TÉCNICA DE ANÁLISIS

Literacy and other communication biases

The topic o f potential biases in access was dominated by discussion about literacy and communication constraints, which in turn was dominated by the issue o f how to present the DSS output to villagers with limited traditional, computer or scientific literacy. For example, the DSS leader commented that:

“We are going to use [the DSS] in a forum for debating, so it should be a map and some sort of presentation so that everybody can understand the result without being literate. And we need some sort of academic report for officials as well, but I don’t think that will be a major concern. But the way the resuit will be presented to uneducated villagers is the major thing... Earlier, I thought we would try to have as many people as possible access the [computer] system - but then I decided it wouldn’t work - the information is too complicated. So, instead, we should have a trustworthy organisation that would provide the information to the forum.”

Thus, the DSS leader had identified (il)literacy as a key factor constraining access to the information output o f the DSS. It may be inferred that the DSS leader has distinguished equal access, whereby everyone would be provided access to the computer system, from equitable access, whereby everyone would be entitled to receive and understand the information output o f the DSS. To manage literacy constraints, he proposes that the information output o f the DSS be communicated to the stakeholder debating forum via an unspecified trustworthy organisation. Thus, limits to transparency (because the information is perceived as too complicated for villagers to understand) are dealt with through enhancing trust.

The DSS leader went on to explain that concerns about this issue had prompted him to ask a building and design architect friend for advice on how the DSS output could be presented in different ways:

“That is the main reason that I try to employ my architect friend - he says that there are many ways you can present information to different levels of people - executives, politicians, scientists, villagers. Everyone will need different levels of presentation. Firstly, if the target is illiterate, how do we present the information. Secondly, if the target is very educated but from different fields, for example, businessman, scientist - how do we present output?”

This implies that the DSS leader construed that different policy communities would be familiar with different modes o f presentation o f information. Thus, biases in access would not be limited to the illiteracy o f villagers, and a communication strategy would

be required to enable the project to provide each policy community with information in an appropriate form.

The anthropologist also highlighted the need for different communication media to suit different stakeholders:

“The main objective is to communicate - need to have many ways to communicate. For villagers who don’t use computers and fmd it hard to read, topographic models are useful to explain things - better than computers. For the academic, computers are OK. Posters to explain the way for land use or models to explain the way to control land use is OK for some villages... The information from the village level needs to be the same as the information that the academics have so they talk the same language - but the instruments of communication should be different... We have to accept that many stakeholders have different education and need different ways to communicate. In my office, we have the same problem - I can use MAPINFO, another person cannot use it and it is difficult to communicate”.

In addition to conventional literacy constraints, the anthropologist raised the issue o f how science could be communicated to villagers with limited scientific literacy:

“Indirect users have difficulty with computer, scientific literacy. When they construct policy, the policymakers refer to scientific information - the biophysical data on the water - the villagers don’t understand how it changes, why it happened. For example, the policymakers blame the villagers slash and bum for sending carbon dioxide into the air for greenhouse. The villagers don’t understand how this happens. So, I think it may be difficult to communicate science to the villagers. I have a question - can we construct science that is easy to understand - possible or impossible?”

Like the anthropologist, the GIS researcher supported the use of topographic models and posters to communicate with villagers, as well as digital and analog products from the DSS for the other users. Similarly, the biophysical leader commented that “I think it should be presented graphically because for the stakeholders, people who can’t read or write very well, the graphic view will be easier to understand. And it should be in table form for researchers”.

In relation to the need to communicate assumptions and uncertainties, the biophysical leader recognised the limitations o f the DSS in terms o f accuracy o f both analyses and predictions o f impacts, and suggested that this needed to be communicated to users (who he had framed as government officers and researchers). However, he felt that communicating assumptions and uncertainties to stakeholders (who he construed as villagers) would be difficult:

“We have to tell them that this is a mathematical model - it can’t give you 100% success. The users can understand but for the stakeholders it is more difficult. But I think if you show the stakeholders fancy graphic output, they won’t question it. I think the farmers in Thailand are trained to believe that if you do a lot of study and if you have good communication with them, they tend to believe more what the government tells them and what the academic tells them than do more educated people”.

