Decision Making GIS Software for President.

One crazy thing I found yesterday was the entire field of "MCDA-GIS" – Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis GIS. Woah. That’s crazy. They have algorithms that do this? I can’t help but have a flash of my architect friend who, with a look of fear in his eyes said “You are going to take over the jobs of all these great designers… with computers?” Not only is he afraid of the job loss, but the repercussions of computers making truly impactful decisions for us.

Algorithms that design cities? Now that sounds scary! 

Malczewski, Jacek, and Claus Rinner. 2015. “Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Geographic Information Science.” In Analysis Methods, 331.

This is especially scary for many designers who approach the world through a "creative-human-sticky-complex-organic" process. It sounds  like some sort of scene from the Matrix...what could possibly go wrong? But the secret's out, and I am actually excited about it. It’s not that I am a megalomaniac hell-bent on world domination through digital GIS… (though it does sound like a good plot twist)…It’s just that I can see how this type of thing would be so darn useful… AND particularly useful in a participatory process. 

In my experience the trickiest parts of a participatory process is having a bunch of people come to your meeting (some of them keen to help, the other half keen to yell at everyone)… and you try to figure out some sort of way that they can contribute. Usually, they discuss, share ideas, maybe we write it down, maybe we have break-out groups, that’s all good. But about three quarters of the way through a meeting the frustration starts to set in. People have given up their time and poured out the knowledge, but the opposing ideas and the conflicting viewpoints start to make the whole thing feel futile. Feeling futile is the last thing anyone needs. That hopelessness and giving-up can single-handedly destroy a participatory process. 

To remedy this, the public should be seen (and used) as problem solvers. In my experience, the people I talk to about a project and who want to come out to participate are people of capacity. Also in my experience, those who come with a chip on their shoulder and those who are used to complaining as a mode of interaction, typically transform when they are given tools to solve problems. If instead of soapboxes, people are encouraged to THINK, this can change the dynamic of a meeting. It can also mean that complainers and those who don’t like to actually do anything useful will probably leave. But then that's not a bad thing anyways. Most people are not used to being active agents in the creation of their environment. They are treated like walking opinions and so they just spout out opinions. 

For people to be able to problem solve, they need information, and tools. That is where I think simultaneous decision-making GIS software can be useful. As far as I can see this software still requires input. It needs you to give all the opinions and options and criteria. You also need to incorporate maps and spaces and all the information you can. If part of the number crunching can happen then and there and people can see what the results of their contributions are, it can lead to more informed discussion, it can reduce the options down to a couple viable ones that people can choose between. Helping people see some clarity in the muck will go a long way in encouraging participatory processes. I think it will also give groups a clearer vision of how their contributions actually lead to a result. The key is that the process is transparent and one can see how minor choices are affecting the whole.

Smith, Duncan. 2016. “Online Interactive Thematic Mapping: Applications and Techniques for Socio-Economic Research.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 57: 106–17.