Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
organization intentionally limits the distribution of water information, the effort
of each organization is often constrained by financial resources, time, and space.
This is compounded by similar restraints across the spectrum of water information
providers.
Results reiterate the profound influence mapping choices can have over results.
With the exception of high water information availability for renters in the East
Valley, there is variation in the direction and significance of all variables for each set
of models. Across maps, the City of Phoenix appears to exhibit the most variability
in assignment of high or low exposure to water information (Fig.
3.5
). This likely
reflects the influence choices in mapping has over results and is related to the higher
population density in urban core areas. In census block and zip code representations,
the impact of programs in these areas applies to a very limited geographical region,
whereas in the buffer distance maps, a larger area of influence is possible. Another
striking difference is the inconsistency between the count-based and economic
proxy maps constructed using the buffer distance. The economic proxy affords a
much different scenario for the distribution of water information programming
effort. Small, relatively “low-value” water information efforts receive less weight.
These tend to be either ephemeral (a booth at an event or a banner on Main Street) or
centers that host pamphlets from multiple water information campaigns. The higher
concentration of effort by water information providers in central Phoenix and the
East Valley is evident in the maps.
Without further analysis, it is difficult to interpret the meaning of higher rates of
education provision in census blocks with large renter, and/or Latino populations.
It could be that water information providers see these people as most vulnerable to
water scarcity and water quality problems. Combining spatial methods with other
types of data can elucidate these differences and lead to deeper consideration of
ways in which spatial and other differences my interact. Even in areas where water
information providers exert a lot of effort to reach the public, motivational and
topical mismatches may limit the accessibility of this information. Organizations
may, for example, rely heavily on information frames that rely on egoistic
motivations when particular populations are more likely to respond to biocentric
or altruistic prompts (Johnson and Macy
2001
). Information campaigns might focus
on conservation technology when water quality information may be the topic most
likely to engage people in discussions about the complexity and interconnectedness
of local water systems. Unavailable or inaccessible material could, in turn, reduce
the capacity of some residents to advocate for their interests in local water supply,
quality, and uses.
PGIS involving water providers in metropolitan Phoenix informs a fundamental
question about how information is provided to the public across multiple
organizations. Analyzing public information as the product of many separate efforts
is challenging because there are wide disparities in record keeping across
organizations. Using participatory mechanisms to account for these differences in
a way that is viewed as fair by participants is one way to work around a perceived
lack of data. By arguing that public information as a component of recognizing
particular audiences as well as a source of education, this chapter points out new
