Multimedia Systems

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 3–21 | Cite as

WebMapMedia: a map-based Web application for facilitating participation in spatial planning

Regular Paper

Abstract

In this paper, a new map-based Web application developed for facilitating citizen participation in spatial planning is studied. Two planning experiments testing the map-based application called WebMapMedia are featured. The literature review of the paper describes attempts to utilize geographic information systems (GIS) in participation, pointing out severe weaknesses of these systems in acquiring and processing qualitative local knowledge. The results of the experiments show that the Web-based technology supports regular but short-term “lunch break participation” that occurs in the week during the office hours. The other results reveal a symbiotic relationship between conventional and Web-based means of participation and the potential of the Web-based technology to broaden participation. It is also found that if the technology can be adapted to the stages of the planning process, it may facilitate knowledge creation in the process. The Google Maps mashup based on Web 2.0 approach exhibits certain advantages over GIS-based solutions. Based on the results, it is argued that a prerequisite for the full utilization of the Web-based technology in participation is the evolution of the planning process and the attitudes of the planners.

Keywords

Map-based Web technology Web 2.0 e-Democracy Web-based participation Participatory planning Spatial planning Geographic information systems Google Maps mashup 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work has been supported by the Academy of Finland and EU IST Presence 2 project IPCity.

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Kodmany, K.: Public participation: technology and democracy. J. Archit. Educ. 53(4), 220–228 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Al-Kodmany, K.: Extending geographic information systems to meet neighborhood planning needs: the case of three Chicago communities. URISA J. 12(3), 19–37 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arias, E., Eden, H., Fischer, G., Gorman, A., Scharff, E.: Transcending the individual human mind—creating shared understanding through collaborative design. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 7(1), 84–113 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bosworth, M., Donovan, J., Couey, P.: Portland Metro’s dream for public involvement. In: Craig, W.J., Harris, T.M., Weiner, D. (eds.) Community participation and Geographic Information Systems, pp. 125–136. Taylor & Francis, London (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Carver, S., Evans, A., Kingston, R., Turton, I.: Public participation, GIS and cyberdemocracy: evaluating on-line spatial decision support systems. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 28(6), 907–921 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chambers, K.J., Corbett, J., Keller, C.P., Wood, C.J.B.: Indigenous knowledge, mapping, and GIS: a diffusion of innovation perspective. Cartographica 39(3), 9–31 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Craig, W.J., Harris, T.M., Weiner, D. (eds.): Community participation and Geographic Information Systems. Taylor & Francis, London (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dunn, C.E.: Participatory GIS a people’s GIS? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 31(5), 616–637 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Grönlund, Å.: Democracy in an IT-framed society: introduction. Commun. ACM 44(1), 23–26 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haklay, M., Tobón, C.: Usability evaluation and PPGIS: towards a user-centred design approach. Int. J. Geograph. Inf. Sci. 17(6), 577–592 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Halttunen, V., Juustila, A., Nuojua, J.: Technologies to support communication between citizens and designers in participatory urban planning process. Proceedings of the Colloquium ‘Communicating (by) Design’, Brussels, 15–17 April, pp. 559–568 (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Harvio, S., Kotavaara, N.: Internetpohjaiset ja tieto- ja viestintätekniikkaa hyödyntävät osallistumismenetelmät Pohjois-Pohjanmaan kuntien kaavoituksessa ja maankäytön suunnittelussa. In Hentilä, H. Ihatsu, E., Risto Suikkari, R. (eds.) Euroopan maaseutujen uhattu perintö—Pyhäjärvi (in Finnish). Kuntasuunnittelun kurssi 2007–2008, pp. 57–78. Department of Architecture, OuluGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hentilä, H-L., Suikkari, R., Soudunsaari, L.: Training the communicative skills municipal planning course as an experiment of communicative planning. Proceedings of the Colloquium ‘Communicating (by) Design’, Brussels, Belgium, 15–17 April, pp. 649–653 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kingston, R.: The role of e-government and public participation in the planning process. Proceedings of XVI AESOP Congress, pp. 1–14 (2009)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kingston, R.: Public participation in local policy decision-making: the role of web-based mapping. Cartographic J. 44(2), 138–144 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kingston, R., Carver, S., Evans, A., Turton, I.: Web-based public participation geographical information systems: an aid to local environmental decision-making. