Of Intractable Conflicts and Participatory GIS Applications: The Search for Consensus amidst Competing Claims and Institutional Demands

Abstract

This article reviews the discourse about geographic information system's (GIS) potential as a tool for intervening in disputes over access to natural resources. GIS is a planning tool with striking analytical capabilities and a great public appeal that can be utilized for explicitly reasoned discussions to facilitate conflict resolution. However, the technology's reputation as an interventionist tool has been undermined by competing claims about human factors that sustain conflicts. Some scholars believe elements of a conflict are manageable and that meaningful communication between disputants will erase misconceptions and generate consensus. Others reject cooperation and instead emphasize self-interest and competition as the driving forces behind conflicts. This article investigates the two claims and argues that both the competitive push to claim independent rewards and the urge to create joint values are present in a conflict resolution. A more productive discussion of GIS's role in conflict management, therefore, involves unpacking the links between competitive forces that sustain a conflict and the social norms and group expectations that govern human behavior in society. The article discusses the links between value systems, opinions, and actions and how a GIS application might influence such human attributes to induce changes that promote cooperation. The study concludes with a case study involving the use of GIS to manage a conflict over natural resources allocation in a rural community in Southern Ghana. Key Words: conflict resolution, Participatory GIS, resource management, values and interests, Ghana.T wo theories are evident in current thinking about the role GIS plays in conciliative attempts that occur in resource management organizations. On one hand, Weber's explanation of instrumental rational behavior and interpretations of the theory dismiss cooperative moves to resolve conflicts and instead, emphasize self-interest and competition as the factors that sustain conflicts. Advocates of this viewpoint maintain that the competitive urge to claim independent rewards compels parties to adopt positions that are often difficult to reconcile. The proponents therefore argue that when information about a conflict becomes available, disputants use it to confirm their predetermined positions. On the other hand, Habermas's communication theory identifies social institutions, including norms, sanctions, and networks of social interaction as forces behind conflict resolution. The viewpoint assumes that elements of a conflict are malleable and that cooperation and meaningful communication between disputants will erase misconceptions and induce mutual agreements.Each of these theories contains a measure of truth that reflects a real aspect of the conflict-mediation process. They, therefore, provide frameworks for understanding aspects of stakeholders' behavior during a conflict. However, considered separately, the theories do not fully address all the factors that motivate groups to prolong or resolve conflicts ...

Integrating participatory GIS into spatial planning regulation: the case of Merauke District, Papua, Indonesia

“…In Southern Ghana, Kyem (2004) showed how community facilitators used PGIS to solve land use conflicts that were caused by excessive use of community resources. Human rights activists used a participatory community land use mapping approach (PLUM) to define community land rights in Africa, Asia and Latin America (Barry and Meinzen-dick 2010).…”

Identifying Misalignments between Public Participation Process and Context in Urban Development

“…When this occurs, the process and its outcomes may fail to meet participant expectations, leading to an erosion of trust. Also, when navigating the participation process requires certain competency levels, participants may be filtered out of decision making [74]. Poindexter [52] describes a public housing revitalization process in Atlanta, United States in which tenants negotiated and ratified a project proposal.…”

Uso comunitario de pequeños vehículos aéreos no tripulados (drones) en conflictos ambientales: ¿un factor innovador desequilibrante?

“…Pensamos también que la utilización de drones en situaciones de conflicto ambiental puede desempeñar un papel desequilibrante, tanto hacia su resolución como hacia su intensificación. Si bien existe un cuerpo creciente de literatura sobre procesos de mapeo y monitoreo ambiental/territorial a nivel comunitario, pocos estudios evalúan su relación con la generación o resolución de conflictos ambientales (Kwaku Kyem, 2004;Reyes-García et al, 2012 Radjawali & Pye, 2015;Suárez, 2016), pero no se evalúa en ellos la posible utilidad del dron para ayudar a resolver el conflicto.…”