SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Türkiye Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Dergisi / 2025 / Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2

Spatial data production with public participatory geographic information systems and citizen science

Halk katılımlı coğrafi bilgi sistemleri ve vatandaş bilimi ile mekânsal veri üretimi

Özge Yalçıner Ercoşkun(GAZİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0003-2734-0374
Pages
23–35
Publication Date
2025-12-26
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

As one of the first applications of PPGIS in Austrian eco-communities, this research points to the transformative potential of combining citizen science and digital mapping for sustainable spatial development.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study demonstrates how Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS) and citizen science can be effectively combined to support inclusive, community-driven mapping in response to global challenges.
📊
Key Findings & Data:By mentioning on issues of scale, usability, and representation, the study illustrates how participatory geospatial tools can empower communities and inform more democratic planning processes.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:As one of the first applications of PPGIS in Austrian eco-communities, this research points to the transformative potential of combining citizen science and digital mapping for sustainable spatial development.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Halk Katılımlı Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri (HKCBS) · Vatandaş Bilimi · Katılımcı Haritalama

Abstract

This study demonstrates how Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS) and citizen science can be effectively combined to support inclusive, community-driven mapping in response to global challenges. Using the Maptionnaire platform, spatial and non-spatial data were collected from two Austrian case studies: the Cambium eco-village and the Eggenlend neighborhood in Graz. The research highlights the methodological strengths of PPGIS in enabling citizen participation, capturing local knowledge, and visualizing community priorities through interactive digital mapping. It also underscores the role of citizen science in generating context-sensitive, high-quality spatial data from non-experts. By mentioning on issues of scale, usability, and representation, the study illustrates how participatory geospatial tools can empower communities and inform more democratic planning processes. As one of the first applications of PPGIS in Austrian eco-communities, this research points to the transformative potential of combining citizen science and digital mapping for sustainable spatial development.

Özet

Bu araştırma, Halk Katılımlı Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri (HKCBS) ile vatandaş biliminin küresel sorunlara yanıt olarak kapsayıcı, topluluk odaklı haritalama ve planlama süreçlerini desteklemek üzere nasıl etkili bir şekilde birleştirilebileceğini ortaya koymaktadır. Maptionnaire platformu kullanılarak, Avusturya’da seçilen Cambium eko-köyü ve Graz’daki Eggenlend mahallesindeki iki alan çalışmasından mekânsal ve mekânsal olmayan veriler toplanmıştır. Araştırma, HKCBS’nin vatandaş katılımını teşvik etmedeki yöntemsel gücüne; yerel bilgiyi toplama ve topluluk önceliklerini etkileşimli dijital haritalar aracılığıyla görselleştirme becerisine dikkat çekmektedir. Aynı zamanda vatandaş biliminin, uzman olmayan katılımcılar tarafından bağlamsal ve yüksek kaliteli mekânsal verilerin üretilmesindeki rolünü de vurgulamaktadır. Araştırma, ölçek, kullanılabilirlik ve temsiliyet gibi konular üzerine değinerek, katılımcı coğrafi araçların toplulukları nasıl güçlendirebileceğini ve daha demokratik planlama süreçlerine nasıl katkı sunabileceğini ortaya koymaktadır. Avusturya’daki ekolojik topluluklar bağlamında HKCBS’in ilk uygulamalarından biri olması bakımından bu araştırma, vatandaş bilimi ile dijital haritalamanın birleşiminin sürdürülebilir mekânsal gelişim için taşıdığı potansiyele işaret etmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Ercoşkun, Ö. Y. (2025). Spatial data production with public participatory geographic information systems and citizen science. Türkiye Coğrafi Bilgi Sistemleri Dergisi, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 23–35. https://doi.org/10.56130/tucbis.1747180

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (67)

