Evaluation Of A Public Participatory GIS Tool Within
A Public Planning Case Study

Conor Tripp
B.Sc, St. Mary's University, 2004

Thesis Submitted In Partial Fulfillment Of
The Requirements For The Degree Of
Master Of Science
In
Natural Resources And Environmental Studies
(Recreational Resource Management)

The University Of Northern British Columbia
December 2007
© Conor Tripp, 2007

1*1

Library and
Archives Canada

Bibliotheque et
Archives Canada

Published Heritage
Branch

Direction du
Patrimoine de I'edition

395 Wellington Street
Ottawa ON K1A0N4
Canada

395, rue Wellington
Ottawa ON K1A0N4
Canada

Your file Votre reference
ISBN: 978-0-494-48796-9
Our file Notre reference
ISBN: 978-0-494-48796-9

NOTICE:
The author has granted a nonexclusive license allowing Library
and Archives Canada to reproduce,
publish, archive, preserve, conserve,
communicate to the public by
telecommunication or on the Internet,
loan, distribute and sell theses
worldwide, for commercial or noncommercial purposes, in microform,
paper, electronic and/or any other
formats.

AVIS:
L'auteur a accorde une licence non exclusive
permettant a la Bibliotheque et Archives
Canada de reproduire, publier, archiver,
sauvegarder, conserver, transmettre au public
par telecommunication ou par Plntemet, prefer,
distribuer et vendre des theses partout dans
le monde, a des fins commerciales ou autres,
sur support microforme, papier, electronique
et/ou autres formats.

The author retains copyright
ownership and moral rights in
this thesis. Neither the thesis
nor substantial extracts from it
may be printed or otherwise
reproduced without the author's
permission.

L'auteur conserve la propriete du droit d'auteur
et des droits moraux qui protege cette these.
Ni la these ni des extraits substantiels de
celle-ci ne doivent etre imprimes ou autrement
reproduits sans son autorisation.

In compliance with the Canadian
Privacy Act some supporting
forms may have been removed
from this thesis.

Conformement a la loi canadienne
sur la protection de la vie privee,
quelques formulaires secondaires
ont ete enleves de cette these.

While these forms may be included
in the document page count,
their removal does not represent
any loss of content from the
thesis.

Bien que ces formulaires
aient inclus dans la pagination,
il n'y aura aucun contenu manquant.

Canada

Abstract
The purpose of Public Participatory Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS) is to
use the practices of GIS and mapping to promote knowledge production and efficient
decision-making. PPGIS has the ability to empower potentially marginalized populations,
who have limited ability to express themselves in the public arena, using geographic
technology education and participation. PPGIS is being increasingly recognized as a
valuable method for gathering public knowledge and opinions.
This study evaluates the usefulness of a PPGIS tool compared with a traditional
participatory method in an environmental planning case study within north-western British
Columbia (BC), Canada. Attitudes of lay public and expert planners were surveyed on the
usefulness of the PPGIS tool and paper PP (Public Participation) method. The results of
this study suggest that the PPGIS tool has the ability to be used, in certain situations, as a
means of providing and collecting public information. However, its use is limited for
certain public groups as it requires a certain level of computer literacy and technological
infrastructure. As a result, the simplicity and familiarity of traditional participatory
methods need to be integrated with GIS-based participatory methods.

n

Table of Contents
Abstract

ii

Table of Contents

iii

List of Tables

vi

List of Figures

ix

List of Acronyms

x

Acknowledgements

xi

Chapter 1

Introduction
1.1 Rationale
1.2 Research Goals and Objectives
1.3 Organization of the Thesis

1
1
5
6

Chapter 2

Conceptual Framework
2.1 Defining Public Participatory GIS (PPGIS)
2.2 Traditional Participatory Methodologies
2.3 Application of PPGIS in Planning
2.4 Limitations of PPGIS
2.5 Evaluation of PPGIS Tools
2.6 Case Study Selection and Description

7
7
11
14
18
20
23

Chapter 3

Methods, Data Collection, and Analysis
3.1 Methods
3.1.1 Paper PP method
3.1.2 PPGIS tool
3.2 One-Group Pretest-Posttest Design
3.3 Non-probability Sampling
3.3.1 Limitations of Non-probability Sampling
3.4 Questionnaires, Observations, and Map Analysis
3.4.1 Limitations of Questionnaires, Observations, and Map Analysis
3.5 Data Collection
3.6 Data Analysis
3.6.1 Content Analysis
3.6.2 Interpretation
3.7 Limitations of Data Analysis

24
24
25
26
28
29
30
31
35
37
38
39
41
42

iii

Chapter 4

Results for Lay Sample
4.1 Demographic Results
4.2 Results from Tests of Paper Public Participation (Paper PP method)
4.2.1 Statement of Research Question(s) Addressed
4.2.2 Analysis of Data
4.2.3 Discussion
4.3 Results from the Tests of the PPGIS Tool
4.3.1 Statement of Research Question(s) Addressed
4.3.2 Analysis of Data
4.3.3 Discussion

44
44
51
51
51
61
62
62
62
73

Chapter 5

Results for Expert Planner Sample
5.1 Demographic Results
5.2 Results from the tests of the PPGIS Method
5.2.1 Statement of Research Question(s) Addressed
5.2.2 Analysis of Data
5.2.3 Discussion

76
76
81
81
81
91

Chapter 6

Discussion
94
6.1 PPGIS tool vs. Paper PP Method
94
6.2 Strengths and Weaknesses of the PPGIS Tool
101
6.3 Advancement of Public Participation and Understanding through the Use of
the PPGIS Tool
104
6.4 Ability of the PPGIS Tool to Shape Participant Knowledge
105
6.5 Discussion of Secondary Findings
107

Chapter 7

Conclusions and Recommendations
7.1 Lessons for the Future Evaluations of PPGIS Tools
7.1.1 Research Design
7.2 Recommendations for Future Research
7.2.1 Suggested PPGIS Tool Modifications
7.2.2 Suggested Follow-up Studies
7.4 Conclusion

109
109
109
110
110
Ill
112

References

114

Appendix A- Pretest

128

Appendix B- Traditional Method Questionnaire

132

Appendix C- PPGIS Tool Questionnaire

136

Appendix D-Planner Questionnaire

140

iv

Appendix E- Letter of Informed Consent

146

Appendix F- Descriptors

148

v

List of Tables
Table 3.1

Topographic maps used within the paper PP method

Table 3.2

Orthophoto maps used within the paper PP method

Table 4.1

Educational attainments of lay members of the public participating in study and the
Bulkley-Nechako Regional District

Table 4.2

Age categories of lay participants

Table 4.3

Distribution of lay participants within various occupational categories

Table 4.4

Previous participation in various planning processes by lay participants

Table 4.5

Lay participant use of computers, paper maps and computer-based maps

Table 4.6

Distribution of scores in the lay participant map literacy pre-test

Table 4.7

Lay participant ratings of the difficulty of use, quality of design, amount of relevant
information, and efficiency of computer-based maps

Table 4.8

Lay participant ratings on the difficulty of use, quality of design, amount of relevant
information, and efficiency of paper maps

Table 4.9

Lay participant ratings on the difficulty of use, quality of design, amount of relevant
information, and efficiency of the paper PP method

Table 4.10

Lay participant ratings on descriptors concerning the paper PP method

Table 4.11

Lay participant ratings on difficulty of sketching a trail or area on the paper maps

Table 4.12

Lay participant ratings of speed in moving between various paper maps

Table 4.13

Frequency of lay participants ratings of amount of information provided about trails
within the Bulkley Valley by the paper PP method

Table 4.14

Lay participant ratings on their ease of orientation towards features on paper maps

Table 4.15

Aspects of the paper PP method that pleased lay participants

Table 4.16

Aspects of the paper PP method that irritated lay participants

Table 4.17

(Categories of tasks lay participants attempted to complete while using the traditional
imethod

Table 4.18

Tasks not completed by lay participants

Table 4.19

1Reasons why lay participants did not accomplish tasks when using the traditional method

VI

Table 4.20

Categories of change recommended by lay participants for the paper PP method

Table 4.21

Lay participant ratings on the difficulty of use, quality of design, amount of relevant
information, and efficiency of the PPGIS tool

Table 4.22

Lay participant ratings on descriptors concerning the PPGIS tool

Table 4.23

Lay participants ratings on difficulty of sketching a trail or area using the PPGIS tool

Table 4.24

Lay participant ratings on ease of movement in use of the PPGIS tool

Table 4.25

Frequency of lay participants ratings of amount of information provided about trails
within the Bulkley Valley by the PPGIS tool

Table 4.26

Lay participant ratings on their ease of orientation towards features on the PPGIS tool

Table 4.27

Aspects of the PPGIS tool that pleased the lay participants

Table 4.28

Aspects of the PPGIS tool that irritated the lay participants

Table 4.29

Categories of tasks lay participants attempted to complete while using the PPGIS tool

Table 4.30

Tasks not completed by lay participants when using the PPGIS tool

Table 4.31

Reasons why lay participants did not accomplish tasks when using the PPGIS tool

Table 4.32

Categories of change recommended by lay participants for the PPGIS tool

Table 5.1

Educational attainments of expert planners participating in study and members of the
public of Bulkley-Nechako Regional District

Table 5.2

Age categories of expert planners

Table 5.3

Previous participation in various planning processes by the expert planners

Table 5.4

Expert planner use of computers, paper maps and computer-based maps

Table 5.5

Distribution of scores in the expert planner map literacy pre-test

Table 5.6

Expert planner ratings of the difficulty of use, quality of design, amount of relevant
information, and efficiency of paper maps
Expert planner ratings on the difficulty of use, quality of design, amount of relevant
information, and efficiency of computer-based maps
Expert planners' initial preferences for using paper or computer-based maps when
providing information
Expert planner ratings on the difficulty of use, quality of design, amount of relevant
information, and efficiency of the PPGIS tool

Table 5.7
Table 5.8
Table 5.9

vn

Table 5.10

Expert planner ratings on descriptors concerning the PPGIS tool

Table 5.11

Expert planner ratings on difficulty of understanding sketched features on the PPGIS tool
interface

Table 5.12

Expert planner ratings on ease of movement in use of the PPGIS tool

Table 5.13

Expert planner ratings on speed of collecting of various GIS comments and features when
using the PPGIS tool as compared with traditional participatory methods

Table 5.14

Expert planners ratings on the efficiency, amount of relevant information and quality of
design of the PPGIS tool compared to traditional participatory methods

Table 5.15

Categories of change recommended by expert planners for the PPGIS tool

Table 5.16

Planner views on the decision-making function of the PPGIS tool

Table 5.17

Planner views on informative function of the PPGIS tool

Table 5.18
Table 5.19

Expert planner readiness to adopt use of PPGIS within a planning process
Public processes in which the PPGIS tool could be applied as suggested by expert
planners

Table 5.20

Expert planner preferences as between paper and computer-based maps for use in future
planning processes

Table 6.1

Lay participants' initial preferences for using paper or computer-based maps when
providing information

Table 6.2

Lay participant reasons for their preference of paper maps when providing their
knowledge

Table 6.3

Lay participant reasons for preference for computer-based maps when providing
information

Table 6.4

Lay participants' preferences for using the traditional participatory method or the PPGIS
tool when providing information

Table 6.5

Lay participant ratings on the most efficient participatory method at gathering local
knowledge

Table 6.6

Lay participants' reasons for believing believed paper maps are more efficient than
PPGIS maps at gathering local knowledge within a planning process

Table 6.7

Lay participants' reasons for believing that computer-based maps are more efficient than
paper maps at gathering local knowledge within a planning process

List of Figures
Figure 2.1

Conceptual Map of the Enhanced Adaptive Structuration Theory (EAST2)

Figure 3.1

PPGIS tool interface with underlying orthophoto layer

Figure 3.2

PPGIS tool interface with underlying vegetation layer

Figure 3.3

Methodological research design used to evaluate the PPGIS tool and paper PP method
involving members of lay public and expert planners

List of Acronyms
BVCRB

Bulkley Valley Community Resources Board

CBO

Community-based Organization

EAST2

Enhanced Adaptive Structuration Theory 2

GEOIDE

Geomatics for Informed Decisions

GIS

Geographic Information Systems

GIT

Geographic Information Technologies

HCI

Human-Computer Interaction

ILMB

Integrated Land Management Bureau

LRMP

Lands and Resources Management Plan

MCDM

Multicriteria Decision Model

PGIS

Participatory Geographic Information Systems

PLA

Participatory Learning and Action

PPGIS

Public Participatory Geographic Information Systems

OCP

Official Community Plan

RAMP

Recreational Access and Management Plan

RDBN

Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako

RRA

Rapid Rural Appraisal

SRMP

Sustainable Resource Management Plan

x

Acknowledgements
The successful completion of this research has been primarily the contribution of knowledge,
participation, and commitment from many people. To begin with, I thank the residents of the
Bulkey Valley, representing lay participants and expert planners, that committed their valuable
time and energy to this study.
The support and commitment of committee was amazing. Thank you to Ray Chipeniuk for
agreeing to take me on as graduate student and continuing with your assistance even after you
left UNBC. Thank you Eric for consistently keeping me focused on the task at hand. I am
thankful to Roger Wheate for his valuable insight on cartographic visualization and assistance
throughout my research. I am also thankful to Dr. Rob Fieck for being my external examiner so
close to my defence date. Also, I thank my colleague B.L. Hoffman for her assistance with
revisions.
Thanks go to Scott Emmons and Aaron Koning for the development of the PPGIS tool and their
suggestions throughout this process.
Thank you to the GEOIDE organization for the financial support to make this research study
feasible.
On a personal level, special thanks go to my close circle of friends and groups that provided
companionship and academic support along the way: Cabletron, Hurlbone, Abel, the first-rate
individuals of Albert County, and the top-quality members of the UNBC hockey team.
Finally, I am deeply thankful to my family, especially to my parents and brothers whose belief
and confidence allowed me to persevere and complete this undertaking. Without their devotion, I
would not have accomplished this task.

XI

Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Rationale
As computers become more commonplace, digital mapping tools are finding their
way into many aspects of life. Nyerges et al. (2002) outline the use of GIS (Geographic
Information Systems) to assist in data-gathering strategies in public planning processes.
They suggest that GIS tools can be used to gather, store, and analyze previously unknown
local knowledge. Wood (2005) suggests that hands-on use of GIS, with technical support,
could benefit and empower community groups when responding to local geographic
issues. A relatively recent participatory method, PPGIS, has been growing in interest and
has the potential to enable computerized mapping to benefit and empower communities
(Pickles, 1995; Sheppard., 1995; Talen, 2000; Sieber, 2000; Nyerges and Jankowski,
2001; Craig et al, 2002; Elwood, 2002). Although PPGIS itself may promote cooperation
(Kyem, 2004), it also has the potential to disempower communities (Harris et ah, 1995;
Abbot et al, 1998). Furthermore, Carver et al. (2001) states that access to GIS software
by itself may not benefit facilitation as strengths and weaknesses may require
identification first. The information and data must be presented to the public in a simple,
straightforward manner so that informative decisions can be made. Obermeyer (1998) and
Ghose (2003) outline the use of GIS in recent PPGIS mapping initiatives which seek to
incorporate information held by local communities into a planning process, to address
concerns articulated by community participants and groups, in order to reduce inequalities
in public access to information and technology, and to develop and make spatial
information more adaptable for community use.
GIS provides the opportunity to innovatively link additional media, such as video

1

clips, sketches, and photographs, to the map interface (Wood, 2005). PPGIS can
incorporate many technological devices, including web-based software, to assist the
public in providing accurate knowledge and opinions. Web-based software offers the
potential for Internet-based community mapping projects (Carver et al, 2001). Kraak
(1999) states that the Web is increasingly being used as a 'demand-driven' medium by
community groups. Furthermore, there exists the potential for interactive Web-based
maps to instigate a two-way dialogue between communities over the Internet (AlKodmany, 2001).
Whether using paper or computer-based maps, public planning processes should
focus on enabling the public to highlight what is unique and distinct about an area
(Clifford and King, 1993), and describe what is important to them about these areas
(Greeves and Taylor, 1987; Clifford and King, 1996). Sheppard (2005) explains the need
to integrate public participation, decision support, and computer technology to spatial
modelling and visualization. In addition, he states that more well-documented studies are
needed in order for planners to develop comprehensive, engaging, open and accountable
processes. Harrison and Haklay (2002) draw three conclusions where they examined the
ability of GIS to incorporate the public in the planning process: (1) The public evaluation
of GIS planning services cannot be separated from the concerns of the planning process
and local government; (2) there is a lack of studies which analyze the combination of GIS
with cultural studies of participatory approaches; (3) more studies need to be conducted to
explore the interactions of different publics with PPGIS as a means of better
understanding.
While many public planning processes utilize GIS, few take a "hands-on"

2

approach in which members of the public operate the GIS tools themselves. These
planning processes primarily employ spatially related knowledge from members of the
public. Talen (2000) argues specifically for resident-generated GIS, whereby maps are
created by, rather than for, neighborhood residents, a procedure helping to facilitate local
interaction and participation. However, one must consider the public's knowledge of
technology as well as the existing technological infrastructure at the outset of the planning
process. Nyerges and Jankowski (2001) highlight the need to examine the influence that
place, time and communication channels have on information use in geographic problem
solving and decision making. In this study, the rural setting, at least, is found to affect the
access to certain kinds of technological infrastructure.
The use of a PPGIS tool could facilitate a simple method of gathering local
knowledge and opinions. Researchers at UNBC are developing, testing and evaluating a
PPGIS tool that is part of a GEOIDE funded research project which is intended to assist
rural communities in planning for sustainable development. GEOIDE is a Canadian
Centres of Excellence funding agency for research on geomatics. GEOIDE attempts to
consolidate and strengthen the domestic geomatics industry. It supports the research and
development of new geomatics technologies and methods via multidisciplinary
collaboration of numerous GEOIDE nodes (e.g., UNBC). Promoting Sustainable
communities through Participatory Spatial Decision Support is a GEOIDE funded project
which focuses on bridging the gap between research and practice by developing specific
decision support tools to enable planners and the public at large to collaborate on planning
issues. These tools consist of open source software freely accessible on the internet.
Particular effort is directed at engaging users in testing and evaluating the tools in a

3

variety of settings in order to integrate them into routine planning. The study documented
here is an evaluation of a case in which a PPGIS tool is employed in a rural planning
process. The GEOIDE PPGIS tool will henceforth be referred to as the PPGIS tool
throughout this study.
The PPGIS tool is a multi-user mapping interface that aims to collect public input
concerning community planning processes. The PPGIS tool allows users to add features
(e.g., points, arcs, polygons) and comments to a map layer that depicts their area of
interest. Each feature and comment is visible and can be replied to by all users within that
topic area. Computer icons link each comment to its corresponding feature. In addition, a
number of multi-purpose tools (e.g., zoom in/out, identify) are embedded within the
PPGIS tool which assist in displaying and organizing information.
There are a number of methods that could be applied to the evaluation of public
participatory techniques, such as the PPGIS tool. Patton (1982) states that the definition of
program evaluation is ambiguous and concludes it is not practical to adopt a single
definition of evaluation. There are three primary forms of evaluation for social programs.
These forms include summative evaluation, formative evaluation, and impact evaluation
(Patton, 1982). These evaluation models clarify the purposes of the participatory method
and provide a framework for public participation (Chess, 2000). Summative evaluation
occurs subsequent to the completion of a process and can track the extent to which public
participation has furthered towards its expected results. Formative evaluation is aimed at
improving programs in progress and can provide researchers with feedback during
program development. It can consider complex issues such as relationships among
stakeholders, perceptions of agency communication, and, as in this study, the

4

effectiveness of participatory methods. Impact evaluation focuses on long term results and
has the potential to inform major policy decisions and track social learning (Patton, 1997).
The PPGIS tool needs to be continually modified with respect to the ability of its
users and the planning process in which it is used. Ortolano and Wagner (1977) use
formative evaluation to evaluate new GIS technologies and tools. They incorporated the
use of questionnaires to acquire feedback throughout their study. In this study, formative
evaluation will allow for the ongoing improvement of the PPGIS tool.

