An Evaluation of Internet Versus Paper-based Methods for Public Participation Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS)

Transactions in GIS

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 39-53

  Pocewicz, Amy ^a   Nielsen Pincus, Max ^b   Brown, Greg ^c   Schnitzer, Russ ^a  

^a THE NATURE CONSERVANCY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF OREGON   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF QUEENSLAND   (Australia)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

INFORMATION SYSTEMS; INFORMATION USE; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION;

INTERNET BASED; INTERNET MAPPING; MIXED MODE; MODE APPROACH; PAPER BASED METHODS; PUBLIC PARTICIPATION; RESPONSE RATE; SOCIAL ATTRIBUTES; SPATIAL INFORMATIONS; SYSTEM SURVEY;

GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS;

GIS; INTERNET; LOCAL PARTICIPATION; MAPPING METHOD; SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION;

UNITED STATES; WYOMING;

EID: 84863403453     PISSN: 13611682     EISSN: 14679671     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9671.2011.01287.x     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Alessa L N, Kliskey A A, and Brown G 2008 Social-ecological hotspots mapping: A spatial approach for identifying coupled social-ecological space. Landscape and Urban Planning 85: 27-39
2. Baddeley A and Turner R 2005 Spatstat: An R package for analyzing spatial point patterns. Journal of Statistical Software 12: 1-42
3. Besag J E 1977 Comments on Ripley's paper. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B39: 193-5
4. Besag J E and Diggle P J 1977 Simple Monte Carlo tests for spatial pattern. Applied Statistics 26: 327-33
5. Beverly J, Uto K, Wilkes J, and Bothwell P 2008 Assessing spatial attributes of forest landscape values: An Internet-based participatory mapping approach. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 38: 289-303
6. Brown G, Smith C, Alessa L, and Kliskey A 2004 A comparison of perceptions of biological value with scientific assessment of biological importance. Applied Geography 24: 161-80
7. Brown G 2005 Mapping spatial attributes in survey research for natural resource management: Methods and applications. Society and Natural Resources 18: 17-39
8. Brown G and Reed P 2009 Public Participation GIS: A new method for use in National Forest planning. Forest Science 55: 166-82
9. Brown G and Weber D 2011 Public Participation GIS: A new method for use in national park planning. Landscape and Urban Planning 102: 1-15
10. Brown G, Montag J, and Lyon K 2011 Public Participation GIS: A method for identifying ecosystem services. Society and Natural Resources 24: in press
11. Carr N 2010 The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New York, W W Norton
12. Clement J M and Cheng A S 2010 Using analyses of public value orientations, attitudes and preferences to inform national forest planning in Colorado and Wyoming. Applied Geography 31: 393-400
13. Couper M P and Miller P V 2008 Web survey methods: Introduction. Public Opinion Quarterly 72: 831-5
14. Donovan S M, Looney C, Hanson T, Sanchez de Leon Y, Wulfhorst J D, Eigenbrode S D, Jennings M, Johnson-Maynard J, and Bosque-Perez N A 2009 Reconciling social and biological needs in an endangered ecosystem: The Palouse as a model for bioregional planning. Ecology and Society 14: 9
15. Jackson M 2008 Distracted: The Erosion of Attention and the Coming Dark Age. Amherst, NY, Prometheus Books
16. Lotwick H W and Silverman B W 1982 Methods for analysing spatial processes of several types of points. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B44: 406-13
17. Manfreda K L, Bosnjak M, Berzelak J, Haas I, and Vehovar V 2008 Web surveys versus other survey modes: A meta-analysis comparing response rates. International Journal of Market Research 50: 79-104
18. Millar M M and Dillman D A 2011 Improving response to web and mixed-mode surveys. Public Opinion Quarterly 75: 249-69
19. Nielsen-Pincus M 2011 Mapping a values typology in three counties of the Interior Northwest, USA: Scale, geographic associations among values, and the use of intensity weights. Society and Natural Resources 24: 535-52
20. Olsen S B 2009 Choosing between Internet and mail survey modes for choice experiment surveys considering non-market goods. Environmental and Resource Economics 44: 591-610
21. Raymond C M, Bryan B A, MacDonald D H, Cast A, Strathearn S, Grandgirard A, and Kalivas T 2009 Mapping community values for natural capital and ecosystem services. Ecological Economics 68: 1301-15
22. Raymond C M and Brown G 2011 Assessing spatial associations between perceptions of landscape value and climate change risk for use in climate change planning. Climatic Change 104: 653-78
23. Ripley B D 1977 Modelling spatial patterns. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B39: 172-212
24. R Development Core Team 2011 R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria, R Foundation for Statistical Computing
25. Schlossberg M and Shuford E 2005 Delineating 'Public' and 'Participation' in PPGIS. URISA Journal 16(1): 15-26
26. Schonlau M, Asch B J, and Du C 2003 Web surveys as part of a mixed-mode strategy for populations that cannot be contacted by E-mail. Social Science Computer Review 21: 218-22
27. Sieber R 2006 Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 96: 491-507
28. Simão A, Densham P J, and Haklay M M 2009 Web-based GIS for collaborative planning and public participation: An application to the strategic planning of wind farm sites. Journal of Environmental Management 90: 2027-40
29. Smyth J D, Dillman D A, Christian L M, and O'Neill A C 2010 Using the Internet to survey small towns and communities: Limitations and possibilities in the early 21st century. American Behavioral Scientist 53: 1423-48
30. Tulloch D 2007 Public Participation GIS (PPGIS). In Kemp K (ed) Encyclopedia of Geographic Information Science. Thousand Oaks, CA, SAGE Publications: 351-3
31. Zhu X, Pfueller S, Whitelaw P, and Winter C 2010 Spatial differentiation of landscape values in the Murray River region of Victoria, Australia. Environmental Management 45: 896-911