  1. Arslan, E. S. (2022). Katılımcı yaklaşım ve halk katılımlı coğrafi bilgi sistemleri. Türkiye Peyzaj Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(2), 87–92. https://doi.org/10.51552/peyad.1218814
  2. Bartling, M., Resch, B., Trösterer, S., & Eitzinger, A. (2021). Evaluating PPGIS usability in a multi-national field study combining qualitative surveys and eye-tracking. Cartographic Journal, 58(2), 167–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/00087041.2020.1842143
  3. Bonney, R., Cooper, C. B., Dickinson, J., Kelling, S., Phillips, T., Rosenberg, K. V., & Shirk, J. (2009). Citizen science: A developing tool for expanding science knowledge and scientific literacy. BioScience, 59(11), 977–984. https://doi.org/10.1525/bio.2009.59.11.9
  4. Brovelli, M., Minghini, M., & Zamboni, G. (2016). Public participation in GIS via mobile applications. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 114, 306–315. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2015.04.002
  5. Brown, G. (2012). Public participation GIS (PPGIS) for regional and environmental planning: Reflections on a decade of empirical research. URISA Journal, 25(2), 7–18.
  6. Brown, G., & Kyttä, M. (2014). Key issues and research priorities for public participation GIS (PPGIS): A synthesis based on empirical research. Applied Geography, 46, 122–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.11.004
  7. Brown, G., Reed, P., & Raymond, C. M. (2020). Mapping place values: 10 lessons from two decades of public participation GIS empirical research. Applied Geography, 116, 102156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102156
  8. Brown, G., & Weber, D. (2013). A place-based approach to conservation management using public participation GIS (PPGIS). Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 56(4), 455–473. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2012.685628
  9. Brown, G., Strickland-Munro, J., Kobryn, H., & Moore, S. A. (2017). Mixed methods participatory GIS: An evaluation of the validity of qualitative and quantitative mapping methods. Applied Geography, 79, 153–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2016.12.015
  10. Brown, G., Weber, D., Zanon, D., & de Bie, K. (2012). Evaluation of an online (opt-in) panel for public participation geographic information systems surveys: International cases, Stockholm region, Sweden. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 60(8), 1366–1390. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/eds001
  11. Brown, G., Raymond, C. M., & Corcoran, J. (2015). Mapping and measuring place attachment. Applied Geography, 57, 42–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.12.011
  12. Cheung, S., Leung, Y. & Larson L. (2021). Citizen science as a tool for enhancing recreation research in protected areas: Applications and opportunities. Journal of Environmental Management, 305, 114353, 2021.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.114353
  13. Czepkiewicz, M., Jankowski, P., & Młodkowski, M. (2017). Geo-questionnaires in urban planning: Recruitment methods, participant engagement, and data quality. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 44(6), 551–557. https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2016.1230520
  14. Czepkiewicz, M., Ottelin, J., Ala-Mantila, S., Heinonen, J., Hasanzadeh, K., & Kyttä, M. (2018). Urban structural and socioeconomic effects on local, national and international travel patterns and greenhouse gas emissions of young adults. Journal of Transport Geography, 68, 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2018.02.008
  15. Denwood, T., Huck, J. J., & Lindley, S. (2022). Effective PPGIS in spatial decision-making: Reflecting participant priorities by illustrating the implications of their choices. Transactions in GIS, 26(2), 867–886. https://doi.org/10.1111/tgis.12888
  16. Depietri, Y., Ghermandi, A., Campisi-Pinto, S., & Orenstein, D. (2021). Public participation GIS versus geolocated social media data to assess urban cultural ecosystem services: Instances of complementarity. Ecosystem Services, 50, 101277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2021.101277
  17. Dunn, C. E. (2007). Participatory GIS: A people’s GIS? Progress in Human Geography, 31(5), 616–637. https://doi.org/10.1177/030913250708149
  18. Elwood, S. (2006). Critical issues in participatory GIS: Deconstructions, reconstructions, and new research directions. Transactions in GIS, 10(5), 693–708. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9671.2006.01023.x
  19. Elwood, S. (2009). Integrating participatory action research and GIS education: Negotiating methodologies, politics and technologies. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33(1), 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/03098260802276565
  20. Ercoşkun, Ö. Y., & Humer, A. (2025). From Austria to Türkiye: Guidelines for sustainable communities. Gazi University Journal of Science Part B: Art Humanities Design and Planning, 13(1), 123–136.
  21. Ercoşkun, Ö. Y., Kajosaari, A., ve Humer, A. (2025). Ecovillages and transition towns: Practices of sustainable settlements in urban and rural Austria. Land, 14(1), 192. Ecovillages and transition towns: Practices of sustainable settlements in urban and rural Austria https://doi.org/10.3390/land14010192
  22. ESRI. (2025). ArcGIS Survey123 and ArcGIS StoryMaps documentation.
