly restricted, (such as heritage data, disease data, etc.) the organizations we visited had an informal policy of data sharing, with appropriate caveats (i.e. not for public distribution, liability statements, etc), with other non-profit organizations.

FINAL THOUGHTS

As New Jersey’s NGOs continue to work in this dynamic environment, the challenges of maintaining their past traditions of participation require continued effort and support. The emergence of the GIS Center(s) is promising, as it has the potential to renew relationships and produce a lasting network for support and data sharing. But lasting participation really relies on a significant level of support from decision makers who allow it to occur. Better data access and more inviting environments for participation are clear steps that should be encouraged.

REFERENCES

Mansnerus, Laura. 1998. "Home Rule: A History of Defeat," New York Times, New Jersey Section (September 27), p. 8.

Parrish, K. (ed.) 1999. Digital Parcel Mapping Handbook: Standards and Strategies for New Jerseys Parcel Mapping Communities, Chicago, IL, Urban and Regional Information Systems Association.

Tulloch, D. 2002. "Environmental NGOs: Community Access to Technology as a Force for Change," chapter 14 in Community Empowerment, Public Participation and Geographic Information Science. W. Craig, T. Harris, and D. Weiner (Eds.). Taylor and Francis: London.

Tulloch, D. L. 1998. "Environmental NGOs: Community Access to Technology as a Force for Change," Workshop Paper for National Center for Geographic Information Analysis Specialist Meeting on Empowerment, Marginalization, and Public Participation GIS.

Tulloch, D., and T. Shapiro, 2002. "The Intersection of Data Access and Public Participation: Impacting GIS Users' Success?" URISA Journal (Under Review at http://www.urisa.org/Journal/Under_Review/3tulloch/the_intersection_of_data_access.htm).

Available online at: http://deathstar.rutgers.edu/people/dtulloch/ppgis/