Utility assessment of a map-based online geo-collaboration tool.

Spatial group decision-making processes often include both informal and analytical components. Discussions among stakeholders or planning experts are an example of an informal component. When participants discuss spatial planning projects they typically express concerns and comments by pointing to places on a map. The Argumentation Map model provides a conceptual basis for collaborative tools that enable explicit linkages of arguments to the places to which they refer. These tools allow for the input of explicitly geo-referenced arguments as well as the visual access to arguments through a map interface. In this paper, we will review previous utility studies in geo-collaboration and evaluate a case study of a Web-based Argumentation Map application. The case study was conducted in the summer of 2005 when student participants discussed planning issues on the University of Toronto St. George campus. During a one-week unmoderated discussion phase, 11 participants wrote 60 comments on issues such as safety, facilities, parking, and building aesthetics. By measuring the participants' use of geographic references, we draw conclusions on how well the software tool supported the potential of the underlying concept. This research aims to contribute to a scientific approach to geo-collaboration in which the engineering of novel spatial decision support methods is complemented by a critical assessment of their utility in controlled, realistic experiments.

[1]  I. Masser,et al.  Diffusion and Use of Geographic Information Technologies , 1993 .

[2]  Shivanand Balram,et al.  Collaborative geographic information systems , 2006 .

[3]  Claus Rinner,et al.  Argumentation Maps: GIS-Based Discussion Support for On-Line Planning , 2001 .

[4]  Piotr Jankowski,et al.  Toward a Framework for Research on Geographic Information-Supported Participatory Decision-Making , 2003 .

[5]  Mordechai Haklay,et al.  The Potential of Public Participation Geographic Information Systems in UK Environmental Planning: Appraisals by Active Publics , 2002 .

[6]  Paul S. Goodman,et al.  Implementation of New Information Technology , 1993 .

[7]  E. Sheppard,et al.  MODELS FOR MAKING GIS AVAILABLE TO COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS: DIMENSIONS OF DIFFERENCE AND APPROPRIATENESS , 2002 .

[8]  Claus Rinner,et al.  An argumentation map prototype to support decision-making in spatial planning , 2005 .

[9]  Piotr Jankowski,et al.  GIS-Supported Collaborative Decision Making: Results of an Experiment , 2001 .

[10]  Daniel Weiner,et al.  Community participation and geographic information systems. , 2002 .

[11]  Dfl Dorling,et al.  Geographic Information Research: Bridging the Atlantic , 1996 .

[12]  Harlan J. Onsrud,et al.  Diffusion and Use of Geographic Information Technologies: An Introduction , 1993 .

[13]  T. Webler,et al.  Fairness and competence in citizen participation : evaluating models for environmental discourse , 1995 .

[14]  Pablo Coto-Millán,et al.  Utility and Production: Theory and Applications , 1999 .

[15]  Claus Rinner,et al.  Analyzing the Usability of an Argumentation Map as a Participatory Spatial Decision Support Tool , 2007 .

[16]  C. Rinner.  Argumentation Mapping in Collaborative Spatial Decision Making , 2006 .

[17]  R. Kingston.  Web-based PPGIS in the United Kingdom , 2002 .

[18]  Laxmi Ramasubramanian,et al.  GIS Implementation in Developing Countries: Learning from Organisational Theory and Reflective Practice , 1999, Trans. GIS.