Mapping for Local and Central Government
A map is just a map! ... or is it? Local and central government are increasingly using maps produced digitally with geographical information systems (GIS). Such technology is being talked about in high places. For example "Mapping brings together the pieces of the jigsaw held by the individual agencies so that the whole picture is revealed. Partnerships can then focus on the real issues affecting the reduction of crime and disorder in their local area" (Home Secretary, the Rt. Hon. Jack Straw, 2000)
Consider the following map:	It shows the DETR overall Index of Multiple Deprivation 2000 for wards in London. It is an informative map and, later on, we can see how to make it even more informative. (click it to see an enlargement)
Data Collection & Integration: growing standardisation To make such a map of course requires the collection and integration of data. Previous indexes of deprivation (e.g. Townsend, 1991ILC, 1998ILD) relied almost exclusively on census data at ward and ED level and could thus be obtained from a single agency. This new index requires data to be sourced and integrated from DFEE, DSS, NHS, ONS, UCAS, GPO Counters and others. Collecting and integrating digital data sets from a large number of agencies, even at the local level, used to be (and in some aspects continues to be) problematic. A few years ago, it was almost unthinkable. Today there are initiatives to ease up data availability and integration. BS7666, NSG, NLUD, NLPG, NLIS and NGDF will all make available standardised data vital to the work of local and central government. Many government officers believe that once standardised data are on-line, they will have the necessary information to support their work. Well, ... yes ... and no! Standardised data are just that - standardised data. Valuable though they are, they need to be analysed and turned into relevant and actionable information.
Analysing Data: the creation of information The DETR deprivation map discussed early is informative but it started off as data. First of all, there needed to be a decision about which variables could best represent the many aspects of deprivation. Some variables, such as the number of homeless households, will be direct measures of deprivation; others may be proxies. It is important to ensure that the variables separately (rather than repeatedly) measure different aspects of deprivation and that using several sources of data do not result in double counting. In order to create a single understandable index from a range of variables, they have to be standardised to a common metric and then transformed to a common distribution. Finally, variables are weighted and then summed. Proper analysis and handling of data are essential in providing good information. This information needs to be visualised and communicated within a team, within a partnership, with the public. And so we come back to the map. Making Maps: effective communication Visualising information as maps can be very easy. Just click an icon, choose some default settings and hey presto! Default settings can lead to misleading maps. Consider the following two maps: same data but different story.       (Click them to see an enlargement) One tells a story of contrasts, the other of similarities. You may want to manipulate your map to get your point of view across, but what is equitable communication of the facts. Lets try again:       (Click them to see an enlargement) The map on the left shows deprivation normalised for London. Shades of red show areas with above median deprivation for London, shades of green for below median deprivation. White is for at or about the median. Any extremes in either direction are clearly visible on an objective, unbiased map. The map on the right shows deprivation normalised for England and Wales. It uses the same colour scheme. The map on the left shows a regional context, the one on the right a national context. These two maps now tell a very interesting story, one worth studying. Maps: Joined-up thinking in pictures
Joined-up thinking and e-government are central pillars of government policy. The two go hand in hand. At the heart of joined-up thinking is the recognition that in solving problems effectively you have to tackle the causes. A problem may have a number of causes, a single cause may contribute to several problems. Solving a problem is therefore unlikely to fall within the domain of a single authority or agency but cutting across them, each having a part to play. Imperative for joined-up thinking is, of course, joined-up data and what better manifestation of joined-up data in a joined-up world than the map!
	E-government is at the heart of empowering individuals, organisations and agencies so that they can work in partnership. Targets are for 25% of services to be delivered electronically by 2002, 100% by 2005. The implication of this are revolutionary. Customer citizens will be able to decide when, where and in what medium to access services and information. They will also expect services tailored to their circumstances and agencies will be able to be responsive. But perhaps most importantly, it is very likely that a citizens needs for services and information will trascend administrative boundaries and government will need to be joined-up horizontally, vertically and spatially.
Map Analysis: the glue for partnerships (and funding!) These days its no longer sufficient to identify issues or problems that require funding at the District level. The focus has to be at neighbourhood, where in the District the problem manifests itself and what is the geography of the causes. Maps are the only sure way of doing this. Working in partnership is now a must - health, education, planning, crime reduction, neighbourhood renewal. But working in partnerships is not always straightferd - they need some glue. They need to have a common information base on which to build joint policies for the partnership that result in joint action on the causes of problems - joint action that is neighbourhood focused. So the real glue to partnerships is map analysis (or spatial analysis) - turning that standardised data into actionable information, a clear understanding of the issues. This diagram shows the process. The map analysis is not just using GIS but with range of associated tools together (e.g. spreadsheet, statistical package). The analysis goes beyond single variable, thematic maps and involves clustering, building indexes, establishing context, testing correlations and constructing models. This is powerful glue proven again and again worldwide wherever it is used. But despite its strength it does have one weakness. Map analysis requires special skills, skills in spatial data analysis and GI Science not so easily found on the marketplace. The Data Protection Act So where map analysis skills that can't be found in-house, they will have to be contracted in. But what about the data? Does the Data Protection Act allow data to be passed to a contractor? Yes it does. Under the Act, a contracted spatial analyst is a 'data processor' who processes the data on behalf of the 'data controller' and although there is no requirement to notify, the 'data processor' must uphold all principles of the Act and ensure the security of the data whilst in their possession. At Terra Cognita, we have finger-print activated computers with full encryption to a standard where we can process classified data. A map is just a map? It's more than that, isn't it! Good maps are a sure sign that you have got it all together, are on top of the issues and ready to make decisions with confidence. Terra Cognita, your help in understanding joined-up neighbourhoods, helping partnerships work.
| Home |