1.3 Research Goals and Objectives
One of the most contentious debates on evaluation, concerns which objectives to
evaluate (Chess, 2000). Although this seems straightforward, in practice objectives are
difficult to define in clear, specific and measurable terms (Patton, 1987). In this case,
subjects of the evaluation are based upon the objectives of the PPGIS tool within the
planning project. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the utility of a tool based on
three subjects of evaluation:

•

the usefulness of the tool in a planning process;

•

the possibility that members of the public and community planners will use it in a
planning process (willingness);

•

the possibility that members of the public and community planners would actually
prefer the tools over traditional planning tools

The research examines the use of a PPGIS tool that aims to enhance public
participation within a public planning process in northern BC. Assumptions regarding the

5

effect the PPGIS tool might have on certain aspects of the public planning case study
were derived from premises within Nyerges and Jankowski's (2001) Enhanced Adaptive
Structuration Theory 2 (EAST2) (see Section 2.2).
The above subjects of evaluation assisted in developing the following research questions:
1. With regard to public participation, how does the PPGIS tool compare with
other traditional public participatory tools or methods?
2. What are the strengths and weaknesses of the PPGIS tool?
3. Can the PPGIS tool advance the participation and understanding of the public?
4. Does the PPGIS tool contribute to shaping the opinions of members of the
public?
1.4 Organization of the Thesis
The thesis is organised into six chapters: 1. Introduction, which provides the
rationale and outline of the research questions; 2. Conceptual Framework, which defines
PPGIS, explores its potential, and examines suitable evaluation measures through literary
comparison; 3. Methods, Data Collection, and Analysis, which provides an overview of
the research techniques employed and outlines the specific procedures followed; 4. Public
Results and Discussion, which describes the lay participant results and discusses these
findings in the context of related studies and research findings; 5. Planner Results and
Discussion, which describes the expert planner results and discusses these findings in the
context of related studies and research findings 6. Recommendations and Conclusions,
provides recommendations for further research and the overall conclusions of the research
study.

6

Chapter 2: Conceptual Framework
2.1 Defining Public Participation GIS (PPGIS)
This chapter reviews literature related to the use of the PPGIS tool in an
environmental planning case study. It defines PPGIS, compares PPGIS with traditional
methods, and describes applications, limitations, and potential evaluation methodologies
of PPGIS. This chapter also provides reasons for selecting this case study.
PPGIS expands as Public Participatory GIS. The first step to defining PPGIS is to
understand its relation to GIS (Geographic Information Systems). GIS generally uses
computer hardware, software, and geographic data for capturing, managing, analyzing,
and displaying all forms of geographically referenced information. GIS applications cover
a broad spectrum such as education (Linn, 1997; Pedersen et al., 2005),

emergency

management (Newsom and Mantrani, 1993) and archaeology (Holdaway, 2003). Sieber
(2006) explains that GIS has generated interest in policy makers for three main reasons.
First, most information used in policy making contains a spatial component. For example,
a number of policy applications require information about the location of crime, land-use
planning zones, environmental health problems, habitats, or where social services are
provided (e.g., address, distribution of mailing codes, and latitude/longitude). Second,
providing spatial information to all relevant stakeholders presumably leads to better
policymaking. Third, policy-related information can be analyzed spatially and visually,
and the resulting maps or information can convey ideas and convince people of the
importance of those ideas. The development of GIS applications and software has
increased the need for the lay citizen to understand the purpose and capabilities of GIS.
Initially, PPGIS was defined as "a variety of approaches to make GIS and other

7

spatial decision making tools available and accessible to all those with a stake in official
decisions" (Schroeder, 1996). PPGIS resides neither in a single sector nor exclusively in
the domain of geography. Understanding of PPGIS therefore requires a deeper
examination of the technology, the users, and their practices. According to Sieber (2006),
PPGIS aims to broaden public involvement in policymaking. Furthermore, PPGIS
applications usually occur within one or more of several organizational arrangements,
including community-university partnerships with inner-city communities (Craig and
Elwood, 1998; Ghose, 2001), grassroots social organisations (Sieber, 2001), and Internetbased PPGIS (Carver et ah, 2001; Craig et ah, 2002). These arrangements combine GIS
with a host of modern communication technologies to facilitate dialogue and data usage
among local groups.
Recently, there has been confusion between PPGIS and PGIS (Participatory GIS)
and there are no clear definitions to separate the two terms. PGIS is also an emergent
practice; it is a result of a merger between Participatory Learning and Action (PLA)
methods with Geographic Information Technologies (GIT) (Sieber, 2006). PGIS employs
customized, user-friendly applications of GIS technologies in an attempt to empower
communities. A suitable practice of PGIS is flexible and adapts to different socio-cultural
and biophysical environments while relying on a combination of 'expert' skills and local
knowledge. Although these two methods are known by different terms, there appears to
be no clear distinction between PPGIS and PGIS.
The use of PPGIS depends on data-gathering strategy of the group or planning
process. Furthermore, Nyerges et ah (2002) acknowledge the need for PPGIS to
incorporate appropriate data-gathering strategies. Although the technology of GIS is the

8

key component to PPGIS, the issues that determine its future direction are not primarily
technical (Taylor, 1994). Taylor (1994) explains that while maps have always asked the
question "where", now they must also answer new questions such as "why", "when", "by
whom" and "for what purpose" and they must convey to the user an understanding of a
much wider variety of topics than was previously the case.
From a theoretical perspective, Nyerges and Jankowski (2001) outline a structured
theory that investigates what to expect during human-computer-human interaction. The
Enhanced Adaptive Structuration Theory 2 (EAST2) provides a way of "systematically"
interpreting how people make use of GIS in a problem context. EAST2 is composed of
eight constructs which outline the major issues for characterizing group decision making.
Seven premises relate these constructs to each other (Figure 2.1).

Figure 2.1: Conceptual Map of the Enhanced Adaptive Structuration Theory (EAST2)
Convenhg Constructs

Process Constats

Outcome Constructs

Social-institutional
Influence
• Power and central
• Subject domain

• Convenor

Decision Making as Social Interaction

• Ghoosen participants
• Rules & norms of participation

; Using Humam-Computer-Human Interaction
Appropriati on

• Sooio-instHutional

Group Participant
Influence
• Participants' expectations
• Participants* wews/knowledse
• Participants' tousl
• Participants' beliefs

Group Processes

• GFOTP participant

• Participatory GIS

* Behavior

t wf

A

• Channel of comniumcations

j

• Ides exchange X
• Task management t

Emergent Influence

Participatory GIS
Influence

Task Outcomes
• decision outcomes

• Social-lnstiaifcna:
• Group participant
• Pa'tcipatory GIS

• outcome dependence

<4 l«t

f

^5^
Social Outcomes
• Opportunity for challenge
• Participant structuring
• Social-institutional structuring

• Geographic information aids i

*Source: Nyerges and Jankowski (2001) (Geographic Information Systems for Group Decision Making)

9

The "macro-micro" conceptual framework that embeds EAST2 is a powerful, yet
flexible, organizing mechanism for framing research activity about "realistic" complex,
inter-organizational decision situations. This theory attempts to both deconstruct and
reconstruct PPGIS in society. Furthermore, EAST2 can assist in the construction of a GIS
based participatory tool by identifying core aspects of a group or participatory process.
The convening and process constructs are particularly applicable to the research
undertaken in this study since they provide an analytical framework for evaluating the
usefulness and suitability of the PPGIS tool in the planning process.
EAST2 includes three process constructs: Appropriation, Group Processes, and
Emergent Influence. These constructs outline a structured approach to human-computerhuman interaction as a means of supporting public participation within group processes
(Nyerges and Jankowski, 2001). To achieve social interaction, powerful group-oriented
decision support tools are needed (Armstrong, 1993; Nyerges et ah, 2002).
EAST2 includes three convening constructs: Social-institutional influence, Group
Participant Influence, and Participatory GIS influence. The convening constructs deal
with the influence of convening a decision process when information technology is
involved (Nyerges and Jankowski, 2001). These constructs relate more towards planners
or decision makers, rather than members of the public, since planners are the chief
conveners and organizers of a planning process. However, an influence on one construct
may influence another since both convening and process constructs are interconnected. As
a result, those aspects that influence planners may also influence members of the public.
PPGIS research itself has undergone an evolution as participants have sought to
formalize the nature or process of PPGIS. Many of the early PPGIS efforts were

10

exploratory case studies, which provided the "social narratives" of PPGIS (Kyem, 2001).
These included studies of GIS by marginalized communities, nongovernmental
organizations and grassroots groups (Convis, 2001), native groups (Poole, 1995), social
movements (Sieber, 1997), peoples in developing countries (Jarvis and Spearman, 1995;
Sedogo and Groten, 2000; Kyem, 2001), and urban community-based organizations
(CBOs) (Craig and Elwood, 1998). Whereas the earliest work showed the possibilities of
GIS for grassroots environmental advocacy (Aberley, 1993), the latest forms vary in
technology and theory: for instance, implementation of Web-based neighborhood
information systems (Carver et ah, 2001; Wong and Chua, 2001; Kingston, 2002),
community resident-developed monitoring of the environment with mobile GIS (O'Brien,
2003), and models of GIS availability in urban CBOs (Leitner et ah, 2000).

2.2 Traditional Participatory Methodologies
Public participation processes use diverse techniques and occur in many different
contexts (Beierle and Cayford, 2002). This study is primarily concerned with public
participatory methods used in environmental planning. A number of methodologies can
be used to gather public knowledge in a planning process. For example, researchers have
used tools to assess public opinion, such as focus groups, community dinners, open
houses, or surveys, which provide one-way communication mechanisms between
agencies and the public (Raimond, 2001; Carr and Halvorsen, 2001). Traditional methods
such as notices, hearings, and comment periods inform the public and gather a limited set
of views in a non-deliberative framework (Checkoway, 1981; Kemp, 1985; Kemmis,
1990; Moote et ah, 1997; Adams, 2004). Collaborative mechanisms emphasize two-way

11

communication and deliberation. They include mediation procedures, workshops, task
forces, consensus arrangements (e.g., Innes, 1996), conflict resolution, and regulatory
negotiations (e.g., Susskind and Cruikshank, 1987; Susskind and Field, 1996) as well as
Citizen Advisory Boards (FFERDC, 1996; Raimond, 2001). These deliberative processes
are widely considered in the planning literature to be the most effective participatory
methods (e.g., Healey, 1993, 1997, 1998; Forester, 1999; Innes and Booher, 2000;
Margerum, 2002). However, at times, traditional methods have failed to take into account
the different perspectives of the public and the mutual trust needed between the various
stakeholders (Alio and Gallego, 2002).
Workshops are a commonly used method that allows the public to be informed, as
well as to provide spatial information in a planning process. For example, the Electoral
Area A Community Trails Study provides an example of a practical planning framework
used in the planning of a system of trails within the Regional District of Nanaimo, BC
(RDN, 2005). The study adopts a traditional step-by-step process that incorporates a
number of workshops to gather local knowledge and opinions concerning potential trail
routes. In addition, public consultation in the process incorporates the use of maps and
orthophotos to sketch features and provide comments concerning potential and existing
trail routes. Similarly, King et al. (1989) used freehand sketches as the standard
participatory tool in more than 190 participatory planning workshops. In both of these
participatory planning workshops, a member of the public chooses an area and draws a
new feature on the basis of his or her ideas or preferences. Pen-and-paper sketching
within a workshop setting promotes dialogue and people enjoy seeing their ideas put into
realistic drawings (Al-Kodmany, 2002). However, the pen-and-paper sketching process

12

may not ultimately result in an accurate design, because sketches tend to leave out
important information.
Many public participatory methodologies incorporate a number of traditional
tools. For example, Zanetell and Knuth (2002) employed a participatory research
methodology called Rapid Rural Appraisal (RRA) for gathering local knowledge by
formulating partnerships between expert planners and lay citizens. RRA involves resource
users through the use of hands-on group activities that lead to well-rounded information
and triangulation (Frey and Fontana, 1993). RRA utilizes maps, drawings, and diagrams
to enhance interaction and reduce participant exclusion based on literacy, age, gender, etc.
However, many authors have critiqued traditional methods, such as public
hearings and comment periods, as being unsatisfying to participants (Sewell and Phillips,
1979; Cortner, 1996; Lauber and Knuth, 1999), unrepresentative of concerned or
potentially affected publics (O'Riordan, 1976; Force and Williams, 1989; Cortner, 1996;
Poisner, 1996; Moote et ah, 1997) and lacking in two-way dialogue, information sharing,
and deliberation (Blahna and Yonts-Shepard 1989, Shannon, 1990;

Cortner, 1996;

Poisner, 1996; Moote et al, 1997; Tuler and Webler, 1999). The lack of participants
within participatory processes has been linked to barriers of access (Halvorsen, 2001). In
addition, public involvement within a planning process is at times reactive in nature, too
often occurring after a decision has been made. Many processes involve little actual
"hearing" and lack sufficient participants and deliberation (Beierle and Konisky, 1999).
Many academic researchers and professionals have observed limitations in
traditional participatory methods. They suggest that there is a distinct need for the
development, implementation, and evaluation of techniques that participants find

13

deliberative, convenient, and comfortable (Applegate, 1998; Bradbury and Branch, 1999;
Coglianese, 1997; Lynn and Busenberg, 1995; Renn etal, 1995).

2.3 Applications of PPGIS in Planning
PPGIS has attracted researchers and practitioners from multiple fields, including
natural resources, community development, urban planning, and landscape ecology
(Morain, 1999). PPGIS projects in these areas focus on expanding the number of
stakeholders in planning, easing the understanding of analyses through visualization,
circulating planning-related information online, and weighting preferences utilizing
graphical user interface measures which, when combined, result in a more collaborative
planning process (Shiffer, 1998; Talen, 2000; Al-Kodmany, 2001; Ball, 2002; Drew,
2003).
Pettit and Pullar (1999) recognize the difficulties in incorporating GIS into a
public planning process to solve urban and environmental design problems. The
accountability and capability of each participant needs to be considered prior to the
implementation of GIS in a public planning process. Three categories of participants are
incorporated within a GIS-based planning process: stakeholders, decision-makers, and
technical specialists. These participant categories may exhibit a wide range of GIS
expertise in practically any planning process (Nyerges and Jankowski, 2001). Participants
need to understand the main aspects which affect the successful use of the PPGIS tool in a
planning process. Harrison and Haklay (2002) identify the potential requirements of
PPGIS as a planning tool, the expected type of social and institutional collaboration when
using a GIS-based tool, the level and effect of human-computer interaction (HCI), key

14

theoretical themes that should guide the analyses of the GIS tool, and the anticipated
functionality of the GIS tool in order to serve participatory settings (Pickles, 1995;
Nyerges and Jankowski, 2001; Craig et al, 2002; Harrison and Haklay, 2002).
Kyem (2004) addresses the problem that GIS has been undermined by competing
claims about human factors that sustain conflicts. He concludes that without active
participation from stakeholders, the use of planning opportunities created by the local
community, and the collaborative processing of the GIS data, the resulting participatory
GIS methods cannot be used to successfully resolve land use conflicts. Many facilitators
or planners acknowledge the problems created by omitting local input in the knowledge
formation of planning and agree that it is imperative for planners to consider the
perspectives of various groups and to ensure there is trust between these groups (Zanetell
and Knuth, 2002; Petrzelka et al, 2005; Corbett et al, 2006). Rural residents in particular
often remain isolated from planning processes (Corbett et al, 2006). However, the
seemingly contrary nature of rural resident attitudes can be partially attributed to the lack
of data concerning the attitudes of certain subgroups (Petrzelka et al, 2005).
A number of GIS-based methods collect stakeholder and local knowledge within a
planning process. The most popular of these methods incorporates the use of a
multicriteria decision model (MCDM) which allows users to create map output by
weighting independent criteria. These criteria are based on judged values of importance
(Smith, 1980). Applications of multi-criteria decision models include, but are not limited
to, site control planning (Pettit and Pullar, 1999), transportation (Geneletti, 2005) and land
suitability assessments (Bojorquez-Tapia et al, 2001). MCDM's provide decision-makers
with a valuable overview of all available information and increase stakeholder motivation

15

to participate (Genelitti, 2005). In addition, these models can be used in cooperation with
alternate participatory support models to enhance public participation (Laukkanen et al.,
2004). However, MCDMs are criticized for causing barriers of perception or information
transmission which lead members of the public not to participate (Sheppard and Achiam,
2004; Hamersley Chambers and Beckley, 2003). Many researchers have expressed the
concern that MCDMs are too technocratic when used in a public decision-making context
(Cohen, 1997; Kangas et al., 2001; McCool and Stankey, 2001; Mendoza and Prabhu,
2005).
MCDMs allow lay participants to provide their knowledge on previously
identified sets of variables. However, they lack the functionality to allow lay participants
to add their own variables and other information to the system. In addition, Halverson
(2001) notes that MCDMs' lack participatory techniques to assist the stakeholder in
expressing and listening to a variety of perspectives regarding a particular issue.
Furthermore, the public may feel pressured to provide inaccurate information if not given
opportunities for input and deliberation on alternative management actions (Sheppard,
2005). Consequently, Harrison and Halklay (2002) emphasize the usefulness of "onceonly sessions" which allow users to provide information during the early phase of a
planning process. In short, there is a need to develop and implement new participatory
techniques that can be applied in collaboration with multi-criteria decision methods
(Halvorsen, 2001; Nyerges and Jankowski, 2001; Laukkanen et al, 2004J. In comparison
with traditional methods, these participatory techniques need to integrate public input,
modeling techniques, and emerging communication tools to form hybrid decision-support
methods which will better consider the public's needs and knowledge (Sheppard, 2005).

