Geo-questionnaires in urban planning: recruitment methods,participant engagement,and data quality |
| |
Authors: | Michał Czepkiewicz Piotr Jankowski Marek Młodkowski |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. Institute of Geoecology and Geoinformation, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland;2. Faculty of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Iceland, Reykjavík, Icelandmichal.czepkiewicz@amu.edu.pl;4. Department of Geography, San Diego State University, CA, USA;5. Institute of Geoecology and Geoinformation, Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań, Poland |
| |
Abstract: | ![]() ABSTRACTRecent focus on sustainable urban development and livability has increased the demand for new data sourcing techniques to capture experiences and preferences of urban dwellers. At the same time, developments of geospatial technologies and social media have enabled new types of user-generated geographic information and spatially explicit online communication. As a result, new public participation GIS methods for engaging large groups of individuals have emerged. One such method is geo-questionnaire, an online questionnaire with mapping capabilities, which has been used to elicit geographic data in variety of topics and geographical contexts. This article presents two recent cases, in which geo-questionnaires have been used in Polish cities to obtain public input on quality of life and development preferences in local land use planning. The article evaluates participant recruitment methods focusing on sample representativeness, participant engagement, and data quality. Recruitment via social media was found to increase bias towards younger population. Paper questionnaires used along the online version provided for better representation of target population’s age structure, but did not reduce bias related to educational attainment. We discuss how these issues relate to data usability and generalizability in the context of digital divide, and suggest directions for future research. |
| |
Keywords: | Urban planning public participation GIS data quality digital divide participant recruitment spatial representativeness |
|
|