  23. Fagerholm, N., Raymond, C. M., Olafsson, A. S., Brown, G., Rinne, T., Hasanzadeh, K., Broberg, A., ve Kyttä, M. (2021). A methodological framework for analysis of participatory mapping data in research, planning, and management. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 35(9), 1848–1875. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2020.1869747
  24. Garcia, X., Gottwald, S., Benages-Albert, M., Pavón, D., Ribas, A., ve Vall-Casas, P. (2020). Evaluating a web-based PPGIS for the rehabilitation of urban riparian corridors. Applied Geography, 125, 102341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2020.102341
  25. Ghose, R. (2007). Politics of scale and networks of association in public participation GIS. Environment and Planning A, 39, 1961–1980. https://doi.org/10.1068/a38247
  26. Ghose, R., & Huxhold, W. (2001). Role of local contextual factors in building public participation GIS: The Milwaukee experience. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 28(3), 195–208. https://doi.org/10.1559/152304001782153017
  27. Goodchild, M. F. (2001). Metrics of scale in remote sensing and GIS. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 3(2), 114–120. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0303-2434(01)85002-9
  28. Goodchild, M. F. (2011). Scale in GIS: An overview. Geomorphology, 130(1–2), 5–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2010.10.004
  29. Goodchild, M. F., & Proctor, J. (1997). Scale in a digital geographic world. Geographical and Environmental Modelling, 1(1), 5–23.
  30. Gottwald, S., Laatikainen, T. E., & Kyttä, M. (2016). Exploring the usability of PPGIS among older adults: Challenges and opportunities. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 30(12), 2321–2338. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2016.1170837
  31. GRAZ. (2025). Graz official site. http://graz.at
  32. Haklay, M., & Tobón, C. (2003). Usability evaluation and PPGIS: Towards a user-centred design approach. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 17(6), 577–592. https://doi.org/10.1080/1365881031000114107
  33. Hamalainen, T. (2016). New ways of listening to citizens is helping Helsinki become more livable and lovable. Geoawesomeness.
  34. Hasanzadeh, K., Kajosaari, A., Häggman, D., & Kyttä, M. (2020). A context sensitive approach to anonymizing public participation GIS data: From development to the assessment of anonymization effects on data quality. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 83, 101513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2020.101513
  35. Hasanzadeh, K., Laatikainen, T., & Kyttä, M. (2018). A place-based model of local activity spaces: Individual place exposure and characteristics. Journal of Geographical Systems, 20(3), 227–252. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10109-017-0264-z
  36. Hausner, V. H., Brown, G., & Lagreid, E. (2015). Effects of land tenure and protected areas on ecosystem services and land use preferences in Norway. Land Use Policy, 49, 446–461. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2015.08.018
  37. Heikinheimo, V., Tenkanen, H., Bergroth, C., Järv, O., Hiippala, T., & Toivonen, T. (2020). Understanding the use of urban green spaces from user-generated geographic information. Information Science, 30(12), 2321–2338. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2020.103845
  38. Huck, J. J., Whyatt, J. D., & Coulton, P. (2014). Spraycan: A PPGIS for capturing imprecise notions of place. Applied Geography, 55, 229–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.09.007
  39. Huck, J. J., Whyatt, J. D., Dixon, J., Sturgeon, B., Hocking, B., Davies, G., Jarman, N., & Bryan, D. (2019). Exploring segregation and sharing in Belfast: A PGIS approach. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 109(1), 223–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2018.1480930
  40. Ives, C. D., Gordon, A., Oke, C., Raymond, C. M., Hehir, A., & Bekessy, S. A. (2018). Spatial scale influences how people value and perceive green open space. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 61(12), 2133–2150. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2017.1388219
  41. Jankowski, P., Forss, K., Czepkiewicz, M., Saarikoski, H., & Kahila, M. (2021). Assessing impacts of PPGIS on urban land use planning: Evidence from Finland and Poland. European Planning Studies, 30(8), 1529–1548. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654313.2021.1882393
  42. Jankowski, P., Czepkiewicz, M., Młodkowski, M., Zwoliński, Z., & Wójcicki, M. (2019). Evaluating the scalability of public participation in urban land use planning: A comparison of Geoweb methods with face-to-face meetings. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 46(3), 511–533. https://doi.org/10.1177/2399808317719709
  43. Eräranta, S., Kahila-Tani, M., & Nummi-Sund, P. (2015). Web-based Public Participation in Urban Planning Competitions. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 4(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijepr.2015010101 Kajosaari, A. (2024). Scale dimensions in public participation GIS: An overview for planning and research. GeoJournal, 89(5), 197. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-024-11178-4
  44. Kajosaari, A., Ramezani, S., & Rinne, T. (2022). Built environment and seasonal variation in active transportation: A longitudinal, mixed-method study in the Helsinki Metropolitan Area. Journal of Transport ve Health, 27, 101511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2022.101511