16

A number of existing participatory techniques could merge to develop new
methods of participation. For example, Cassettari et al. (1992) suggest the ability to
communicate via interactive maps (two-way virtual GIS database) will allow spatial data
to be processed and interpreted differently by users. In addition, Haklay and Tobin (2003)
state that tools using geographical visualization would allow a more interactive and
dynamic approach to providing information, one which is not available through traditional
techniques (Cartwright and Hunter, 1996). Similarly, Sheppard (2005) suggests that the
emergence of integrated GIS to utilize visualization and modeling techniques would
further assist the public's understanding of specific issues. Not only do GIS-based
participatory tools need to be integrated within other GIS-based tools, but certain aspects
of traditional methods need to be integrated within PPGIS tools (Al-Kodmany, 2001).
Moreover, the production output from computer screens, especially in hardcopy form, still
essentially mimics the paper maps that were used before the introduction of computers
and could perhaps be upgraded (Cartwright, 1995; Cartwright and Hunter, 1996). Lastly,
natural spatial queries, such as "query by sketch", in which the user draws a rough
approximation of the image they are looking for and the software locates images whose
layout matches the sketch, would help accommodate human understanding of spatial
knowledge (Haklay and Tobon, 2003).
The successful application of a PPGIS tool largely depends on the specific
objectives within that planning process, and no single approach is better in general than
any other approach (Nyerges et al., 2002). In any particular study, tradeoffs are to be
made among various objectives of data gathering.

17

2.4 Limitations of PPGIS
According to the literature, two main limitations, a steep learning curve and
disempowerment, may limit the full capability of PPGIS in a public planning process.
GIS has a steep learning curve, as well as a strong commitment to keeping
software and operator skills current (Corbett et ah, 2006). In certain studies, the level of
understanding and education of stakeholders has limited the full use of GIS within the
planning process (Bojorquez-Tapia et ah, 2001). For example, more users have to
concentrate on using the actual application rather than on providing the data itself
(Cartwright and Hunter, 1996). In addition, the application must have the ability to collect
passionately held positions and reduce complex beliefs to points, lines, areas, and
attributes (Sieber, 2000). Similarly, other authors argue that the dialogue within menu
choices and features will have to employ jargon suitable to the users (Cartwright and
Hunter, 2001). In addition, Elmes (1991) states that to limit future computer avoidance
and increase computer applications, more emphasis needs to be placed on ensuring
computer literacy as a basic component in education.
Historically, certain groups have had restricted access to GIS technology due to its
high price (Wood, 2005; Corbett et ah, 2006). Specifically, under-resourced users are
considerably disadvantaged in their capacity to engage in the decision-making process
without equitable access to GIS data and technology (Harris and Wiener, 1998). Also,
GIS technology is more accommodating to certain conceptions, forms of knowledge, and
kinds of language, and as a result causes unequal access to information (Mark et ah,
.n.d.). Sieber (2000) states that it is highly doubtful that GIS alone can guarantee
empowerment or understanding of a particular decision-making process. A widespread

18

critique regards GIS as an instrument of governmental control and surveillance (Pickles,
1995; Curry, 1998; Aitken, 2002). Providing information through technology may provide
members of the public with a sense of influence in the decision making process, while
actual influence remains within the governing bodies (Sieber, 2000). Harris and Wiener
(1998) conclude GIS potentially "empowers the powerful and disenfranchises the weak".
In certain cases, these limitations have decided planners to refrain from integrating
GIS technology within urban planning processes (Petit & Pullar, 1999). Restraint is more
evident in rural planning processes where the lack of GIS integration is due, in part, to a
lack of technological infrastructure. As a result of these limitations, future GIS was seen
in the last decade to need to be easier to use, inexpensive, and available to a greater
variety of users (Crane, 1993; Pettit and Pullar, 1999). However, slightly increasing
attributes within these applications and lowering the entry costs of computing cannot
dispel what are considered to be inherent problems with GIS (Sieber, 2000).

19

2.5 Evaluation of PPGIS tools
In the evaluation of PPGIS tools, researchers must take into account the objectives
meant to be achieved. PPGIS research has yet to establish a technique to demonstrate
whether or not PPGIS is a suitable approach for a given problem (Sieber, 2006).
Historically, researchers have spent most of their resources in software development
without making any concerted attempt to evaluate product effectiveness rigorously
(Cartwright and Hunter, 2001). Nyerges and Jankowski (2001) state that most of the
research concerning collaborative spatial decision-making has been principally GIS
development rather than GIS use, without a strong theoretical link between the two. In
addition, according to Sieber (2000), little has been done until recently to study the use of
GIS technology at a decision group level. Many evaluation studies have employed
interviews or surveys of the public employees who implemented the public participation
projects (Sewell and Phillips, 1979; Blahna and Yonts-Shepard, 1989; Shannon 1990;
Selin et al, 1997; Smith et al, 1999). Others have been either qualitatively based or a
mixture of qualitative and quantitative methods while focused upon or including as one
component the surveying or interviewing of citizen participants (Lach and Hixson, 1996;
Moore, 1996; Moote et al, 1997, Schuet et al; 1998, Tuler and Webler; 1999). The
richness of the GIS environment can overwhelm the designer with evaluatory options, so
that proper evaluation of multimedia GIS needs to be conducted in a manner which is
sympathetic to both the user and the processes undertaken during system use (Cartwright
and Hunter, 2001).
Evaluation procedures must be carefully designed and implemented to uncover the
strengths and weaknesses of new techniques such as GIS and apply them more effectively

20

and efficiently (Cartwright and Hunter, 2001). Many environmental planning processes
require the progressive evaluation of public participatory methods for future improvement
(Chess, 2000). For this purpose, many evaluators of public participation processes use
"formative evaluation" (Ortolano and Wagner, 1977; US DOE, 1996, 1997; Bradbury and
Branch, 1999). Krygier and Wood (2005) state that formative evaluation would be of
equal use in the evaluation of GIS-based products. In this context, formative evaluation
would involve increasing the researcher's knowledge about the capability of the
participatory method by collecting and analyzing data based on educational value. It
would require the researcher to consider the needs of the user when using a GIS product
and it would collect data through a combination of methods. The focus of formative
evaluation would be directed towards defining unique contributions and the further
development of the GIS product (Krygier and Wood, 2005).
Many researchers believe that establishing whether new GIS-based methods are
more effective than traditional communication approaches is a task too complex to be
accomplished (Cartwright and Hunter, 2001). Alternative cross-comparative studies that
involve GIS-based tools and traditional methods have focused on their effectiveness in
geography education (Krygier et al., 1991; Pedersen et al., 2005), transportation (Reilly
et. al, 2006) and visualization (McGuinness and Ross, 1995). With few exceptions (e.g.,
Martin and Davis, 1999; Al-Kodmany, 2001; Sawicki and Peterman, 2002), crosscomparative research has not yet been conducted in the public participatory setting.
Cartwright and Hunter (2001) state that proper evaluation of multimedia GIS
needs to be conducted in a manner which is sympathetic to both the user and the
processes undertaken during system use. Chess (2000) suggests that environmental

21

agencies should practice methodological pluralism. Methodological pluralism proclaims
that the use of multiple methodological approaches in the course of a practice is
legitimate. Past methods of GIS evaluation have included map analysis (Fritze, 1994;
MacEachren, 1995; Salter, 1995), questionnaires (Fonsesca and Raper, 1992; Cartwright
and Hunter, 2001), participant observation and interviews (Cartwright and Hunter, 2001),
and the analysis of computer log files during system use (Elmes, 1991).
The researcher must consider which aspects of the GIS application are important
for interpreting its successful use. If public participation be the stated objective, as in the
case of PPGIS, it likely will pose a challenge to evaluation (Sieber, 2000). In the case of
public participation, objectives include empowerment, expanded participation, social
capacity and inclusion, equity and redistribution, and heightened democracy (Sieber,
2000; Craig et ah, 2002; Kyem, 2004). However, evaluators of new GIS techniques need
also to consider human-computer interaction, and its indicators, to gauge the success of a
PPGIS tool. Previously used indicators include ease of use (Elmes, 1991), perceptual and
cognitive processes associated with reading map and symbol elements (MacEachren,
1995), mobility of mapping methods (Reilly et ah, 2006), cost, interactivity, scale
flexibility and ability to represent complex contextual data (Al-Kodmany, 2002), and task
performance and computer-map literacy (Morita, 1991). The importance of gauging
computer-map literacy is especially important when comparing the two mapping methods
(Morita, 1991). A GIS-based tool with consistently poor usability will result in both the
user and the technician rejecting further use of the system (Elmes, 1991). Therefore, the
evaluator must establish the positive and negative features of the GIS-based tool to enable
effective symbolization and design (MacEachren, 1995).

22

2.6 Case Study Selection and Description
The study reported in this thesis sought to examine public and planner attitudes
and preferences towards use of a traditional method and PPGIS tool within a rural setting.
For this purpose, the case study required a rural location that was close for planners, that
affords a certain amount of technological infrastructure, and that had a history of a high
degree of public participation. The Regional District of Bulkley-Nechako (RDBN) within
northern British Columbia was selected for all of these reasons. It covers an immense area
(approximately 77,000 sq km) but has a relatively small population (40,856), much of it
rural (RDBN, 2006). This study focused on the town of Smithers within Electoral Area A
of the RDBN. Smithers has the largest population (5217 people) in the Regional District
(RDBN, 2006). In addition, Smithers is home to the regional office for the Integrated
Land Management Bureau (ILMB), which is responsible for regional planning on crown
land (ILMB, 2007), and the Bulkley Valley Community Resources Board (BVCRB),
which represents the residents of the Bulkley Valley in crown land planning (BVCRB,
2007).

23

Chapter 3: Methods, Data Collection, and Analysis
3.1 Methods
This chapter is divided into two main sections. The first on methods summarizes
the structure and principles behind the research design and the effectiveness and
limitations of these methods; the second is on data collection and analysis, outlining
specific procedures followed in this study.
An experimental framework can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of GIS tools
at influencing public participation within a planning process. Within experimental
research, the investigator is striving to generalize a particular set of results to some
broader theory. This study uses both quantitative and qualitative research techniques.
Quantitative methods apply to phenomena that can be measured objectively while
qualitative methods are subjective and vary according to the researchers (Yin, 1998).
The methods used in the study reported here were fitted to a qualitative and
quantitative design, one involving a pretest, the testing of the traditional and the PPGIS
based methods, a traditional method questionnaire, and a PPGIS method questionnaire
(See Appendix A, B, C, and D). The methods were used to assess public and planner
attitudes and aptitudes towards the use of a PPGIS tool in a case study of trail planning
and management within the Bulkley Valley of northern British Columbia.

24

3.1.1 Paper PP method
The paper PP method incorporated the use of three topographic maps and two
orthophoto image maps. For comparison purposes, attempts were made to limit the
amount of map feature differences (e.g., colors) between the PPGIS map interface and
paper maps. In addition, both mapping methods used corresponding GIS-based features
(e.g., existing trails) and orthophoto images. Descriptions of the topographic maps are
outlined in Table 3.1.
.'.Tabfa&^T^^

method.. :-~i'-i^M/^-4^^
Map 1

Map2

Map3

Series

A721

A721

A502

Map index

93L/11

93L/14

93L

Edition

2MCE

2MCE

4MCE

Scale

1/50,000

1/50,000

1/250,000

Year printed

1975

1975

1988

Contour interval

100ft

100ft

500ft

Datum

NAD27

NAD27

NAD27

9

9

9

UTMzone

Descriptions of the orthophoto maps are outlined in Table 3.2.

Area
Scale
UTMzone
Pixel size

Northeast slope of Hudson Bay Mountain
1:2500
9N (WGS84)
lm

25

Smithers Community Forest
1:20,000
9N(WGS84)
lm

3.1.2 PPGIS tool
Designers at UNBC used the Flexible Internet Spatial Template (FIST) as
platform in which to develop the PPGIS tool. As with the PPGIS tool, FIST is an opensource GIS software that was developed at UNBC. The original name of the PPGIS tool
is Collaborative Spatial Interface (CSI). Images of the PPGIS or CSI tool are displayed in
Figure 3.1 and 3.2.
The initial display of the PPGIS tool presented an area of 60,000 sq km which
consisted of the majority of the Bulkley Valley. There were three categories of layers used
within the PPGIS tool: Topographic, which included, but not limited to, contours, rivers,
roads, and trails; Boundary, which included, but not limited to, regional districts, parks,
municipal boundaries, forest districts, and land ownership; and Imagery, which included
orthophoto images and hillshade.

26

Figure 3.1: PPGIS tool interface with underlying orthophoto layer

fK£»dj {Ufryr*} f f t r f f f f c ' ^ ^ ! l W M f S ^ «

•mxummtrvBTBPim
/ M U H W f f i W j i f » W * A«n(»rt>baslnana,
T r M M o n g t l w B u t N y m v w . . (PVBPQ7) •r**t Portion
otTmit

butcmn...

Tr«i akmattwBuHty » w . . . (8VBP07)' i
Trailm Matsm
of Buikley Kmr
v TreJeJonflffrwBiAteyrawr.. (BVBP07) s.
ff<V"y to Ttoff J)!DB» But/thy / t o w /
J r « l « t o n g t h « B u M e y R t v w . . . (Phmnw07)

traff jFWng river is a good idea; however many con.
to«>og(tanow<(traiCBVePQ8) i
r * « trait 900$ from Glacier Gulch ftoad to the alp).,
;tot>Oflfl«icr»Bt(tr«IEBVSP13) ;'
impact of A TV use in the alpine areas is a concern
WM»tcr©**n9(BVBP08) - >
7Ws CTTO* cro$$ing invito a triage.
««Wg,r**iglbMngw«*i--(eV0PO9)
Skiing, biking* biking to end from specific
areas.,
T w * i F * s / Q I » c i B r Gulch (BVBP10) *
tt»» >a 0 trail going striaght to tt» tww ft /fe,.
Mflfcow Lookout (SVBP11)
7ft/s Is a famous trait, ibr the view of the valley...
:comforEPlan«w-0$) i
w i y crude estimation ofcomfor boundary
/ » w W itw w y useful to have a trail

mmmmmm
Subject:

connecting,,,

"~

I

Feature:

now

Exterrt:

none

fnqt|

Meisagw:

| j g | Cursor location; 9 ^ 6 0 6 E , 10ei7feSM t

^pft#ctkm;W«?g3/8CAt»era

jure 3.2: PPGIS tool interface with underlying vegetation layer

27

3.2 One-Group Pretest-Posttest Design
The one-group pretest-posttest design involves observing or measuring a group of
subjects (here, the pretest), introducing a treatment (here, the PPGIS tool), and observing
the subjects again (via the questionnaire) (Singleton and Straits, 2005). This design
provides the foundation for comparison. However, a major threat to validity is the length
of time between the pretest and posttest. In this study, the pretest was followed
immediately by the treatment and posttest to reduce the loss of validity.
Comparative research focuses on the analysis of similarities and differences
between units (Warwick and Osherson, 1973). In this case, comparative research was
used to analyze differences between how lay participants viewed their use of the PPGIS
tool and how they viewed use of the traditional method. Comparative research can
evaluate the strengths and weaknesses for each of the mapping methods to form a more
effective mapping tool or method.
Ragin (1992) explains that qualitative researchers examine a wide variety of
aspects of one or a few cases. According to Rubin and Babin (2005), commonly used
qualitative research methods include participant observation, direct observation, case
studies, and unstructured or intensive interviewing. These qualitative research methods
collect data through detailed descriptions of situations, events, people, interactions, and
observed attitudes, beliefs, and thoughts. In addition, qualitative data provides depth and
detail which can emerge from responses to open-ended questions in a questionnaire
(Patton, 1982). Neumann (2003) states that qualitative research tends to use a "caseoriented approach that places case, not variables, center stage". In the present study, the
case-oriented approach focuses on participants' views and opinions in relation to their

28

ability to use the PPGIS tool within a public planning process.

3.3 Non-probability Sampling
In a qualitative research design, a variety of methods can be use to select
participants, each dependent upon the purpose of the research. Rubin and Babbie (2005)
state that non-probability sampling is often conducted in situations when it is impractical
to select various kinds of probability samples. Non-probability sampling can be carried
out using several techniques. In this study, purposive and snowball sampling techniques
were employed to select participants.
Rubin and Babbie (2005) define purposive sampling as selecting a sample on a
basis of knowledge of the population, knowledge of its social elements, and the nature of
the researchers' aims. Here, lay participants were selected based on their desire to provide
information concerning existing and potential recreational areas (e.g., trails, reserves).
The sample of expert planners was composed of individuals whose occupation involved
some form of planning (e.g., land-use planning, community planning). Initially,
participants were contacted through local trail organizations and government agencies.
The other non-probability sampling technique used, snowball sampling, is a
method for identifying and sampling cases in a network (Neumann, 2003). This sampling
technique is implemented by collecting data on the few members of the target population
that one is able to locate, and then asking those individuals to provide the information
needed to locate other members of that population (Rubin and Babbie, 2005). Snowball
sampling was employed to gather additional participants in the present study. Participants
were asked to identify other key informants, characterized by their trail knowledge with

29

respect to the development, management, and planning of potential and existing trails
within the Bulkley Valley. Snowball sampling is used primarily for exploratory purposes,
and the present study is exploratory in nature.
The appropriate number of participants in a study is determined by a number of
factors, including the population investigated, the intent of the researcher, and potential
participant familiarity with the study topic (Warren and Karner, 2005). The participants'
familiarity of study topic is particularly important for non-probability sampling, in which
participants are carefully chosen to suit the purpose of the study. Neumann (2003) states
that the study population has likely been adequately sampled when no new names are
given, indicating a closed network. As the study progresses, the researcher can consider
how close he or she is to a suitable sample of participants by considering the factors
outlined above (Warren and Karner, 2005).

3.3.1 Limitations of Non-Probability Sampling
The potential for bias is one of the main limitations of non-probability sampling
(Neumann, 2003). A number of kinds of biases can occur with the use of non-probability
sampling techniques. For example, the failure to include all the relevant groups in the
population of interest is called coverage error (Lidner et ah, 2001). In this study, coverage
error would occur if a certain group of planners involved with public participatory
planning, such as Integrated Land Management Bureau (ILMB) planners, were not
included in the sample.
With the use of snowball sampling, the initially selected participants can
recommend participants with views similar to their own and thus create bias (Stewart and
Shamdasani, 1998). In addition, those participants who do participate may differ, to some

30

degree, from those participants who refuse to participate (e.g., they may be less educated),
which can create bias and weaken validity (Neumann, 2003). Within random sampling,
this is a common form referred to as non-response bias (Rubin and Babbie, 2005).
In this study, stratified sampling was used in an attempt to reduce limitations of
non-probability sampling and include a representative sample of participants. In this case,
the sample was divided into two main strata, public and planners. However, the selection
of participants through non-probability sampling does not control for researcher bias
(Singleton and Straits, 2005). In addition, the use of this sampling method preempts the
applicability of statistical testing techniques and hence makes calculating the probability
of sampling error impossible (Miller, 1977). Finally, this method allows for only a
suggestive interpretation of the results, which limits external validity, or the researcher's
ability to generalize to a larger population (Miller, 1977; Blalock, 1979).

