John Sydenstricker-Neto

Participatory spatial knowledge management tools: empowerment and upscaling or exclusion?

Different types of spatial knowledge (expert, sectoral, tacit and community) are strategic resources in urban planning and management. Participatory spatial knowledge management is a major method for eliciting various types of knowledge, providing a platform for knowledge integration and informing local action and public policy. Knowledge types linked to a specific geographical locality can be integrated through geographical information systems. Recent developments in geographical information and communication technology (geoICT) have extended the opportunities for participatory spatial knowledge production, use and exchange. However, data reliability of user-generated content, social exclusion due to dependence on technology and the interpretation and implications of digital maps are major concerns. The challenge is how to integrate and utilize multiple knowledge sources for improving urban management and governance. This paper integrates the literature on knowledge types and knowledge production processes with available geoICT tools for the production, use and exchange of knowledge sources and applies it to examples from Asia, Africa and Latin America. From this review, we provide a heuristic framework for assessing the extent to which participatory spatial knowledge management tools can be instrumental on several fronts. We argue that technological developments of knowledge production have not fully addressed important issues related to accountability, empowerment, control and use of knowledge. Moreover, these developments may foster social exclusion, which could detract from the benefits of participatory spatial knowledge management in the context of urban sustainability.

Decentralization, participation and deliberation in water governance: a case study of the implications for Guarulhos, Brazil

After the return to democracy in the late 1980s, Brazil developed a new system of water governance with a decentralization of responsibilities and the formation of participatory, deliberative institutions that characterized the governance reforms in general. Tripartite “water basin committees”, with an equal representation of state, municipal and civil society actors, are now responsible for water resource management in each basin and for decisions that affect urban water governance. However, state representatives come from entities established long before the reforms, raising the question of whether the new participatory bodies can change water management practices. This paper suggests that despite the process of transition in water governance, the underlying power inequalities have not been addressed and major decisions are still being taken outside the new deliberative bodies. Technocratic government actors maintain a claim on authority through their economic superiority and their use of expert knowledge, ultimately inhibiting the influence of other actors.

Scenario Building as a Process and Tool in Urban Governance

Scenario building and related analysis is useful in several fields, ranging from military and business planning to its more recent applications in addressing global challenges such as climate change or economic crises. This chapter provides an overview of scenario building in urban governance. It introduces a corporate case (Shell) and then uses case studies on water and climate governance from the global South, specifically Lima (Peru), Guarulhos (Brazil), Durban (South Africa) and Dwarka (India) to illustrate the process of scenario building in practice. These case studies highlight the potential and challenges of scenario building as a process and tool in urban governance in fast-growing cities in emerging economies. The analysis reveals that the scenario-building process can be as important as its outcome, because the different perspectives of the participating actors, their understanding of the local context and mutual learning gained on the topic may influence their future plans and course of action. The socio-economic and political contexts of the cities under study play a significant role in shaping water governance issues, now and in the future.