Note that this researcher does not consider the possibility o f alternate modes o f communication o f the DSS output which might lead to deeper understanding by the stakeholders. Instead, he presupposes the imposition o f a system suited to the educated

users onto the uneducated stakeholders. This quote suggests that it is preferable if villagers do not question the output of the system, and that ‘fancy graphic output’ will ensure compliance. Indeed, the perceived ignorance and naivety of villagers are viewed as means to overcome embedded bias.

In contrast, the economist suggested that a human intermediary may be useful to communicate uncertainties and assumptions associated with the DSS to villagers:

“We might need say extension workers to advise them. And if they change the policy, we need some extension worker to educate them - or even better, maybe some educated village leader or someone else in the village - that would be better than the external person. I really want them to be educated somehow - that would be good for the village.”

Note that a hope has been articulated for future empowerment of villagers, and that empowerment has been linked to the villagers receiving education about the DSS output.

With regard to the literacy constraints of other users, such as policymakers, the biophysical leader, the GIS researcher and the economist all emphasised that the DSS should be in Thai. As the biophysical leader explained:

“I think in the beginning the system can be in English, but in the long run, you have to have the Thai version because people are getting used to, for example, the Microsoft Thai version - they get used to that. And its good for reports - they have to submit reports in Thai.”

The anthropologist suggested that to assist policymakers to comprehend the information output of the DSS, the output should have both tabulated, quantitative and descriptive, qualitative components:

“The information - in the past, the policymakers usually use database - many, many tables; many, many numbered records. The table records are sometimes misinterpreted if they don’t have a description under the table. So should have both data and description. For example, soil erosion - if we read information from the table, we have the number o f soil loss, sedimentation and know the cost o f soil loss and sedimentation. We usually assume soil loss come from shifting cultivation, agriculture. If we explain as description, the activities o f the stakeholders who do soil loss on some catchment and the historical record o f soil loss and their activities - this description is useful for decisions.”

This implies that the anthropologist has observed or experienced problems when policymakers rely solely on tabulated, quantitative information. It may be inferred that incorrect assumptions are made about the quantitative information, and that the

inclusion of qualitative descriptions is seen as a means of managing this absence or distortion in knowledge.

Biases in geographical access

The biophysical leader felt that geographic access was unlikely to present a problem to potential users since “if the user knows we have it they will come and find it”. In contrast, the anthropologist suggested that geographical access may prove a significant constraint and thus the geographic location of the system should be flexible. Reasoning that geographical access may pose difficulties for remote users, the GIS researcher suggested that the DSS package should be accessible at a range of locations,:

“I f you want the villagers to use the D S S - they d o n ’t want to travel a long w ay to use the D S S . Even i f the system is in on e place in Chiang Mai - other p eop le in Chiang M ai m ay have problem - w e have to think about tim e dim ension too - they m ay be too busy to g o to another o ffic e ” .

The DSS leader also felt that highland villagers may have difficulty accessing the information output of the DSS because of the geographical location of the DSS. However, he felt that:

“V illa g er a ccessib ility to D SS inform ation is not crucial. For exam ple, so il map, g eo lo g ic map they w o n ’t m ind or even be interested in. What they are interested in is governm ent p o licy im posed on their resource and the developm ent schem e. A nd I think that inform ation can be distributed in m any w ays... W e are dealing w ith p eop le in rem ote areas. It w ill be the jo b o f the p eop le w ho organise the forum to take out the inform ation to

th ose p eop le and bring back their preferences to the direct user” .

Note the initial assumption that villagers would not be interested in the information output of the DSS, only the (second-hand) implications of the analyses for their resource use and development. None-the-less, he views geographical access as a problem that may be surmounted via human intermediaries.