3.4 Questionnaires, Observations, and Map Analysis
Three instruments of measurement aimed to evaluate the ability of the traditional
participant method and the PPGIS tool from the viewpoint of public and expert planners.
These three instruments, namely self-reported questionnaires, researcher observations,
and map analysis, allowed for triangulation during data analysis.
A questionnaire can be a useful and powerful tool for both public and private
organizations that need to know the characteristics and opinions of people they serve
(Salant and Dillman, 1994). Questionnaires have the ability to gather both quantitative
and qualitative data. Previous GIS-related studies have used some form of a pre-test in
association with questionnaires to measure the level of a participant's computer-map

31

literacy (McGuirmess and Ross, 1995; Linn, 1997; Cartwright and Hunter, 2001;
Pedersen et al, 2005). A pre-test measures dependent variables prior to the introduction
of the treatment (Neumann, 2003). The dependent variables can then be measured a
second time using a post-test or questionnaire. Open-ended questions can be used to
establish comfort and promote interactive dialogue, which is believed to assist in
increasing the reliability and validity of research (Schoenberger, 1991). In this study, pretests and questionnaires, which contained both close and open-ended questions, were
designed to answer the research questions outlined in Chapter One (see Appendices A, B,
C, and D).
An appropriate schema is needed for the structured analysis of map readability.
Human visual perception is powerfully driven by the global organization of form. For
example, the grouping of points, lines, and basic features will determine which kinds of
patterns are noticed and whether symbols are seen as intended (MacEachren, 1995). In
this study, the transparency of basic features on paper maps and the PPGIS map interface
were compared using indicators of map analysis. These indicators were based on factors
of feature groupings: proximity, similarity, good continuation, closure, and simplicity
(Ellis, 1955).
Many researchers consider participant observation as a data-gathering technique
which produces an "accurate" portrayal of case study phenomena (Yin, 1998). In
participant observation, the investigator may take on variety of roles within a case study
situation. Many have argued that such a perspective is invaluable in producing an
"accurate" portrayal of case study phenomena (Yin, 1998). Concerning geomatics, Turk
(1990) explains that a large amount of useful information and informal evidence can be

32

obtained by observing people who operate GIS equipment. Over the course of the testing
in this study, the principal researcher observed reactions from the participants while using
the PPGIS tool and the traditional methods. Detailed field notes of these meetings and
post-meeting reflections were kept in a journal. They were later coded and integrated with
the other data sources. The methodological research design employed in this study is
displayed in Figure 3.1.

33

Paper PP
method survey

PPGIS Tool
survey

Expert planner
survey
Evaluation of PPGIS tool
compared with equivalent
traditional participatory
method (Paper PP method)

34

*Note: The sequence of participatory method testing and questionnaire delivery was switched (A<-»B) for every lay participant

Lay
sample

Expert
planner
sample

Figure 3.3: Methodological research design used to evaluate the PPGIS tool and paper PP method involving members of lay public
and expert planners

3.4.1 Limitations of Questionnaires, Observations, and Map Analysis
The truthfulness and validity of the information obtained from questionnaires can
be compromised in several ways. Questions asking for a response on multiple issues,
affective wording or words that stimulate certain emotions, and complex questions can
lead to incoherent and unnatural responses (Berg, 1989). Response patterns can also be
influenced by the phrasing and sequencing of patterns. As recommended by Salant and
Dillman (1994), in the field studies reported here the sequencing of questions and the
language chosen for questions were carefully considered. More specifically, questionnaire
questions were reviewed by the principal researcher and investigators of the UNBC
GEOIDE node for simplicity, precision, and effectiveness.
Participant observation has two approaches. The first approach involves
observation alone, while the second involves both observing and participating, to some
degree, in a study. However, in the case of the latter option, the participant role may
simply require too much attention relative to the observer role. Consequently, recording
detailed observations can quickly become overwhelming and lead to misconceptions
(Yin, 1998). Similarly, observing and participating in a study limits external observation
which, in certain instances, creates a position of advocacy contrary to good scientific
practices (Mack et al., 2005). The researcher must remain objective within participant
observation. In particular, the researcher must distinguish between reporting or describing
what is observed (more objective) and interpreting what is seen (less objective) (Mack et
al., 2005). To minimize these sources of bias, the researcher attempted to remain
objective when testing and observing participants. Additionally, in those cases that
required a greater participatory role, observations were recorded immediately from

35

memory after testing was completed.
MacEachren (1995) states that a map with no feature organization can prove to be
harder to interpret than others. Hence, an appropriate feature schema for structuring map
analysis is needed to accurately identify and understand feature groupings. In this study,
each indicator of map analysis (see Section 3.4) was interpreted independently to reduce
the uncertainty of feature grouping errors between maps.
Researchers should practice and review their roles and routines prior to
conducting a study (Berg, 1989). In this case, the testing was conducted on sample
participants prior to the case study and certain aspects were modified to allow for a simple
and straightforward testing process. Berg (1989) states that a researcher's age, gender,
ethnicity, dress, and speech mannerisms have been known to influence the effectiveness
of the researcher-participant rapport. Throughout the testing process of this study, the
researcher was mindful of participant mannerisms and attempted to retain a natural
demeanour. Most interviewees seemed comfortable with the testing process. Participants
were assured of the anonymity and confidentiality of their responses (see Appendix E).
During the initial explanation phase, efforts were made to describe the purpose of the
study and to provide clarification when needed.

36

3.5 Data Collection
Various trails groups and governmental agencies were contacted by email and
general information concerning the research study was disclosed. Tests were conducted
by the principal researcher between August. 13th and Sept. 17th, 2006 in Smithers, BC.
Individual testing was selected over group testing in an attempt to improve validity and
reliability since each of the participant's thoughts and opinions would be unbiased by
others. The exact location of each testing process was determined through an agreement
between the researcher and the participant. In many cases, these locations consisted of
offices, houses, or local community centers, such as libraries. The testing was conducted
in person, and observations on participant behavior were recorded.
A basic training period describing the functioning of the PPGIS tool was verbally
provided to participants. Participant questions were answered by the principal researcher
throughout their use of the tool.
The lay participant testing included the writing of a pre-test to determine
participants' computer literacy followed by the use of either the paper public participation
(PP) method or the PPGIS tool, and lastly, the writing of a questionnaire concerning their
use of the participatory method. In order to minimize bias, the participatory method
testing sequence was switched for every participant. For example, Participant 1 would use
the paper PP method followed by the PPGIS tool, whereas Participant 2 would use the
PPGIS tool followed by the paper PP method. Lay participants were asked to provide
knowledge on at least one of three aspects concerning recreational areas within the
Bulkley Valley: Potential Recreational Areas; Maintenance and Upkeep of Existing
Recreational Areas; and Access Issues with Existing Recreational Areas. The duration of

37

the tests for the lay participants was approximately 60 to 90 minutes.
Expert planner testing included the writing of a pre-test, the use of the PPGIS tool,
and the completion of a questionnaire. Expert planners did not use the paper PP method
since they were assumed to have had prior experience utilizing numerous traditional
participatory methods. However, for comparison purposes, the procedure for collecting
lay participant information using the paper PP method was explained to each expert
planner. Expert planners were asked to consider the ability of the PPGIS tool to gather
information from lay participants based on the three aspects of recreational areas listed
above. The duration of the testing for the expert planners was approximately 45 to 70
minutes.

3.6 Data Analysis
The purpose of the research being undertaken, to a large extent, directs the
analysis of qualitative results (Punch, 2005; Ulin et ah, 2005). Deriving qualitative
results involves several steps (Neumann, 2003) including examining, coding,
categorizing, reducing, and interpreting data. A clear and structured approach to following
these steps is essential to the effective analysis of qualitative data. Rubin and Babbie
(2005) describe a structured approach to data analysis which includes processing the data,
followed by the interpretation of data through descriptive or inferential data analysis. An
effective qualitative data processing technique, content analysis, allows the researcher to
gather and analyze a content of text (Neumann, 2003). Once data have been analyzed, a
statistical method is needed to present a quantitative description of the data in a
manageable form. Descriptive statistics summarize a set of sample observations, whereas

38

inferential statistics move beyond the description of specific observations to make
inferences about a larger population (Rubin and Babbie, 2005). Due to the small sample
size and exploratory nature of this study, descriptive statistics were used. The phases of
the data analysis are specified below.

3.6.1 Content Analysis
Content analysis is a means of transforming qualitative material into quantitative
data and can be applied to virtually any form of communication (Rubin and Babbie,
2005), in this case questionnaires and observations. Qualitative and quantitative analysis
are often integrated in content analysis. Appropriate units of analysis of verbal or written
information (e.g., words, sentences, themes) are classified into categories. Categories
must be mutually exclusive and exhaustive to allow for replication (Neumann, 2003).
Measurement of content involves careful and systematic observation based on a coding
system. Coding systems typically identify one or more of four characteristics of text
content: frequency, direction, intensity, and space (Neumann, 2003). A researcher is
expected to employ selection criteria in the categorization of the text content. In adapting
selection criteria, researchers must consider the type of content to be analyzed. Manifest
content refers to countable elements that are visible in surface content, whereas latent
content refers to the underlying, implicit meaning in the content of the text (Neumann,
2003). Latent content may lead to a loss of reliability and specificity (Rubin and Babbie,
2005). However, Berg (1989) believes that since latent and manifest content need not be
mutually exclusive, similar coding processes can be employed for both.

39

In the present study, a coding scheme based on units of analysis was developed to
assist in the coding and categorization of text content. Categories were developed based
on the units of analysis of the text content within the research. In this case, units of
analysis were defined based on qualities of each participatory method since they were the
fundamental components of each participatory method that would have either enhanced or
restricted public participation. Remaining text content was judged against existing
categories, and if no link was found, a new category was formed. Categories were
grouped based on specified key points of the research. Each of these aspects of text were
coded by the principal researcher.
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Version 15.0 analyzed the data.
Data analysis for the lay sample and expert planner sample was completed separately.
Generally, responses were coded for each questionnaire during field research. Following
field research, some open-ended responses were coded and transcription errors were
checked. The questionnaire allowed manifest content to be easily detected due to the
straightforward and clear nature of the questions, while latent content became more
apparent during the cross-comparative analysis. During data entry phase, Likert scale
questions were reassigned codes (using SPSS) from response categories to numerical
codes so that a negative response would correspond with a low numerical code. For
example, on a 5-point scale, "very hard" would receive a score of 1. Questions that
incorporated greater detail were assigned a 7-point scale, rather than a 5-point scale, to
further enhance the measurement of participant opinions.
Reliability of data analysis needs to be carefully considered during the
classification of categories. The choice of category classification may differ from one

40

coder to another for the same unit of analysis. Therefore, if a researcher uses a number of
coders, then there must be a set of parameters within the coding system which allows
checking for consistency across coders (Neumann, 2003). Similarly, when a coding
process occurs over an extended period (e.g., three months), the researcher must check the
stability reliability by recoding samples of text which were previously coded (Neumann,
2003). Cronbach's Alpha coefficient can be used to measure the overall reliability of the
categorical classification, ranging between 0 and 1 (De Vaus, 2002). Cronbach's Alpha
coefficients were calculated for lay sample and expert planner sample separately.
Generally a value of 0.7 or higher indicates a reliable scale (DeVellis, 1991). In this
study, Cronbach's coefficient was calculated to a value of 0.73.

3.6.2 Interpretation
Following the coding process, data reduction occurs, which further reduces data
into more manageable portions. In this case, the themes and categories were further
examined with respect to the Enhanced Adaptive Structuration Theory 2 (Nyerges and
Jankowski, 2001). Furthermore, Punch (2005) states that theoretical comparisons of
results can occur through both qualitative and quantitative data. A commonly used
descriptive statistical technique, frequency distributions, was used to quantify the results
of content analysis. Frequency distribution refers to the reviewing and adding of the
number of cases that instantiate a specific themes or variables in question (Rubin and
Babbie, 2005).
Data interpretation involves a comprehensive understanding of the data which
involves knowledge of the previous phases of analyses and existing theories. However,

41

there has yet to be any widespread accepted set of rules for the process of data
interpretation. The main focus of data interpretation involves linking ideas and
relationships to one another through coding, and drawing conclusions from these
relationships. Ulin et al. (2005) suggest that this process explains how a system of
concepts and themes is linked to relevant theories. Conceptual linkages can fill in
theoretical gaps as well as answer existing questions.

3.7 Limitations of Data Analysis
Potentially, several limitations can affect qualitative data analysis. For example,
the use of content analysis restricts the researcher to examining recorded communications
(Rubin and Babbie, 2005). To minimize the effect of this limitation, alternative evaluation
methods (e.g., map analysis) were used in combination with content analysis. Rubin and
Babbie (2005) state that the reliability and validity of the data analysis technique chosen
can both influence the concreteness and generalizability of the research findings. In this
case, non-random samples preclude generalization to populations outside the study.
Validity is threatened when a researcher extends relationships from frequency
distributions of categories to complex theories and concepts (Punch, 2005). In this study,
causal inferences, discussed within the discussion sections of Chapters 4, 5, and 6, are
taken to be merely suggestive.
A common form of bias involves the development of unrelated categories and the
analysis solely of data which supports the researcher's preferred outcome (Holsti, 1969;
Babbie, 1995). The use of a fixed system of rules and parameters can allow a researcher
to reduce the amount of subjective classifications (Holti, 1969). In this case, as described

42

in section 3.6.1, the researcher carefully followed well-defined rules and parameters
during the classification, verification, and exclusion of categories. Categorization of
words and phrases required that they match written descriptors of the categories (See
Appendix F for descriptors).

43

Chapter 4: Results for Lay Sample
This chapter presents results from fieldwork with the samples drawn from lay
members of the public. The "public" results are organized according to the research
question they are meant to answer. Each section is sub-divided into results and discussion.
Results sections focus on the direct outcomes of content analysis and discussion sections
describe interesting findings, provide insight into relationships among the data, and
discuss literature related to the findings.

4.1 Demographic Results
In total, 21 members of the public participated in tests involving both the PPGIS
tool and the paper PP method. Educational backgrounds of participants ranged from high
school to postgraduate education (Table 4.1). Lay participants' educational background
were compared with these of members of the public within the Bulkley-Nechako
Regional District (BC STATS, 2001). Educational background was categorized according
to the highest level of education achieved, defined as follows: bachelor's degree or
higher; some university; completed diploma; some diploma; completed high school;
some high school; and less than high school.

44

Table 4 1 : Idwcatittnial attornments off lay members of the p ^

W2 •;•:. ^ i * a i i n & ^

No. of lay
participants

Percentage
of lay
participants

Percentage of members
of the public from the
Bulkley-Nechako
Regional District*

Highest level of education
achieved
Bachelor's degree or higher
8
38.1%
9.8%
4
Some University
19.0%
6.3%
Completed Diploma
1
4.8%
28.8%
Some Diploma
3
14.3%
7.5%
Completed High School
5
23.8%
15.3%
0
Some High School
0%
24.0%
Less than Grade Nine
0
0%
8.4%
*Source: BC Stats (2001) (http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/cen01/profiles/59051000.pdf)
The majority of lay participants had at least some post secondary education. On
average, lay participants exhibited higher educational attainments than the general public
within the Bulkley-Nechako Regional District.
For the purposes of this study, age was categorised into eight intervals. The age
distribution of the group ranged from 0-19 to 65-74, with 55-64 having the highest
number of participants (Table 4.2).
•vi*:'i*r''^"'ii

A'

- - - * £ ' •''•*i4

'"' 'ei~

"'••"

*•*••!

-A

**-

" •'''-' "•""'• • - ~ - " ' • ' • ' ' - " • S 4 * - . - . - ? * v

No. of participants
Age
0-19
20-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-65
65-74
Total

3
2
4
3
3
5
1
21

45

In making comparisons between age (Table 4.2) and educational attainments
(Table 4.1), the figures for the lay sample and Bulkley populations are incommensurable
because, generally speaking, the 0-19 age group have not had time to complete the same
levels of education. The lay public group was composed of 10 males and 11 females. Of
these 21 participants, only 2 indicated that they were colour blind.
Lay participants were classified into five occupational categories (Table 4.8):
Sales/Services, which includes participants that work in the sales or service industry;
Clerical/Admin, which includes participants that are involved in clerical or administrative
work; Trades, Primary and Manufacturing, which includes participants whose occupation
involves trades, manufacturing, and work within primary industry; Professional
Management, which includes participants who work in a management or professional
occupation; and Unemployed, which includes participants who are retired or otherwise
not in the work force (McGuckin and Nakamoto, 2004). There was roughly an even
distribution of participants within the various occupational categories.

Number of participants
Occupational category
Sales/Services
Clerical/Admin
Trades, Primary, Manufacturing
Professional and Management
Unemployed

5
3
5
3
4

Participants were asked in which kinds of planning processes they had previously
participated, with examples including: Official Community Plan (OCP), which addresses
the long term vision for the community; National Park Plan, which guides management of

46

National Parks and Historic Sites; Provincial Park Plan, which guides management of
Provincial Parks and Historic Sites; Forest Plan, which guides management of urban and
regional forests; Lands and Resources Management Plan (LRMP), which provides
strategic level direction for managing Crown land resources and identifies ways to
achieve community economic, environmental, and social objectives; and Sustainable
Resource Management Plan (SRMP), which presents objectives and strategies for the
sustainable management of resources within a particular region (Table 4.3). Of the 21
participants, 10 participants had previously participated in a planning process.

For the purpose of comparing the participants' knowledge of and ability with
computer and traditional participatory tools, the frequency of the lay participants' use of
computers, paper maps, and computer-based maps over a year was measured (Table 4.4).

47

Table 4.5: La\ participant use of computers, paper maps and computer-based maps

No. of times per year
0 times a year
1-5 times a year
6-10 times a year
11-15 times a year
16-25 times a year
26-35 times a year
36-50 times a year
Over 50 times a year
Total

Computers

Number of participants
Paper maps
Computer-based
maps

0
1
0
0
1
0
0
19
21

0
5
0
0
2
1
3
10
21

4
3
3
1
2
3
1
4
21

Lay participants' use of paper maps was over twice the amount of their use of
computer-based maps in a year. Computer-based maps were used with no specific pattern
ranging across all classes. Nearly all of the participants used a computer over fifty times a
year.
Each of the lay participants completed a pre-test that examined their map literacy,
computer icon knowledge and PPGIS knowledge (Table 4.5). The pre-test measured the
participants' ability to read various components of a map, such as a legend. The computer
icon section measured the participants' ability to understand the use of various computer
icons relating to the use of computer-based maps. The PPGIS feature section measured
participants' familiarity with various PPGIS features (e.g., polygons, arcs, points).