  45. Kantola, S., Fagerholm, N., ve Nikula, A. (2023). Utilization and implementation of PPGIS in land use planning and decision-making from the perspective of organizations. Land Use Policy, 127, 106528. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106528
  46. Korpilo, S., Kajosaari, A., Rinne, T., Hasanzadeh, K., Raymond, C. M., & Kyttä, M. (2021). Coping with crisis: Green space use in Helsinki before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. Frontiers in Sustainable Cities, 3, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/frsc.2021.713977
  47. Kobori, H., Dickinson, J., Washitani, I., Sakurai, R., Amano, T., Komatsu, N., Kitamura, W., Takagawa, S., Koyama, K., Ogawara, T., & Miller-Rushing, A. (2015). Citizen science: A new approach to advance ecology, education, and conservation. Ecological Research, 31(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11284-015-1314-y
  48. Kullenberg, C., & Kasperowski, D. (2016). What is citizen science?–A scientometric meta-analysis. PloS one, 11(1), e0147152. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0147152
  49. Kyttä, M., Broberg, A., Tzoulas, T., & Snabb, K. (2013). Towards contextually sensitive urban densification: Location-based softGIS knowledge revealing perceived residential environmental quality. Landscape and Urban Planning, 113, 30–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.01.008
  50. Kyttä, M., Randrup, T., Sunding, A., Rossi, S., Harsia, E., Palomäki, J., & Kajosaari, A. (2023). Prioritizing participatory planning solutions: Developing place-based priority categories based on public participation GIS data. Landscape and Urban Planning, 239, 104868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2023.104868
  51. Lukyanenko, R., Wiggins, A., ve Rosser, H. (2019). Citizen science: An information quality research frontier. Information Systems Frontiers, 22, 961–983. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-019-09915-z
  52. Lutra Consulting. (2025). Mergin Maps documentation. https://merginmaps.com
  53. Maptionnaire. (2012). Maptionnaire official site. http://maptionnaire.com
  54. McCall, M. K., & Minang, P. A. (2005). Assessing participatory GIS for community-based natural resource management: Claiming community forests in Cameroon. The Geographical Journal, 171(4), 340–356. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2005.00173.x
  55. McCall, M. K., & Dunn, C. E. (2012). Geo-information tools for participatory spatial planning: Fulfilling the criteria for ‘good’ governance? Geoforum, 43(1), 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2011.07.007
  56. McCall, M. K., Martinez, J., & Verplanke, J. (2016). Shifting boundaries of volunteered geographic information systems and modalities: Learning from PGIS. Geo: Geography and Environment, 3(2), e00032. https://doi.org/10.14288/acme.v14i3.1234
  57. Mukherjee, F. (2015). Public participatory GIS. Geography Compass, 9, 384–394. https://doi.org/10.1111/gec3.12223
  58. Newman, G., Zimmerman, D., Crall, A., Laituri, M., Graham, J., & Stapel, L. (2010). User-friendly web mapping: Lessons from a citizen science website. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 24(12), 1851–1869. User-friendly web mapping: Lessons from a citizen science website. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2010.490532
  59. Obermeyer, N. J. (1998). The evolution of public participation GIS. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 25(2), 65–66. https://doi.org/10.1559/152304098782594599
  60. QuestionPro. (2025). Geolocation in surveys. https://www.questionpro.com/features/geolocation.html Rall, E., Hansen, R., ve Pauleit, S. (2019). The added value of public participation GIS (PPGIS) for urban green infrastructure planning. Urban Forestry ve Urban Greening, 40, 264–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2018.06.016
  61. Rickles, P., Haklay, M., Ellul, C., ve Skarlatidou, A. (2017). Citizen science with GISveT. Geographic Information Science ve Technology Body of Knowledge, GS-24.
  62. Sieber, R. E. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3), 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00702.x
  63. Simon, D. (2024). Public participation GIS for healthy urban planning. International Journal of E-Planning Research, 13(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.4018/IJEPR.358620
  64. Subirats, L., Simoes, J., & Steblin, A. (2019). Geographical information systems in modern citizen science. Geospatial Intelligence, 20(2), 15–28. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-5225-0962-2.ch006
  65. Tang, Z., & Liu, T. (2016). Evaluating Internet-based public participation GIS (PPGIS) and volunteered geographic information (VGI) in environmental planning and management. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 59(6), 1073–1090. https://doi.org/10.1080/09640568.2015.1054477 Tolbert, S., Olson, C., Haq, R., Evans, L., Santos, A., Franco, A., Jager, I., Kovač, M., Orchard, S., Harris, S., Šrajer, F., Santos-Lang, C., Jandrić, P., Hayes, S., v&e Jopling, M. (2024). ‘Citizen scientists’ on citizen science. Postdigital Science and Education, 7(1), 120-142. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-024-00494-0
  66. Wolf, I., Brown, G., & Wohlfart, T. (2018). Applying public participation GIS (PPGIS) to inform and manage visitor conflict along multi-use trails. Journal of Sustainable Tourism, 26(3), 470–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669582.2017.1360315
  67. Zhang, G. (2019). Integrating citizen science and GIS for wildlife habitat assessment. In Wildlife population monitoring. IntechOpen.