Biases in financial access

The anthropologist felt that both government and other stakeholders should bear the costs of establishing and maintaining the DSS. However, the biophysical leader and GIS researcher both felt that requiring users to contribute to the financial cost of the system would be prohibitive43. As the biophysical leader commented, “ I don’t think they would pay to use it - it would have to be free”. The GIS researcher suggested that to minimise costs it would be necessary for the DSS to be PC-based rather than UNIX- based.

To overcome financial access constraints, the project manager suggested that use of the DSS should be free to all stakeholders except business:

“I think w e should giv e it free o f charge so everyon e can use. But i f a com pany com es, m aybe they should be charged. T he ow ners should be the R oyal Project and the A .N .U . In the North-East part, there is som e area in the highlands w h ich is a plateau. Som e places is not reserve b ecause its not h illy and m ountainous, but is flat land. But sam e conditions as Northern highlands. So m aybe the com panies w ou ld want to have this k n o w led g e o f the D S S . I f so, they should pay becau se they m ake profit”.

Note that the DSS has been framed as a transferable tool, a function often emphasised during the Australian application but only mentioned in this instance during the Thai application.

The DSS leader stated that he was certain that indirect users, such as villagers, would not have to pay, thus financial access would not pose difficulties to them accessing the information output of the DSS. However, he also felt that potential direct users may

43 When reviewing this narrative, six months after the interviews had taken place, and with the Thai economic crisis deepening, the GIS researcher commented that she now advocated requesting a service charge from rich users such as private companies and foreign research organisations, rather than providing free access for all.

face difficulties because o f the financial cost o f the system, particularly given Thailand’s economic crisis:

“Probably, the financial cost because we had an economic drawback now - last year I would have said ‘no’. Right now, every agency in Thailand has financial difficulty, so whoever will be the user will face some difficulty [maintaining the system]...”.

Biases and political participation

W ithin a framing o f the DSS as an expert arbiter, the DSS leader suggested that stakeholders’ participation would be enhanced because they would be more informed:

“Their participation should be greater than now because, right now, they debate on something that they don’t know for sure if it is right or wrong - they just imagine. If they have a scientific case, they will have something that will back them up in the negotiation process. [Now] everyone can contradict everyone else because there is no scientific information that will back anyone up”.

The inference is that conflicts are currently difficult to resolve equitably because o f a lack o f clarity regarding the validity o f the different arguments. Equity is thus linked to authority and credibility in negotiation.

The DSS leader also foresaw the potential for the introduction o f the DSS to decrease the participation o f stakeholders whose preferences were not supported by the DSS:

In the past, there are a few groups who focus on short term benefits from exploitation - 1 expect their participation will decrease because surely they will lose their benefits in the process because now we are focusing on sustainability.

The preceding quote implies that sustainability has not been pivotal in existing decision­ making processes, and that the introduction o f the DSS will raise sustainability to the fore.

Taking a delegated power and citizen control stance on participation, the anthropologist argued that:

If the concept of DSS is wide and covers mechanisms and information, it will increase participation because it will decentralise access to information and access to construct policymaking. If the concept of DSS is just software, just for policymakers, it will decrease participation of the people who cannot use the software.

Note in the preceding quote how different modes o f construing the DSS have been linked to different implications for participation.

When asked whether she thought the DSS might decrease the participation o f any stakeholders in environmental decision-making, the GIS researcher responded:

Maybe - because they have something to help them, so they don’t use their brain. If they don’t have DSS, they make the decision themselves. Not the villagers, I mean the headman or district officers - some of the government people, me, even. I assume the DSS will be better. So, if people are going to rely on DSS, its important to have good information in it - verified information.

In the early part of the preceding quote, the GIS researcher identifies the risk of

unreflective adherence to the technocratic solution. The latter part of the quote suggests that such a situation is acceptable if the information embodied within the DSS is

verified.