48

Pre-test
sections
Map
/z/eracy
Computer
icons
GIS
features
Total

No. of
participants

No. of
questions

Minimum
correct

Maximum
correct

Mean

Std.
deviation

21

7

6

7

6.95

0.22

21

8

3

8

6.81

1.83

21

4

0

4

2.33

1.68

21

19

9

19

16.10

2.88

The minimum correct score for the all sections combined was 9 and the maximum
was 19, with a mean score of approximately 16.
Prior to the participatory method test, participants were asked to provide ratings
on the qualities of computer-based and paper maps, from which scores were tabulated on
the following variables: difficulty of use, quality of design, amount of relevant
information and efficiency. The frequency of the lay participants' ratings on the four
variables relating to performance of computer-based maps is outlined in Table 4.6.
Table 4;7,:;Xay partici£an| ratings of the. difficulty of use, qoali^of ^fa^^iniOunt

Rating
Very low
Low
Fairly low
Neutral
Fairly high
High
Very high
Total

Difficulty of
use

Quality of
design

Amount of relevant
information

4
6
0
3
3
0
2
18

1
1
1
1
7
6
1
18

1
1
1
2
2
9
2
18

49

Efficiency

1
1
0
2
8
5
1
18

Three of the 21 lay participants believed they should not provide their opinion on
the qualities of computer-based maps since they lacked PPGIS knowledge and
experience. Of the 18 remaining lay participants, over half stated that they thought
computer-based maps had a Low to Very low difficulty of use. In addition, the majority of
lay participants indicated that PPGIS map quality of design, amount of relevant
information and efficiency were at the higher end of the scale. Frequencies of the lay
participants' ratings on the four variables relating to qualities of paper maps are outlined
in Table 4.7.

The majority of participants (18/21) rated paper maps as having a Fairly low to
Very low difficulty of use. In addition, the majority of the participants indicated that the
paper maps had a Fairly high to Very high quality of design, amount of relevant
information, and efficiency.

50

4.2 Results from Tests of Paper Public Participation (PP) Method
4.2.1 Statement of Research Question(s) Addressed
This section presents results from lay sample tests of the traditional public
participatory method of providing information which primarily relate to research
questions one and two (See section 1.2). Results bear on the overall performance, ability
to provide information, orientation, and the pleasing/irritating aspects of the paper PP
method. In addition, results are provided on participants' reasons for their failure to
complete tasks and their opinions about changes needed to improve the traditional
participatory methods.

4.2.2 Analysis ofData
Lay participants rated the overall performance of the paper PP method of
providing information. Ratings were classified into four main groups: difficulty of use,
quality of design, amount of relevant information, and efficiency (Table 4.9).

51

The majority of participants (16/21) indicated that the paper PP method had a
Fairly low to Very low difficulty of use. The quality of design was rated as Fairly high to
Very high by 15/21 participants. The amount of relevant information was indicated as
Fairly high to Very high by 16/21 participants. Lastly, 14/21 lay participants rated the
paper PP method as having a Fairly high to Very high efficiency.
Participants were invited to rate the paper PP method of presenting cartographic
information according to a Likert-type scale with five intervals, on eight qualities (Table
4.10). A positive rating corresponds with a rating of Strongly Agree or Agree, while a
negative rating corresponds with a rating of Strongly Disagree or Disagree.

'• ': :J '•-''"-;™v~-"vV~*;^^

•T^^F:?^'-^^^^^
—

— 0 . j .

Disagree

\'ciilrul

2
2
5
2
1
0
4
3
2
6
27

4
2
1
3
6
6
2
2
4
1
31

Strongly Agree

Disagree
*Qualities
Simple

Useful
Quick
Informative
Friendly
Comfortable
Interesting
Easy
Trustable
Enjoyable
Total

1
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
4

6
8
7
9
7
8
8
11
14
10
88

6
9
7
7
7
6
7
5
1
3
58

*See Appendix F for descriptors

Overall, lay participants expressed positive ratings for each of the qualities
regarding the paper PP method. Participants' ratings on the difficulty of sketching their
spatial knowledge on a paper map are outlined in Table 4.11.

52

Table 4.11 • Lay

pattm

&£zZ*iL;JBfi£z fctt"<L^

Perceived level of
difficulty
Very hard
Hard
Fairly hard
Neutral
Fairly easy
Easy
Fery easy
Total

H

No. of ratings

Percentage of all participants

21

4.8%
0%
9.5%
14.3%
23.8%
33.3%
14.3%
100%

The majority of participants (15/21) believed that it was Fairly easy to Very easy
to draw a trail or area on the paper maps. Lay participants were asked to rate their ability
to shift between various maps while attempting to complete their tasks. Participants rated
their level of speed when moving between various paper maps (Table 4.12).

•rETMf'WWMMCMRMTCT^^

Level of speed
Very slow
Slow
Fairly slow
Neutral
Fairly quick
Quick
Very quick
Total

«..

No. of ratings

Percentage of all ratings

19

0
10.5%
10.5%
26.3%
10.5%
15.8%
26.3%
100%

53

Slightly over half of the participants (10/19) felt that they could quickly move
between the paper maps. However, over one-fourth of the lay participants (5/19) indicated
a neutral ease of movement between the various paper maps. The amount of information
that the participants provided about recreational areas while using the paper PP method is
outlined in Table 4.13.

Tabic 4.13,;. Frequency of lay participants ratings of amouu^pf information

Descriptors of amount of
information provided
Info provided - none
Info provided - very little
Info provided - little
Info provided - fair
Info provided - large
Info provided - very large
Info provided - a lot
Total

Frequency of ratings

Percentage of all ratings

4
1
2
5
5
3
1
21

19%
4.8%
9.5%
23.8%
23.8%
14.3%
4.8%
100%

Lay participants were asked to rate their ability to orient themselves using paper
maps. Various features were used to test the participants' ease of orientation. These
features included: Lakes, Roads, Mountains, and Existing trails (Table 4.14).

54

^ht*atiBg]ji;ojii.,t^ir ease of o r i & ^ j j i j j ^
*<i

Descriptor
chosen for
ease of
orientation
Very slow
Slow
Fairly slow
Neutral
Fairly quick
Quick
Very quick

V - . : . : " : . v S r - " • '•••-•••'••

'-"-?;S7rr—""*«rtW«wS«Mi^

Lakes

Roads

Mountains

Existing
trails

Total

Percentage of
total participant
ratings

0
0
0
1
2
5
13

0
0
0
3
4
6
8

1
0
1
4
3
4
6

1
0
1
0
3
7
9

2
0
2
8
12
22
36

2.4%
0%
2.4%
9.8%
14.6%
26.8%
43.9%

Nearly all of the lay participants indicated they oriented themselves Fairly quick
to Very quick to the lakes (20/21), roads (18/21), mountains (13/19) and existing trails
(19/21). Of the 82 ratings collected, seventy (70/82) ratings indicated that the lay
participants orientated themselves Fairly quick to Very quick.
Participants identified numerous pleasing aspects of using the paper PP method.
Each of the pleasing aspects was coded into categories listed in Table 4.15. The
methodology of coding aspects into categories within Tables 4.16, 4.17, 4.19, and 4.20
was earlier explained in Chapter 3.

55

table 4.15; Aspe^tepl^ paper PP method t l w t p I e ^ d ^ y - j ^ i ^ g j | ^ ^ L / . ^ ^ : \ v .
Frequency with which
No. of times aspect was
aspect was cited
cited, as a percentage of
all times aspects were
cited
Categories of pleasing
aspects of the paper PP
method
Overall perspective (e.g., no
8
25%
screen movement needed)
5
15.6%
Quick orientation
Familiar
5
15.6%
3
9.4%
Portable
Quick sketching of trails or
2
6.3%
areas
2
Applied use (e.g., hands on)
6.3%
2
6.3%
Quick ability to provide
knowledge
2
6.3%
Simple quality of design
1
Easy to understand
3.1%
2
6.3%
No comment
32
Total
100%

In total, there were 32 instances of lay participants citing some pleasing aspect of
the paper PP method. Those instances were coded into 10 categories. Overall perspective
(8/32) of the map area was the category of pleasing aspect most commonly invoked by
the lay participants. For example, three participants mentioned that the paper maps
provided a "bird's eye view" of the whole research area.
Lay participants identified numerous irritating aspects of the paper PP method.
Irritating aspects were coded into categories. The frequency with which each of the
categories of irritating aspects was mentioned is outlined Table 4.16.

56

Categories of irritating
aspects of the paper PP
method
Features cannot be found
Scale cannot be changed
Permanence of paper
maps(e.g., cannot edit
digitizations or comments)
Paper maps are outdated
Paper maps cannot be
shared without meeting
Paper maps are
cumbersome
Information from public is
inaccurate
Paper map is cluttered
Scale system is hard to
understand
Information can be lost
easily
No comment
Total

Frequency of irritating
aspects

Percentage of irritating
aspects

5
5
4

17.8%
17.8%
14.3%

3
2

10.7%
7.1%

2

7.1%

2

7.1%

1
1

3.6%
3.6%

1

3.6%

4
30

14.3%
100%

The majority of lay participants cited irritating aspects (e.g., permanence, can't
change scale) that related to the inflexibility of paper maps. Certain roads or trails may
have been not shown on the paper maps because those maps were outdated. Several lay
participants (4/30) indicated that the permanence of the paper maps was a cause of
irritation. More specifically, information provided by the participant was difficult to
change or edit once provided.
Participants identified up to five tasks that they tried to complete when using the
paper PP method. Tasks were coded to form categories. The number of times each
category of task was attempted is outlined in Table 4.17.

57

No. of occasions on which
tasks in category were
attempted by participants

Percentage of all tasks
attempted

18
17

34.6%
25.4%

15

28.8%

5
4
4
1
1
1
1
67

9.6%
7.7%
7.7%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
1.9%
100%

Categories of tasks
attempted by participants
Sketch a trail
Write comments concerning
a feature
Outline an area or
boundary
Locate a landmark
Sketch a road
Locate a trail
Label a trail
Measure distance of a trail
Sketch a landmark
Determine a location
Total

Lay participants identified the number of tasks they did not complete while using
the paper PP method (Table 4.18).

No. of tasks completed
Completed all tasks
Failed to complete one task
Failed to complete two
tasks
Failed to complete three
tasks
No comment
Total

No. of participants

Percentage of participants

12
5
1

57.1%
23.8%
4.8%

1

4.8%

2
21

9.5%
100%

Lay participants identified the main causes that may have prevented them from
completing their tasks. The frequencies of these causes are outlined in Table 4.19.

58

v;Ti^4.J&]i^

Participants' reasons for
not accomplishing tasks
Paper maps were
unfamiliar
Task was out of map area
Paper maps were outdated
(i.e. missing roads)
Trails not shown
Length could not be
measured accurately
Cutblock and timber areas
not classified
Elevation change difficult to
recognize
Total

did npxajg£o^g|^^jp^
No. of instances of this
reason

Percentage of all reasons
offered

4

23.5%

3
3

17.6%
17.6%

1
1

5.9%
5.9%

1

5.9%

1

5.9%

17

100%

Participants identified aspects that should be changed within the paper PP method.
The frequencies of kinds of aspects identified are outlined in Table 4.20.

59

.TaMM3Q£|J^

Categories of lay
participant
recommendations for
change
Map detail should be
enhanced
Colors should be purer
Map should have more
trails
Maps of more varying
scales should be used
Questions about
recreational ideas should
be more detailed
Color pencils should be
available for sketching of
different features
Participant features should
be better organized
Total

Instances of category of
change

Percentage of all
recommendations for
change

6

46.2%

2
1

15.4%
7.7%

1

7.7%

1

7.7%

1

7.7%

1

7.7%

13

100%

60

4.2.3 Discussion
Initially, individuals who were members of trail groups (e.g., hiking, biking, etc.)
were deemed relevant to this study. However, after difficulty was encountered in
acquiring adequate numbers of participants from these groups, the study participants were
expanded to include other members of the public who had knowledge or opinions
concerning recreational areas within the Bulkley Valley
Lay participants exhibited a wide diversity of socio-economic characteristics.
However, some of the lay participants involved in this study were found to have college
or university level education, including postgraduate studies. Given that many studies
have shown that high levels of education are related to high degrees of civic participation
(Wolfinger and Rosenstone, 1980; Verba et ah, 1995; Nie et al., 1996), this finding was
expected.
Lay participants experienced a higher difficulty of use with computer-based maps
than with paper maps. The quality of design, amount of relevant information, and
efficiency of the paper and computer-based maps were rated similarly to one another with
high performance attributed to each mapping method. Lay participants had more
experience of paper maps than of computer-based maps. Since the development of
computer-based maps is more recent than that of paper maps, this finding was to be
expected. The higher difficulty of use with computer-based maps may be due to their lack
of experience with those maps. Further implications of these findings are discussed within
sections 5.2.3 and 6.1.

61

4.3 Results from the Tests of the PPGIS Method
4.3.1 Statement of Research Question(s) Addressed
This section describes the results from tests of lay participants' reactions to using
the GEOIDE PPGIS tool which primarily relate to research questions one, two, three, and
four. Results from this test are presented in parallel format to results from the test of the
paper PP method.

4.3.2 Analysis of Data
Lay participants rated the overall performance of the PPGIS tool. Ratings were
classified into four main groups which include: difficulty of use, quality of design,
amount of relevant Information, and efficiency (Table 4.21).

62

Over half of the lay participants (12/21) indicated that the PPGIS tool had a Fairly
low to Very low difficulty of use. The quality of design was rated as Fairly high to Very
high by eleven (11/21) lay participants. Thirteen (13/21) lay participants indicated that
the PPGIS tool had a Fairly high to Very high amount of relevant information. Finally,
twelve (12/21) lay participants rated the PPGIS tool as having a Fairly high to Very high
efficiency.
Participants were invited to rate the PPGIS tool when presenting cartographic
information according to a Likert-type scale with five intervals, on eight descriptors
(Table 4.22). A positive rating corresponds with the descriptive factors on the right of the
scale, while a negative rating corresponds with the descriptive factors on the left.
Table 4,22 t M y parte
Strongly
disagree

Disagree

*Qualities
4
7
Simple
2
1
Useful
1
4
Quick
0
3
Informative
1
3
Friendly
2
3
Comfortable
0
Interesting
3
1
7
Easy
0
7
Trustable
1
2
Enjoyable
12
40
Total
*See Appendix F for descriptors

Neutral

Agree

Strongly agree

1
2
2
2
3
4
3
3
2
3
25

7
8
9
12
9
8
7
5
9
10
84

2
7
4
4
5
3
8
5
3
5
46

The lay participants expressed an overall positive rating for each of the descriptive
factors regarding the PPGIS tool with exception of a negative rating for the Simple
quality.

63

Lay participants' ratings on the ease or difficulty of digitizing a feature on the
PPGIS tool map interface are outlined in Table 4.23.

Table 4,23: Lav participants ratings on difficulty of sketching a trail jor area using thfi. . •
lYKlJ'iiV-"'!'""'" i
...

•_•.•..__..

---..•.•.••.

- • • • • • • - • •

.

.•*

•'

v

Perceived level of
difficulty
Very hard
Hard
Fairly hard
Neutral
Fairly easy
Easy
Very easy
Total

* • - • • ' • « " * ? - * • • : • » - . • • - : • - - • - . -.i» - . -

iJT.\

: i - - i . - ; , - ' \ » , - _ :••••••••

.-.,.*.-. , * - - v . , • .

• ; —

j-.i.-i-..

Frequency of ratings

Percentage of all participants

0
1
3
4
0
6
7
21

0%
4.8%
14.3%
19.0%
0%
28.6%
33.3%
100.0%

Thirteen lay participants (13/21) believed that it was Fairly easy to Very easy to
digitize a trail or area using the PPGIS tool. Lay participants were asked to rate their ease
of movement while using the PPGIS tool (Table 4.24).

Level of speed
Very slow
Slow
Fairly slow
Neutral
Fairly quick
Quick
Very quick
Total

No. of ratings

Percentage of all ratings

0
3
0
5
5
5
3
21

0%
14.3%
0%
23.8%
23.8%
23.8%
14.3%
100%

64

Over half of the participants (13/19) felt that they could quickly move through the
PPGIS tool map interface. The amount of information each participant felt they provided
while using the PPGIS tool is outlined in Table 4.25.

T^ble.4.25; Frequency of lay participants rating* oJL__,
r-VV^rKX-tf^v-?.

*WM

Frequency of ratings
Descriptors of amount of
information provided
Info provided - none
Info provided - very little
Info provided - little
Info provided -fair
Info provided - large
Info provided - very large
Info provided - a lot
Total

Percentage of all ratings

9.5
28.6
9.5
33.3

21

9.5
9.5
100

The following section reports participants' ratings of their ability to orient
themselves using the PPGIS tool. Various categories of features were used to test the
participants' ease of orientation. These features included: Lakes, Roads, Mountains, and
Existing trails (Table 4.26).

65

.^m^M^J^m^0m^i^0fi
v. -^^g^^^^to^^^-:•:•••
••••-• --..-••>#•••• <~\-.-.JiK^!! [ *"'

Descriptor
chosen for
ease of
orientation
Very slow
Slow
Fairly slow
Neutral
Fairly quick
Quick
Very quick

their ea § e;^^rfeht^^^fep^e^tfft;.
^ ^ ^ ^ ^ s ^ ^ f ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ i ^

* ; • ' " --•*••-'••••.'•..ij;

. . . .

vv; .•^•jj^i:^.--_•.•••• .»• . \ ; ; ; ? . v & l w ' ^ - i " - ^ » . - . « * - ^ i j ^ « r i E T j \ ; . - . > : . v . . . .

-

Lakes

Roads

Mountains

Existing
trails

Total

Percentage
of total
participant
ratings

1
2
3
5
1
4
5

1
2
2
1
4
5
6

5
1
1
6
3
1
4

4
3
0
0
4
4
6

11
8
6
12
12
14
21

13.1%
9.5%
7.14%
14.3%
14.3%
16.7%
25.0%

The majority of lay participants indicated they orientated themselves Fairly quicky
to Very quick to roads (15/21) and the existing trails (14/21). Their orientation towards
lakes (9/21) was slightly directed towards Fairly quickly to Very quickly. However, the
lay participants' ratings on their orientation towards mountains were roughly evenly
distributed. A sum of 84 lay participant ratings was collected concerning the four factors
indicated above. Overall, just over half of the lay participant (47/84) ratings indicated that
they orientated themselves quickly.
Lay participants identified numerous pleasing aspects of using the PPGIS tool.
Each of the pleasing aspects was coded into categories listed in Table 4.27. The
methodology of coding aspects into categories within Tables 4.28, 4.29, 4.31, and 4.32
was earlier explained in Chapter 3.