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 24(2), 109–125 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kwok, J.Y.: The weight of space: participatory design research for configuring habitable space for new arrival women in Hong Kong. PDC 04: Proceedings of the Eighth Conference on Participatory Design: Artful Integration. Interweaving Media, Materials and Practices, Toronto, ON, Canada, pp. 183–192Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kyttä, M., Kahila, M.: The perceived quality factors of the environment and their ecoefficient accessibility. In: Gallis, C.Th. (ed.) Forests, trees and human health and wellbeing. Proceedings of the 1st European COST E-39 Conference. Medical & Scientific Publishers, Thessaloniki (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Miller, C.C.: A beast in the field: the Google Maps mashup as GIS/2. Cartographica 41(3), 187–199 (2006)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    O’Reilly, T.: What is Web 2.0 design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Commun. Strateg. 65(1), 17–37 (2007)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ramler, R., Wolfmaier, K., Weippl, E.: From maintenance to evolutionary development of web applications: a pragmatic approach. Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 3140, 287–299 (2004)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rinner, C., Keßler, C., Andrulis, S.: The use of Web 2.0 concepts to support deliberation in spatial decision-making. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 32(5), 386–395 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rouse, L.J., Bergeron, S.J., Harris, T.M.: Participating in the Geospatial Web: Collaborative Mapping, Social Networks and Participatory GIS. In: Scharl, A., Tochtermann, K. (eds.) The geospatial Web, pp. 153–158. Springer, London (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Sarjakoski, T.: Networked GIS for public participation—emphasis on utilizing image data. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 22(4), 381–392 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sieber, R.: Public participation geographic information systems: a literature review and framework. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 96(3), 491–507 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Staffans, A.: Influential residents—interaction and local knowledge challenging urban planning and design. YTK A 29. Doctoral thesis (in Finnish). University of Technology, Helsinki (2004)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Steinmann, R., Krek, A., Blaschke, T.: Can online map-based applications improve citizen participation? Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 3416(2005), 25–35 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Talen, E.: Bottom-Up GIS: a new tool for individual and group expression in participatory planning. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 66(3), 279–294 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Taylor, N.: Urban planning theory Since 1945. Sage Publications, London (1998)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ullrich, C., Borau, K., Luo, H., Tan, X., Shen, L., Shen, R.: Why web 2.0 is good for learning and for research: principles and prototypes. In: Proceeding of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web, Beijing, China, pp. 705–714 (2008)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang, C., Burris, M.A.: Photovoice: concept, methodology, and use for participatory needs assessment. Health Educ. Behav. 24(3), 369–387 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wang, W., French, S.: A multi-dimensional framework for facilitating wide participation and common understanding. WebScience ‘08. In: Proceedings of the Hypertext 2008 Workshop on Collaboration and Collective Intelligence, Pittsburgh, USAGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Westholm, H.: e-Democracy goes ahead. The Internet as a tool for improving deliberative policies? Lect. Notes Comput. Sci. 2456, 240–247 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Wong, S., Chua, Y.L.: Data intermediation and beyond: issues for Web-based PPGIS. Cartographica 38(3/4), 63–80 (2001)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Wood, J.: ‘How green is my valley?’ Desktop geographic information systems as a community-based participatory mapping tool. Area 37(2), 159–170 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yli-Pelkonen, V., Kohl, J.: The role of local ecological knowledge in sustainable urban planning: perspectives from Finland. Sustain. Sci. Pract. Policy 1(1), 3–14 (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Information Processing ScienceUniversity of OuluOuluFinland

Personalised recommendations