66

Categories of pleasing
aspects of the PPGIS tool
Digitization of trails
Ability to zoom in/out
User friendly
Knowledge can be shared
easily
Ability to pan throughout
screen
Comment board
Operation of tool was
enjoyable
Comments can be added to
the features
Layers of many features
Total

Frequency with which
aspect was cited

No. of times aspect was
cited, as a percentage of
all times aspects were
cited

7
5
4
4

24.1%
17.2%
13.8%
13.8%

3

10.3%

2
2

6.9%
6.9%

1

3.4%

1
29

3.4%
100.0%

Lay participants identified numerous irritating aspects of the PPGIS tool. Each of
the irritating aspects was coded into an appropriate category. The frequency with which
each of the categories of irritating aspects was invoked is outlined in Table 4.28.

67

: ^ l e ; 4 4 8 ^ ^ f i ^ ^ e t P 0 ^ . t o o l that i r r i t a ^ t h j ^ a p ^ ^
Frequency of irritating
aspects

Percentage of irritating
aspects

5
4
3

16.7%
13.3%
10.0%

2

6.7%

2

6.7%

2

6.7%

2

6.7%

2

6.7%

2

6.7%

2

6.7%

1

3.3%

1
1

3.3%
3.3%

1

3.3%

1

3.3%

30

100%

Categories of irritating
aspects of the PPGIS tool
Orientation is difficult
Visibility is poor
Detail of some features is
poor
Contours were concealed at
certain scales
Features were misnamed
(e.g., mountains, creeks)
Digitization cannot be
edited after submission
Message cannot be edited
after submission
Comment board was
disorganized
Information was difficult to
access (e.g., participant
comments and features)
Feature deletion would also
result in message deletion
Legend is not present at all
times
Training is required
Map feature has no link to
comments on message
board
Information tool
malfunctioned
Map features are difficult to
interpret
Total

Several lay participants cited it was difficult to orientate oneself while using the
PPGIS tool (5/30). Of these five participants, two used paper maps to better orientate
themselves when using the PPGIS tool. Four participants mentioned that the PPGIS tool
had poor visibility (4/30). More specifically, the PPGIS tool displayed faint colors. These

68

faint colors may be due to the operation of the PPGIS tool locally, rather than the
university server. If the PPGIS tool is operated through the university server, then the
colors are more pure and distinct whereas if operated locally, the colors become fainter.
It should be noted that the rural location of this case study was evident in the
conduct of these tests. The majority of lay participants (14/21) lacked high-speed Internet
access and transporting the appropriate materials to the household contributed to the
inflexibility of the PPGIS tool.
Participants identified up to five tasks that they tried to complete when using the
PPGIS tool. Tasks were coded to form categories. The number of times each category of
task was attempted is outlined in Table 4.29.

^^Gatggffi

cip;antsj:aii

•.-•.yf..^^^r~V-C:.X^.V1:s^li>:-.a<.ari.-jy.v;

Categories of tasks
attempted by participants
Digitize a trail
Add a comment
Locate an area (e.g.,
protected area)
Add a point
Zoom in/out
Outline an Area
Edit a message
Read peoples' comments
Identify certain areas (e.g.,
sighting of a bear)
Total

No. of occasions on which
tasks in category were
attempted by Participants

Percentage of all tasks
attempted

13

26.5%
17.3%
16.3%
12.2%
10.2%
8.2%
8.2%
4.1%
2.0%

52

69

100.0%

Participants identified the number of tasks they did and did not complete while
using the PPGIS tool (Table 4.30).

table 4.30^^
No. of tasks completed
Completed all tasks
Failed to complete one task
Failed to complete two
tasks
Failed to complete three
tasks
Failed to complete four
tasks
Failed to complete five
tasks
No comment
Total

No. of participants

Percentage of participants

10
7
0

47.6%
33.3%
0%

1

4.8%

1

4.8%

1

4.8%

1
21

4.8%
100.0%

Nearly half of the lay participants (10/21) completed all their tasks while 10 of the
lay participants (7/21) indicated that they could not complete at least one of their tasks.
Although the lay participants were provided with basic training on the PPGIS tool, many
of the participants required the researcher's assistance to complete many of their tasks.
Lay participants identified the main causes that may have prevented them from
completing their tasks. The frequencies of these causes indicated by the lay participants
are outlined in Table 4.31.

70

Participants identified aspects that should be changed within the PPGIS tool. Map
detail refers to presence of basic features (e.g. streams) throughout the map display. The
frequency counts for mentions of those aspects are outlined in Table 4.32.

71

~ Table 4.32:.Categories of change recommended: by Fay p a r t i c i p a t e ! ^
••.•••.

, . w

...-••-:..r

••.,"•• .•^i.,^••.•

~,;':

Categories of lay
participant
recommendations for
change
Participant features should
be linked comments
Map detail should be
enhanced
Comment should be able to
be edited/deleted
Contours should be visible
at all scales
Colors of participant
features should be different
Overview map should be
present
Colors should be clearer
Larger features should be
represented over many
small features
Comment board should be
organized
Characters within comment
board should be limited
Mouse wheel should zoom
in/out
Roads should be
represented with a thicker
line
Feature "label"should
pop-up when scrolling over
"Opinion"and "fact"
should to be separated
Total

•. • -

,-•.•<•••

-.-.-..

..

••.;

•.-.*•

: * " . ; * . ' ' - . . • .

•.-

•••.--.'-.--*-S>v.™.y-j,-^:;».'.w.-T*i«i

Instances of category of
change

Percentage of all
recommendations for
change

6

16.2%

5

13.5%

4

10.8%

3

8.1%

3

8.1%

3

8.1%

3
3

8.1%
8.1%

2

5.4%
2.7%
2.7%
2.7%

2.7%
2.7%
37

72

100%

4.3.1 Discussion
Lay participants benefited from the paper PP method's familiarity and ease of use.
However, the lack of detail (e.g., zoom in/out) and permanence of paper maps as
compared to the PPGIS tool restricted the participant's ability to understand and provide
knowledge about a specific area.
The ease of using paper maps may be attributed, in part, to the lay participants'
relatively abundant experience with paper maps. The relatively high level of experience
with paper maps allowed the participants to adapt to the paper PP method quickly.
Furthermore, paper maps offer a quick way to undertake map work (Wood, 2005). Ease
of use can be related to the relative simplicity of paper maps. Simplicity decreases training
time and it provides the participant with the ability to focus on the planning process rather
than on the participatory method itself (Al-Kodmany, 2002). Although some participants
were unfamiliar with topographic maps, many understood the basics of map reading,
which allowed them to adjust quickly to the maps. However, paper maps are less
sophisticated for performing analysis (Al-Kodmany, 2002). Generally, a great deal of
effort is required by the map user to access information from a paper map (Peterson,
1995). In addition, paper maps cannot store data to the extent of a GIS database and, as a
result, their information is more prone to loss or a more limited presentation.
A combination of reasons may explain why lay participants' find using the paper
PP method of map work easy. First, the overall perspective that results from the relatively
large map size of paper maps assists the participants when identifying features or areas.
MacEachren (1995) explains that the size of "features" on a display will correspond with
the geographic scale of features in the real world. This explanation suggests that the

73

proximity of one feature to another over the large map surface provides the participants
with an accurately scaled "bird's eye view" that assists in their orientation. Secondly, the
portability of paper maps allows the user to handle the maps at almost any time or place.
Reilly et ah (2006) found that computer science students preferred using paper maps over
computer-based maps, in part, because of the paper maps ability to simply compact (fold
up) and transport.

Thirdly, the tangible or "hands-on" use of the paper maps was

perceived as a benefit. Traditional methods such as pen and paper sketching, paper maps,
photographs, and physical models draw forth high levels of participation and input from
planning process participants (Al-Kodmany, 2002; Reilly et ah, 2006). High levels of
participation can also be credited to real-time social interaction between participants
(Arias, 1996).
The design of a map should focus not just on the reader's map-use needs but also
on understanding the maps user's cognitive processes, skills, and abilities (Kolacny,
1969). In this case, the majority of participants who disliked using the PPGIS tool had
very little or no prior experience using computer-based maps. In addition, many of those
participants who had little or no prior experience with computer-based maps were within
the 55-64 and 65-74 age categories. Wood (2005) discovered many older participants
indicated they were too old to learn a new computer-based participatory method.
Similarly, in this study several participants from the 64-75 age category stated their
reluctance to learn to use the PPGIS tool. MacEachren (1995) argues the perceptual and
cognitive processes of humans involved in map "reading" and spatial information
processes need to be ascertained so that maps can be designed appropriately. In this study,
many lay participants exhibited low GIS feature knowledge which, along with their lack

74

of experience with computer-based maps, suggests that the PPGIS tool should be
designed specifically for users who lack GIS knowledge.

75

Chapter 5: Results for Expert Planner Sample
5.1 Demographic Results
The planner sample in this study was composed of ten individuals. Planners
worked in occupations related to recreation, forestry, land use, and GIS analysis.
Educational backgrounds categorized according to the level of education achieved are
outlined in Section 4.1. Educational levels of the expert planners is outlined in Table 5.1,
and compared with those of members of the public from within the Bulkley-Nechako
Regional District (BC STATS, 2001).

r:£^teM^^^

ligaffli^iil^telil
No. of expert
planners

Percentage of
expert planner

Percentage of members of
the public from the
Bulkley-Nechako regional
district*

9

90%

9.8%

0
1

0%
10%

6.3%
28.8%

0
0

0%
0%

7.5%
15.3%

0
0

0%
0%

24.0%
8.4%

Highest level of
education
achieved
With bachelor's
degree or higher
Some university
Completed
diploma
Some diploma
Completed high
school
Some high school
Less than grade
nine

* Source: BC Stats (2001) (http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/cen01/profiles/59051000.pdj)
Of the ten expert planners, six (6/10) were male and four (4/10) were female. For
the purposes of this study, the age groups were categorized in the same way as the lay
participants (Table 5.2).

76

.}~;-:£ •:• '•-' ^•--••••J:?'"'-&•:•'--:

Table 5.2: Ajge^t$gQ)n$« of expert planners

No. of participants
Age
0-19
20-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-65
65-74
Total

0
0
1
3
5
1
0
10

Expert planners' ages ranged from 25-34 to 55-65, with the mode within the 45-54
age group. As with the lay participants (see Table 4.3), the expert planners were asked
which kinds of planning processes they had previously participated in (Table 5.4).

S^^^S^^^^ffl!^^rrf%* -":y?^*^?S^^^^^^^!S!S
No. of individuals
Planning process
9
5
5
2
1
0

LRMP
SRMP
Forest Plan
Provincial Park Plan
Official Community Plan
National Park Plan

For purposes of comparing the expert planners' knowledge of and ability with
computer and traditional tools, the frequency of the planners' use of computer, paper, and
computer-based maps over a year was measured (Table 5.4).

77

Table 5:4;'Expert planner use of computers, paper ,mapMnd:comp&^
• .-•v*-.•.-,^i;.;,x;-w:^;.-.--'.-'-»-.•..•.'•-V

*

••••

• * ? ^ * ' N ^ 4 f e © . T f e " . m ^

Number of participants
Computer use
Paper maps
Computer-based
maps
No. of times per year
0 times a year
1-5 times a year
6-10 times a year
11-15 times a year
16-25 times a year
26-35 times a year
36-50 times a year
Over 50 times a year
Total

0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
10

0
0
0
1
1
1
1
7
10

0
0
0
0
1
1
2
6
10

All of the ten expert planners indicated that they used computers over fifty times a
year, while the majority of planners indicated that they used both paper (6/10) and
computer-based maps (7/10) over fifty times a year.
Each of the expert planners completed the same pre-test administered to the lay
participants (see section 4.1), measuring map literacy, computer icon knowledge and GIS
knowledge (Table 5.5).

:

-Tapk Sj5:ftisiiriHWtion'bfscores in the expert

Pre-test
sections
Map
literacy
Computer
icons
GIS
features
Total

pimiK^'M^M^Msi^r^L^J^M

No. of
participants

No. of
questions

Minimum
correct

Maximum
correct

Mean

Std.
deviation

10

7

6

7

6.90

0.316

10

8

5

8

7.30

1.160

10

4

0

4

2.90

1.792

10

19

12

19

17.10

2.885

78

The minimum individual score for the all sections combined was 12, the
maximum was 19 and the mean was 17.1. Expert planner scores were lowest in the GIS
features section, with a mean score of 72.5%.
Prior to the test, the participants were asked to provide ratings on the performance
of paper and computer-based maps, as a measure of the following variables: difficulty of
use, quality of design, amount of relevant information and efficiency (Table 5.6 and 5.7).

Of the 10 expert planners, over half stated that they thought computer-based maps
had a Low to Very low difficulty of use. In addition, the majority of participants rated the
quality of design, amount of relevant information and efficiency at the higher end of the
scale. Frequencies of the lay participants' ratings on the four variables relating to qualities
of computer-based maps are outlined in Table 5.7.

79

TaAl£;5J7^
•.. .:"v";^.r:::i-5ik:iiiKi- : ^-iyv- 1 «i.™TO.-;..-- . >" •'-

Ratings
Very low
Low
Fairly low
Neutral
Fairly high
High
Very high
Total

...,.<.,^-»v^v*-Jv^rt<fifflW|HS|vijir>f;*i

Difficulty of
use

Quality of
design

Amount of relevant
information

1
3
1
2
1
1
1
10

0
0
0
2
4
2
2
10

0
0
0
0
1
4
4
9

Efficiency

0
0
0
0
3
4
2
9

Half of the participants' (5/10) indicated that the computer-based maps had a
Fairly low to Very low difficulty of use. The quality of design was rated as Fairly high to
Very high by eight (8/10) participants. All of the expert planners (9/9) indicated that
computer-based maps had a Fairly high to Very high amount of relevant information and
efficiency. Expert planner preferences as between paper and computer-based maps prior
to the test are shown in Table 5.8. Of the six Unsure expert planners, three indicated their
map preference depends on the situation.

Paper Maps
Computer-based Maps
Don't know/Unsure
Total

Frequency
1
3
6
10

80

Percentage
10.0%
30.0%
60.0%
100%

5.2 Results from the Tests of the PPGIS Method
5.2.1 Statement of Research Question(s) Addressed
This section describes the planner results from the field research. As with section
4.3, results are reflective of research questions 1, 2, 3, and 4 (See section 1.2). This
section is sub-divided into results and discussion. Results sections present on the direct
outcomes from content analysis and discussion sections describe relationships between
the data and literature.

5.2.2 Analysis of data
This section describes the results from the study of expert planners' opinions
concerning their use of the GEOIDE PPGIS tool. The expert planners rated the overall
performance of the PPGIS tool. Ratings were classified into four main groups which
include: difficulty of use, quality of design, amount of relevant Information, and
efficiency (Table 5.9).

81

As with the lay participants, expert planners were invited to rate eight qualities of
the PPGIS tool using the same Likert-type scale (Table 5.10).

Table 5JJta Exjrert pjanner ratings on descriptors concerning the PJPGIfrtqpJL's ^ -_. •
.-.• - pecfar.njaiiss,--.'-7-' : ' •
' "r.r'^-y- '/:-' "'":'•
'^}u\^'.::*"-"'
Strongly
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
Strongly Agree
Disagree
*Qualities
4
0
4
2
Simple
0
1
Useful
0
0
8
1
0
1
4
3
2
Quick
1
Informative
0
0
6
3
3
Friendly
0
0
3
3
1
Comfortable
0
2
5
1
0
0
2
4
4
Interesting
Easy
0
0
4
4
2
2
2
2
0
3
Trustable
Enjoyable
0
2
1
6
0
0
11
19
45
21
Total
*See Appendix F for descriptors

Expert planners expressed an overall positive rating for each descriptive factor
regarding the GIS tool. Expert planners' ratings on the difficulty of understanding a
digitized feature on the PPGIS map interface are outlined in Table 5.11.

82

Table 5.11: Expert planner, ratings, ou difficulty of understanding skewed- features...
ijul Interface
'" .'.':'\
•[\-\:"l%^x^^^r.''i'.Percentage of all ratings
Frequency of ratings
Perceived level of
difficulty
Very hard
0
0
0
0
Hard
Fairly hard
1
10%
0
0
Neutral
Fairly easy
5
50%
3
30%
Somewhat easy
1
Very easy
10%
10
100%
Total

Of the ten expert planners, nine felt (9/10) that it was Fairly easy to Very easy to
understand sketched features on the PPGIS tool interface. Expert planners were asked to
rate their ease of movement while using the PPGIS tool (Table 5.12).

; ;TJbj£ 5,12: Exne^plaiite&ratings on ease of movement Inuse of the PPGIStiM)! „: - .

Level of speed
Very slow
Slow
Fairly slow
Neutral
Fairly quick
Quick
Very quick
Total

Frequency of ratings

Percentage of all ratings

0
0
0
0
3
4
2
9

0
0
0
0
33.3%
44.4%
22.2%
100%

All of the expert planners indicated that their ease of movement was Fairly quick
to Very quick. Expert planners rated how quickly they could collect various comments
and features when using the PPGIS tool as compared with traditional participatory tools

83

(Table 5.13). These comments and features include: public opinions, public trail sketches,
and existing trails.

3i!^^SSBSS^^®^iigs on s p e e d o f . ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ S ^ S ^ g M ^ t ^ .
Public
opinions

Public trail
sketches

Existing trails

Total

0
1
0
0
6
0
1

0
1
0
0
3
2
2

0
1
0
0
3
1
3

0
3
0
0
12
3
6

Level of speed
Very slow
Slow
Fairly slow
Neutral
Fairly quick
Quick
Very quick

Of the 24 ratings collected, 21 ratings indicated that the gathering of public
opinions, public trails, and existing trails were Fairly quick to Very quick. Expert
planners' ratings on the efficiency, amount of relevant information, and quality of design
of the PPGIS tool compared with equivalent features of traditional participatory tools are
outlined in Table 5.14.

84

Of the 24 ratings collected, half of the ratings (12/24) indicated that the efficiency,
amount of relevant information, and quality of design were greater for the PPGIS tool.
The expert planners volunteered ten kinds of pleasing aspects to the PPGIS tool.
The recording of personal ideas and comments from a distance, the potential to facilitate
dialogue at the spatial level, and the ability to compile information as needed into specific
forums were each offered by two participants as pleasing aspects of the GIS tool.
Quickness and efficiency, clear layout, interactive ability, and easy display of the PPGIS
tool were each offered once.
The expert planners volunteered eleven sources of irritation. Two planners
indicated the comments and features cannot be edited as a source of irritation. The
following aspects of irritation when using the PPGIS tool were each indicated once by a
expert planner: PPGIS tool is biased towards GIS experienced users, technology may
disorient the public rather than assist them, layers are missing (e.g., cadastral), Internet is
required, rural users are disadvantaged, training is required, PPGIS tool is impersonal,
link between comments and features is confusing, color selection is poor and flexibility is
limited.
Expert planners identified aspects that should be changed within the PPGIS tool.
The frequencies of those aspects are outlined in Table (5.15). The methodology of coding
aspects into categories within Table 5.15 was explained earlier in Chapter 3.

85

Table 5,J5; Cs&gories of change recommended by expert ptenjaer^^Kil&IPJP^IlS
Instances of category of
change

Percentage of all
recommendations for
change

5
4

13.5%
10.8%

3

8.1%

3

8.1%

2

5.4%

2

5.4%

2
2

5.4%
5.4%

2
1

5.4%
2.7%

1

2.7%

1

2.7%

1

2.7%

37

100%

Categories of expert planner
recommendation for change
Map detail should be enhanced
Printer should be accessible with
tool
Comment board and features
should be better organized
Participant feature should not be
deleted when multitasking
Participant features should be
linked comments
Comment should be able to be
linked to multiple features
Help tool should be created
Toolbars should be visible at all
times
Overview map should be present
Electronic pencil should be
available for digitizing
Features should flash when
selected
Features should be able to be
digitized more accurately
Colors should vary for up and
down tracks of digitized lines
Total

Most categories of recommendations for change relate to modifications or
additions to the PPGIS tool's interface, such as the enhancement of map detail (5/37) and
the better organization of comment board and features (3/37). Some of these kinds of
changes might be rectified by a GIS technician.

86

Expert planners gave their opinions on whether the PPGIS tool should be solely
concerned with capturing the public's knowledge and opinions or also with providing the
public with the opportunity to be involved in the decision-making process (Table 5.16).

Tablfr5vl6: Planner Views on the deeision-iriakingfuncjtiQnpf the PPGiS tool
. - K .-.••
Instances
Percentage of all instances
Appropriate function
PPGIS tool should solely
1
10%
collect public information
90%
PPGIS tool should collect
8
public information and
allow them to be involved in
the decision-making process
10%
1
Don't know/Unsure
100%
Total
10

Most planners (8/10) indicated that the public should provide information and be
involved in the decision-making process because of the time, ideas and resources invested
by the public (e.g., planning and land management of their property). One participant
indicated that the planning process should be solely concerned with gathering the public's
knowledge and opinions since the information would have to be processed before use in a
decision-making process. Lastly, one participant indicated that they were unable to
choose because the function of the tool depends on the various priorities of the planning
process.
Expert planners identified whether the PPGIS tool should be solely concerned
with collecting the public's knowledge and opinions or also informing the public about
the planning process (Table 5.17). This question deliberately parallels the preceding one
(Table 5.16) for the reasons of assessing the functional needs of the PPGIS tool.

87

Table. 5.17: Planner-views on informative function of the PPJGliS tool.. ._ ^
Instances
Percentage of instances
Appropriate function
0
0
PPGIS tool should solely
collect public information
8
80%
PPGIS tool should collect
public information and
inform the public about the
planning process
2
Don't know/Unsure
10%
10

Total

100%

Of the ten participants, eight participants (8/10) indicated that the PPGIS tool
should collect public information as well as also inform members of the public. As
reasoning for their choice, three of these planners suggested that informing the public
promotes trust between the public and planners. The two planners who indicated Don't
know/Unsure suggested that informing the public about the planning process depends on
the purpose of the study. Expert planners were asked to indicate if they believed they
would use the PPGIS tool within a planning process (Table 5.18).

Overall use of PPGIS
tool
Planners that would use
the PPGIS tool
Planners that might use
the PPGIS tool
Planners that would not
use the PPGIS tool
Total

Frequency

Percentage

8

80.0%

1

10.0%

1

10.0%

10

100.0%

88

Those planners who indicated they would use this tool within a planning process
were asked to list the possible planning processes in which the PPGIS tool could be
applied (Table 5.19). Expert planners listed six kinds of planning processes in which the
PPGIS tool could be applied. Site series refers to ecosystems with similar soil conditions
and mature plant species. See Table 4.3 for descriptions of the planning processes.

^ ^ 1 ^ . 1 ^ 1 ? ^ ^ ^ ? ^ ^ ^ which the •

fmiS^oolcml^^^j^^^^^M^

No. of instances of
suggestion

Percentage of all
suggestions offered

3
3

23.1%
23.1%

2

15.4%

2
2
1
13

15.4%
15.4%
7.7%
100%

Public planning processes
suggested
OCP (official community plan)
RAMP (recreational access
management plan)
SRMP (sustainable resource
management plans)
Land use planning
Site series
Public input processes
Total

The one participant who would not use the PPGIS tool in a planning process gave
as his reason that paper maps have a greater potential for stimulating discussion and
generating personal interaction. Expert planners were asked whether they preferred to use
computer-based maps or traditional-based methods to gather public information (Table
5.20).

89

Table 5.20: Expert planner preferences as between paper.and computer-based.maps
for use in future planning processes
.'A/ ..\;•"•..': ,'.. •"•„'•. •'• . '-.V;^'.'- ;
No. of participants
Percentage of all
participants
Paper maps
2
22.2%
1
Computer-based Maps
11.1%
Don't Know/Unsure
6
66.7%
9
100%
Total

Of those planners who were Unsure, four stressed that it would inappropriate to
rely on computer-based maps in planning situations that deal with First Nation or general
public groups whom have little or no knowledge of computer applications. At the same
time, three of these planners indicated that a computer-based participatory mapping tool
could be used in association with a traditional method, such as paper maps. One planner
recommended that the PPGIS tool be used solely for intergovernmental (planner)
applications. The PPGIS tool could convey spatially oriented information from one
planner to another regardless of their location.

90

5.2.3 Discussion
Overall, expert planners exhibited a high amount of GIS knowledge, as would be
expected. However, the mean GIS feature recognition score was comparatively lower
than other pre-test section scores. Many planners exhibited a basic knowledge of
interpretation of the GIS features, however, many did not know the exact GIS terms. The
majority of lay participants showed a high literacy in map "reading". However, the
overall lay participant knowledge was less with computer icons and even less with GIS
feature recognition. Along with the experience component of the pretest, the public
exhibited low experience with and knowledge level of GIS, a finding which corresponds
with Al-Kodmany's (2002) statement that many stakeholders in urban planning problem
situations are laypersons with varying amounts of experience with computers. This
finding is also consistent with the suggestion that rural areas within Canada are lagging
behind urban areas in computer use, which would further limit the ability of rural
planning bodies to utilize current technology, such as computers or GIS (ThompsonJames, 2000). The planner's high education and experience of GIS may be the reason
they scored higher than lay participants on the pre-test.
In comparison with previously used computer-based maps, planners in this study
expressed a lower difficulty of use as well as a lower quality of design and amount of
relevant information when using the tool. While most GIS software can manipulate and
analyze relevant data to a greater degree than the PPGIS tool, they also come with a
higher difficulty of use. Nonetheless, the lower complexity of design and amount of
relevant information of the PPGIS tool, compared to other GIS software, are required for
the operation of the tool by those members of the public with little or no GIS experience.

91

Members of the public need to believe that planners are providing an equitable
planning process. Prior research suggests that the experience a planner has in solving a
particular type of problem can have important impacts on the processes he or she uses and
the outcomes he or she generate (Nyerges and Jankowski, 2001). The expertise of a
planner is limited to his or her domain and diminishes when the planner moves outside of
his or her area of expertise (Mennecke et ah, 2000). For example, a planner who has
previous GIS knowledge within decision-making processes would better understand the
limitations and benefits of PPGIS than a planner who lacks GIS knowledge. In this study,
the planners indicated a higher ease of use of the PPGIS tool than other computer-based
maps. As a result, planners might be tempted to use the PPGIS tool in planning processes,
not realizing that lay citizens may be uncomfortable with its use.
One important aspect of the social-institutional construct of the EAST2 is the role
and influence of the convener on various elements of the planning process. For instance,
these elements include the setting of a topic, the participants, and direction of the planning
process. In a general sense, planners and decision makers are the chief conveners. With
the use of GIS technology, Innes (1996) suggests there is a need for planners to act as an
"interactive professional" in many situations. An "interactive professional" works with an
entirely non-expert concept of decision support, one which tries to embed knowledge in
an organizational and policy process so that it will make a difference. For example,
planners must gauge which tools would be most suitable and efficient for the public to get
their opinions and knowledge across. In this study, half of the expert planners indicated
that the PPGIS tool was believed to be more efficient than traditional tools. However,
several planners indicated that it would inappropriate to rely on the tool when dealing

92

with public or first nation groups located in remote locations.

93

Chapter 6: Discussion
6.1 PPGIS tool vs. Paper PP Method
This section describes lay participants' reasons for preferring the paper PP method
or the PPGIS tool when providing information. Lay participants' preferences between
paper and computer-based maps prior to testing are shown in Table 6.1.

Paper Maps
Computer-based Maps
Don't know/Unsure
Total

10
4
7
21

47.6%
19.0%
33.3%
100.0%

Lay participants offered four reasons for preferring the paper PP method when
providing their own information (Table 6.2).

Lay participants cited four reasons for preferring computer-based maps when
providing their own information (Table 6.3).

94

No. of mentions

Percentage of all mentions

3
1
1
1
6

50%
16.7%
16.7%
16.7%
100%

Reasons for preferring
computer-based maps
Multi-purpose tools
Ease of movement
Accuracy of information
Clarity of information
Total

Lay participants' preferences between the two participatory methods when
providing their own information are shown in Table 6.4.

No. of participants
Paper PP method
PPGIS tool
Don't Know/Unsure
Total

Percentage of participants
42.9%
38.1%
19.0%
100.0%

21

Lay participants rated the two participatory methods for efficiency (Table 6.5).

_

s' efficiency in ga:

M«™.-i^."-»"..':.".i-t-|.>' ;

Paper maps
Computer-based maps
Don't Know/Unsure
Total

". ' . . '•' "

J&I \* "• ' •": - •J.w.ii.min

No. of participants
8

21

95

Percentage of participants
38.1%
42.9%
19%
100.0

Participants cited several reasons for believing that paper maps are more efficient
at gathering local knowledge and opinions than computer-based maps (Table 6.6).

Participants also offered several identified numerous reasons for believing that
computer-based maps are more efficient at gathering local knowledge and opinions than
paper maps (Table 6.7).

96

.'table 6.7:.,Lay participants' reasons for believing thai computet*^
-..::.-•:^oreeMcifHits than papermaps at uathctrnfiioealknowitjilg^^TOn;^^ •':•
• plftlimngproeessi ri:.y:
_"-.* •-^•''•Wi^srS:?.is?-::;•:.,. .
No. of mention
Percentage of all mentions
Reasons for believing that
computer-based maps are
more efficient
Greater organization of
6
42.9%
information than paper
maps
4
Multi-purpose tools
28.6%
2
Ease of movement
14.3%
1
Convenient
7.14%
1
7.14%
Greater networking
capability than paper maps
14
Total
100%

Of the four participants who were unsure as to whether the paper or computerbased maps were more efficient, two stated that the efficiency of the participatory method
depends on the user's comfort level and experience. One participant indicated that it
depends on the technical background of the participant. Another indicated that computerbased maps are better for gathering knowledge while the traditional tool is better for
gathering opinions.

97

This section compares results on the paper PP method and PPGIS tool from the
perspective of the planning literature on public participation.
Many researchers agree one of the main objectives of public participation is the
empowerment of the local community (Aberley, 1993; Harris and Weiner, 1998; Sieber,
2000; Kyem, 2001; Wood, 2005). However, increasing the amount of citizen involvement
does not necessarily empower communities. Researchers have argued that mass
involvement in decision-making processes is undesirable because of logistical problems.
Specifically, widespread public involvement in planning processes will almost inevitable
result in fragmentation and polarization of interests without a means to achieve consensus
(Fagence, 1977). In this study, as more participants were tested on the PPGIS tool and the
paper PP method, more features and comments were added, causing the map and
comment display to become cluttered. When multiple features or themes are added to a
map, the process of grouping these elements into meaningful concepts and relationships
becomes more difficult (Head, 1984; Wood, 2005). Unlike traditional participatory
methods, the PPGIS tool has the ability to layer comments and features into simple,
understandable concepts, thereby increasing the tools ability to manage mass public
involvement. Nonetheless, high degrees of citizen involvement may heighten participant
conflict rather consensus, thereby destroying the social stability upon which freedom
ultimately depends (Barber, 1981; Grant, 1994).
The ability of GIS-based tools to manage large amounts of public information
does not necessarily mean that the public is more likely to use these tools in planning
processes. For example, potential participants who lack education or are of low
socioeconomic status may fear contributing in a public discussion which employs

98

participatory techniques that are inconvenient or intimidating (Burch, 1976; Lach and
Hixson, 1996; Schuett and et at, 1998). In this study, participants who had higher
educational attainments and were from younger age groups were more likely to prefer
using the PPGIS tool. Similarly, the participants' level of computer and map literacy may
influence their preference for a participatory method. The highly technical jargon
presented in certain participatory methods may confuse participants where their interests
lie (Kweit and Kweit, 1990). In this study, lay participants that lacked GIS knowledge and
experience were more likely to prefer using the paper PP method. As Henig (1982)
explains, complex issues that may require professional expertise to be understood might
deter citizen mobilization by encouraging feelings of helplessness and resignation.
Ideas brought into planning discussions and the way these ideas influence the
direction of decision making is fundamental to the transition of one planning phase to
another. The third process construct of EAST2, group process, deals with the effect of
participant relationships on idea exchange and the management of this process (Nyerges
and Jankowski, 2001). In this study, the PPGIS tool uses a computer interface for the
exchange of ideas and comments while the paper PP method uses a face-to-face approach.
The face-to-face approach allows an engaging and straightforward method for providing
information. Arias (1996) asserts that the added value of real-time social interaction
between neighbors surpasses the values of computer simulations even when the
simulations have user-friendly computer interfaces. In this study, lay participants rated the
PPGIS tool as having a lower difficulty of use than previously used computer-based maps
(See table 4.7 and 4.21). The PPGIS tool's relatively low difficulty of use may enhance its
ability to gather knowledge from a wider range of individuals. Similar studies have shown

99

that GIS-based tools, much like the PPGIS tool, can assist in translating complex spatial
information into a visual, non-technical language that everyone can understand (Myers
and Ghose, 1995; Sheppard, 1995; Bosworth and Donovan, 1998; Elwood and Leitner,
1998; Krygier, 1999). It is interesting that many participants revealed a keen interest in
using the PPGIS tool. Participants were intrigued with the ability to digitize as well as
link those digitizations to comments. The digital contribution of participant knowledge
was also seen as the case within Wood's study (2005); participants were interested in the
storage of map data in an electronic format.
The use of various methods or situations can affect the proceedings of the
planning process. The last convening construct of EAST2, Public Participatory GIS,
addresses the effects meetings structured in terms of place, time, and communication
channels have on who says what and when during participation in a decision situation
(Nyerges and Jankowski, 2001). In this study, this construct applies to the understanding
of what effects these variables may have on the operation of the PPGIS tool. Planners
were pleased with a number of aspects of the tool, such as its ability to collect public
knowledge from a distance and the potential to facilitate dialogue at the spatial level. As
Innes and Simpson (1993) suggest, the ability to remotely collect spatial information from
the public would permit planners to spend less time on the collection phase and more on
the development of regulatory policy and management options. Likewise, it can be
speculated that members of the public could spend less time and resources on providing
information if they had access to a tool, such as the PPGIS tool, that can collect
information from any computer with an internet connection.

100

The ability of the PPGIS tool to collect public information was limited by the
location of the participants. A fundamental aspect of the first process construct of EAST2,
appropriation of participatory GIS influence, addresses the affect that place, time, and
communication channels have on the information use in various decision making
processes (Nyerges and Jankowski, 2001). In this case, the rural location of many of the
lay participants limited the channels of communication. The limited technological
infrastructure (i.e. high speed Internet) within the Bulkley Valley of northern BC
restricted the full use of the PPGIS tool by the participants. On the other hand, the
portability and convenience of paper maps were effective for lay participants living in
rural areas. This finding is discussed further in the next section (Section 6.2).
6.2 Strengths and Weaknesses of the PPGIS Tool
The study of relationships between various participatory methods is fundamental
to the continued development of innovative participatory methods. This section compares
the strengths and weaknesses of the paper PP method and PPGIS tool in relation to
literature on public participation. This section deliberately follows the preceding one
(Section 6.1) for the purpose of linking similar themes of comparison between the PPGIS
tool and paper PP method.
Lay participants were clearly interested in the process of providing information
through the PPGIS tool; however, participants required a lengthy training period to fully
operate the tool. In addition, many operational errors within the PPGIS tool were
discovered which contributed to the participants' disorientation.
Poor visibility of colors was an aspect that might have contributed to the lay
participants' disorientation. As mentioned before, using the PPGIS tool through the on-

101

site computer itself, rather than the university server via the Internet, caused the colors to
become fainter. As a result, participants living in more rural areas were more likely than
urban residents to observe fainter colors. Also, the number of hues of colors may have
affected the participants' orientation. For example, Luria et al. (1986) mention that while
the numbers of color hues are "truly astronomical", the readable numbers of possible hues
of colors drops rapidly as their number goes up. In this study, the large number of hues of
colors used within the PPGIS map interface may have contributed to the participants'
ability to distinguish various features. There are also a number of other aspects of
visualization that contributed to their disorientation or poor visibility. For example, screen
size and glare are often cited as weaknesses (Reilly et ah, 2006).
The PPGIS tool provided participants with access to a number of multi-purpose
tools to better manipulate the large amount of GIS data within the tool. For example, the
PPGIS tool, along with many other computer-based mapping systems has the ability to
provide coverage and control over level of detail (via overlays, zoom, and pan) or to
present various scale shifts (Langendorf, 1995; Arias, 1996). In addition, the tool allowed
participants to identify various locations by name and descriptive features (Reilly et al.,
2006). Once trained on the tool, many lay participants showed a liking for the multipurposed tools. The ability to electronically manipulate maps and data enables the user to
process information and displays that would be impossible or impractical using traditional
approaches (Ives, 1982). There is an inherent trade-off between sophistication and ease of
use when members of the lay public are the ones using decision support tools (AlKodmany, 2002).
The emergence of social-technical structures, such as new map or database

102

designs, can assist a group with information structuring. The second process construct of
EAST2, Emergent influence, deals with emergence of social technical information and its
influence on information a group treats from one planning phase to another (Nyerges and
Jankowski, 2001). As mentioned, both the paper maps and PPGIS map interface became
increasingly cluttered as more participants provided comments and features. However, the
small screen size and high amount of features/layers may have caused the PPGIS map
interface to appear more cluttered than the paper maps. Meanwhile, many participants
cited the fixed scale and permanence of paper maps as irritations of the paper PP method.
Both irritations act as a limitation that contributes to the inflexibility of paper maps.
Geomatics researchers contend that considerable effort is required to retrieve information
from paper maps due to their inflexibility because they are limited to one scale and do not
provide a great deal of data about the community context (Muehrcke, 1990; Al-Kodmany,
2002).
As mentioned in Section 4.3.1, the simplicity of the paper PP method allowed lay
participants to provide their knowledge and opinions without difficulty. Many participants
expressed a sense of accomplishment from completing their tasks because they were
involved in a hands-on-way. The advantages of paper map techniques in a community
planning process are simplicity, engagement, and affordability (Al-Kodmany, 2002).
However, the simplicity of the paper PP method becomes a liability when providing
comprehensive contextual data, especially in comparison with the sizeable amount of data
that can be stored within the PPGIS tool. Traditional participatory methods are far less
sophisticated in performing analysis and require additional tools to facilitate decision
making (Al-Komandy, 2002).

103

A strength of the paper PP method was the ease of orientation which may have
resulted from the participants' ability to manipulate the paper maps to conform to their
preferred reference point. It should be noted that many of the participants rotated the
paper maps to better orient themselves. In the Reilly et al. (2006) study, paper maps were
seen as providing a clearer, more accessible view, displaying a wider region which was
easier to study and manipulate (by rotating, folding). Studies have shown that map readers
perform map reading tasks more accurately and faster when the map is physically rotated
so the direction of travel is oriented toward the top of the map (Levine et ah, 1984; Lloyd
and Steinke, 1984; Aretz and Wicken, 1992).
6.3 Advancement of Public Participation and Understanding through the Use of the
PPGIS Tool
This section discusses findings that relate to the advancement of public
participation and understanding through the participants' use of the PPGIS tool.
In many planning processes, public goals and values are generally not known until
members of the public understand options in terms of potential objectives (Innes, 1990).
Therefore, planners must inform the public on issues of the planning process that
influence those objectives during the onset of the planning process. In this study, the
PPGIS tool focused solely on collecting information rather than on informing participants
about the planning process. Consequently, the majority of planners indicated that the
PPGIS tool should inform members of the public about important issues in the planning
process (See table 5.17).
The PPGIS tool is capable of presenting various amounts of readily available
information that, if accessed correctly, can assist participants in completing tasks. This

104

information can be examined through numerous multi-purpose tools embedded within the
PPGIS tool. For example, the ability to manipulate layers of maps and other kinds of data
electronically enables the user to deploy more information than would be practical when
using traditional methods (Ives, 1982; Wood, 2005). Furthermore, GIS has the ability to
enable the user to efficiently combine multiple map images and features into one display,
which can make data analysis easier (Crossland et at, 1995). Once trained, many
participants considered the use of multi-purpose tools a clear advantage when accessing
and providing information. Nonetheless, several participants desired that all information
be immediately displayed; they did not want to be obliged to access through multipurpose tools. The ability to use multi-purpose tools accurately and efficiently requires
the user to have at least a basic understanding of GIS. Unless GIS skills learnt by
individuals are used regularly, confidence and ability would rapidly decline (Wood,
2005).

6.4 Ability of the PPGIS Tool to Shape Participant Knowledge
This section discusses aspects of the PPGIS tool that may have shaped participant
information from the perspective of literature on public participation.
Some lay participants exhibited disorientation while attempting to complete their
tasks. The disorientation of the participants could be largely the result of mismatching
landmarks or features between the PPGIS tool and the participants' cognitive maps.
Cognitive maps are "any internal representation of a set of geographic locations that has
been learned" (Lloyd, 2000). According to Siegel and White (1975), levels of cognitive
mapping begin with landmark elements. In this study, the majority of the participants
indicated a high ease of orientation towards individual landmark elements or features

105

(e.g., lakes, roads), however, the reorientation to scale shifts was poor. Map readers solve
the problem of determining their location on the map by recognizing real-world
landmarks and relationships, putting those clues together, and placing themselves on the
maps (Lobben et al,. 2004).
Participant belief and trust in various aspects of the planning process, such as the
topic, the decision-makers, and the technology can shape the information they provide.
The second convening construct of EAST2, Group participants influence, addresses
stakeholder perspectives of values, goals, issues, beliefs, and fairness that set the stage for
expected benefits and outcomes of the planning process (Nyerges and Jankowski, 2001).
In this construct, the goal of planners includes shaping and organizing attention as well as
processing information, since planning process outcomes are intended not to dictate
decisions but to improve public response and engagement. In this study, the trust and
fairness between lay participants and planners would likely increase if, as planners
suggested, the comment board and features were reorganized. In contrast, the planners in
this study were pleased with the tool's ability to classify information into specific forum
groups (See pg. 83). As Holden states (2000), the planners' goal during the data collection
phase shifts from the act of gathering opinions to that of gathering the most meaningful
opinions. Planners must gather knowledge and opinions in conjunction with the public
while seeking rather than avoiding public criticism, in order to check information
misrepresentation and ultimately to improve data collection.

106

6.5 Discussion of Secondary Findings
This section discusses findings that may be of interest, but are not associated
with the research questions. Findings are linked to convening constructs embedded within
EAST2.
The control and implementation of a GIS technology within a public planning
process can be affected by influences outside the planning process. The first convening
construct of EAST2, Social-Institutional Influence, addresses some of these influences
including laws, mandates, policies, natural events, or social norms and values (Nyerges
and Jankowski, 2001). In this study, outside influences, such as zoning laws, were
disregarded since they were believed to distract the participants' ability to use the tool.
Nonetheless, planners would need to consider various rural land zoning regulations if any
information from this case study, such as potential trails, were to be implemented.
An important aspect of the third convening construct of EAST2, Public
Participatory GIS addresses the various geographic information aids (e.g., maps, tables,
diagrams, etc.) used to support the participatory effort. Langendorf (1995) notes that in
his experience with public participation planning in Miami, no single method of problem
exploring, problem solving, or design development was always successful. Commonly,
data use was intermittent; therefore, different methods were used at various phases of the
planning process. In this study, several planners suggested the use of a portable printer in
association with the PPGIS tool and one planner suggested the use of an electronic pen as
supplementary tools. Al-Kodmany (2002) likewise states that an electronic pen and sketch
board provide a forgiving surface which combines high-tech GIS with low-tech sketches.

107

The sketch can be saved as an electronic file in a graphic format, such as TIFF or JPEG,
for future use.

Chapter 7: Conclusions and Recommendations
7.1 Lessons for Future Evaluations of PPGIS Tools
The main goals of this study were to evaluate the use of a PPGIS tool within an
environmental planning case study in northern British Columbia. This chapter presents
recommendations for improvements to the existing research design and the PPGIS tool, as
well as recommendations for future studies and the overall conclusions of this study.
Although the research design and testing procedures used were successful in
evaluating the use of the PPGIS tool, improvements to the methods employed may further
enhance the results of similar research projects. This section suggests potential
improvements to the methods and testing phases of this study.

7.1.1 Research Design
As mentioned in Chapter 3, a 20-minute maximum period of use limited each
participant's use of both participatory methods. The timing of participant use of each
method could further measure the ease of use of the participatory methods. Mack et al.
(2005) explain that recording the start and end times of a task, process, or technique can
assist in the evaluation of that method.
During the development of the GEOIDE tool, a number of changes in the tool
were made to improve it. However, due to time limitations, these changes were restricted
to improving the most noticeable errors. As a result, a number of "bugs" were found to be
present during the test phase. If time allowed, a pilot test such as with student participants
could have been conducted which would have provided a more in-depth investigation for
errors or "bugs" within the PPGIS tool.

109

In this study, potential participants were contacted through local trail groups and
governmental agencies. At the time, a sufficient amount of potential participants were
expected to be available. However, as testing progressed, additional public and expert
planners were needed. Prior communication with local media (e.g., newspaper, radio
station) and NGO's, along with the trail groups and government agencies, might have
assisted in providing a sufficient number of potential participants.

7.2 Recommendations for Future Research
This study determined that the PPGIS tool has the potential to be used
independently or in association with some traditional participatory methods in certain
public planning processes. It provides insight into how the PPGIS tool should be modified
and justifies further study following from several findings of the research.
7.2.1 Suggested PPGIS Tool Modifications
Although the PPGIS tool could be used to gather public knowledge and opinions
independently, traditional methods are still more reliable, in most situations, due mainly
to their familiarity and simplicity. As Al-Kodmany explains (2002), GIS developers need
to adapt "hands on" techniques of traditional methods into computerized tools. Integration
of the beneficial aspects of traditional methods and the PPGIS tool would greatly increase
the tool's usability and flexibility. Likewise, the implementation of supplementary tools,
such as an electronic pen or portable printer, would hybridize the PPGIS tool. Members of
the public need flexible tools that assist in integrating real and virtual worlds; it is
inappropriate for planners to force a choice between the simplicity of traditional methods
and the accessibility and efficiency of GIS-based methods (Arias, 1996).

110

Participants identified irritations from their use of the PPGIS tool that related to
many of the minor "bugs" discovered during the testing phase. The majority of these
"bugs" involved the need to provide more distinct colors, organize comments, link
features and comments, label more landmarks, and multitask without losing comments.
To improve the functionality and reliability of the tool in future planning processes, it is
necessary to fix these "bugs".

7.3.2 Suggested Follow-up Studies
Use of the PPGIS tool as the sole participatory method may be desirable from
some perspectives. However, it is unrealistic in relation to current rural planning
processes. The most ideal situation for members of the public and planners would be the
use of the PPGIS tool as a secondary tool to complement a traditional participatory
method. Use of both the PPGIS tool and a traditional method would allow members of the
public their choice of each participatory method. A municipal or governmental planning
process such as an OCP process would allow the PPGIS tool to be applied in a different
context. An internet-based version of the PPGIS tool could allow stakeholders to provide
knowledge in future planning processes without time or space limits. However, as Wood
(2005) argues, a dedicated GIS technician who understands the main issues would be
needed to manage data and solve problems as they arise.

Ill

7.4 General Conclusion
This study determined that lay participant preferences between the PPGIS tool and
traditional paper methods in an environmental planning case study in northern BC were
mixed. Simplicity and ease of use were strengths of the paper PP method. However,
traditional methods lacked the PPGIS tool's ability to access and manipulate large
amounts of information. At times, the PPGIS tool's complexity may have disoriented and
confused certain participants. The lack of accurate digitizing (e.g., digitizing curvy lines),
along with participant disorientation, perhaps restricted lay participant's ability to provide
accurate spatial information.
In this study, the majority of expert planners believed that the PPGIS tool would
be an appropriate tool for the accurate collection of information from the public.
However, due to ethical implications, many planners maintained that use of this tool
should be limited to certain groups and planning processes, such as computer-literate
individuals.
At times, the PPGIS tool's capabilities were affected by the rural location of the
case study. Expert planners expressed concern about the tool's ability to gather
community knowledge from rural areas, including indigenous groups. At this time, rural
technological infrastructure in north-western BC cannot support universal use of the
PPGIS tool. However, as rural infrastructure develops and more of the public becomes
computer literate, the demand for GIS-based participatory tools will likely increase.
Although many planners may contest the need to use computer-based tools rather than
equally efficient traditional methods, the amount of data being produced in today's
society overwhelms traditional methods. Communities and public organizations must

112

understand and apply these tools when contending with other stakeholders, such as large
corporations, who can easily access and manipulate data potentially for their own gain.
In conclusion, although implementing the GEOIDE "Promoting Sustainable
communities through Participatory Spatial Decision Support" PPGIS tool in a public
planning process could assist public members to provide and planners to gather
information, others would not have an equal ability to use and provide information at the
same level as others. As technological infrastructure becomes more readily available and
commonplace in rural areas, computer-based participatory methods such as the PPGIS
tool will become more accessible to members of the public. Overall, the potential to use
the PPGIS tool for public participation purposes in future planning processes is
promising. Despite this promise, future research is required to understand the benefits and
limitations of the PPGIS tool in various public planning situations.

113

References
Abbot, J., Chambers, R., Dunn, C , Harris, T., Merode, E., Townsend, J., and Weiner, D.
(1998). Participatory GIS: Opportunity or Oxymoron? PLA Notes, 33, 27-33.
Aberley, D. (1993). Boundaries of Home: Mapping for Local Empowerment.
Philadelphia: New Society Publishers.
Adams, B. (2004). Public meetings and the democratic process. Public Administration
Review, 64(1), 43-54.
Aitken, S. C. (2002). Public participation, technological discourses and the scale of GIS.
In: Craig, Will, Trevor Harris, and Daniel Weiner. Community Participation and
Geographic Information Systems. London: Taylor and Francis, 357-366.
Al-Kodmany, K. (2002). Visualization tools and methods in community planning: from
freehand sketches to virtual reality. Journal of Planning Literature, 17,189-211.
Al-Kodmany, K. (2001). Bridging the gap between technical and local knowledge: tools
for promoting community-based planning and design. Journal of Architectural and
Planning Research, 18(2), 110-130.
Applegate, J. (1998). Beyond the usual suspects: The use of citizens advisory boards in
environmental decision-making. Indiana Law Journal, 73, 903.
Aretz, A. J., and Wickens, C. (1992). The mental rotation of map displays. Human
Performance, 5(4), 303-28.
Arias, E. G. (1996). Bottom-up neighbourhood revitalization: A language approach for
participatory decision support. Urban Studies, 33(10), 1831-48.
Armstrong, M. P. (1993). Perspectives on the development of group decision support
systems for locational problem-solving. Geographical Systems, 1(1), 69-81.
Babbie, E. (1995). The Practice of Social Research. Boston: Wadsworth Publishing
Company.
Barber, D. (1981) Citizen Participation in American Communities: Strategies for Success.
Dubuque, IA: Kendell/Hunt
BC STATS. (2001). Bulkley-Nechako Regional Profile based on the 2001 Census.
Available: [http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/data/cenO 1 /profiles/59051000.pdf]
Beierle, T.C. and Cayford, J. (2002). Democracy in Practice: Public Participation in
Environmental Decisions. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.

114

Beierle, T.C. and Konisky, D.M. (1999). Public Participation in Environmental Planning
in the Great Lakes Region. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
Berg, B.L. (1989). Qualitative Research Methods for the Social Sciences. Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Blalock, H.M. (1979). Social Statistics. London: Sage Publications.
Blahna, D.J., and Yonts-Shepard, S. (1989). Public involvement in resources planning:
Toward bridging the gap between policy and implementation. Society and Natural
Resources, 2, 209-227.
Bojorquez-Tapia, L., Diaz-Mondragon, S., and Ezcurra, E. (2001). GIS-based approach
for participatory decision making and land suitability assessment. International
Journal of Geographical Information Science. 15(2), 129-151
Bosworth, M, and Donovan, J. (1998). A Mapmaker's Dream: Public Involvement
Applications Utilization ofGIS. Available: [http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/varenius/ppgis/papers/]
Bradbury, J. and Branch, K.M. (1999). An Evaluation of Effectiveness of Local Sitespecific Advisory Boards for the US department of Energy Restoration Programs.
Washington, DC, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.
Bulkley Valley Community Resources Board (BVCRB). (2007). Available:
[http://www.bvcrb.ca/]
Carr, D. and Halvorsen, K. (2001). An evaluation of the three democratic communitybased approached to citizen participation: Surveys, conversations with community
groups, and community dinners. Society and Natural Resources, 14, 107-126.
Cartwright, W. and Hunter, G. (2001). Towards a methodology for the evaluation of
multimedia geographical information products. Geoinformatica, 5(3), 291-315.
Cartwright, W. (1995). Hardware, software and staffing requirements of multimedia
cartography: An update. Cartography, 25(1), 67-80.
Cartwright, W. and Hunter, G. (1996). Design and authoring of interactive map products.
Geomatica, Journal of the Canadian Institute ofGeomatics, 50(2), 173-182.
Carver, S., Evans, A., Kingston, R., and Turton, I. (2001). Public participation, GIS, and
cyber democracy: Evaluating on-line spatial decision support systems. Environment
and Planning B, 28(6), 907-921.
Cassettari, S., Fagg, A., and Visvalingham, M. (1992). Cartography and geographical
information systems. The Cartographic Journal, 29(1), 51-54.

115

Checkoway, B. (1981). The politics of public hearings. Journal of Applied Behavioural
Science, 17, 566-582.
Chess, C. 2000. Evaluating environmental public participation: Methodological questions.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(6), 769-784.
Clifford, S. and King, A. (1996). From Place to Place: Maps and Parish maps. London:
Common Ground.
Clifford, S. and King, A. (1993). Local distinctiveness -Place, Particularity and Identity
London: Common Ground.
Coglianese, C. (1997). Assessing Consensus: The promise and performance of negotiated
rulemaking. Duke Law Journal, 46, 1255.
Cohen, S. (1997). Scientist-stakeholder collaboration in integrated assessment of climate
change: lessons from a case study of Northwest Canada. Environmental Modeling
Assessment, 2, 281-293.
Convis, C , Jr., ed. (2001). Conservation geography: Case Studies in GIS, Computer
Mapping, and Activism. Redlands, CA: ESRI Press.
Corbett, J., Rambaldi, G., Kyem, P., Weiner, D., Olson, R., Muchemi, J., McCall, M., and
Chambers, R. (2006). Overview: Mapping for change-the emergence of a new
practice. Participatory Learning and Action, 54, 13-19.
Cortner, H. (1996). Public involvement and interaction. In: A.W. Ewert (ed.). Natural
Resource Management: The Human Dimension. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press,
166-179.
Craig, W., Harris, T., and Weiner, D. (2002). Community Participation and Geographic
Information Systems. London: Taylor & Francis.
Craig, W. J., and Elwood, S. (1998). How and why community groups use maps and
geographic information. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 25(2),
95-104.
Crane, D. (1993). Future directions for GIS. Proceedings of the 21st Annual AURISA
Conference, 1, 466-76.
Crossland, M. D., Perkins, W. C, and Wynne, B.E. (1995). Spatial decision support
systems: An overview of technology and a test of efficacy. Decision Support Systems,
14,219-235.
Curry, Michael. (1998). Digital Places: Living with Geographic Information
Technologies. Routledge, New York.

116

De Vaus, D. (2002). Surveys in Social Research. London: Routledge
DeVellis, R. (1991). Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Newbury, CA: Sage
Drew, C. H. (2003). Transparency—Considerations for PPGIS research and development.
Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA) Journal, 15(1), 7 3 78.
Ellis, W. D. (1955). A source book of Gestaltpsychology. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Elmes, G.A. (1991). Design and implementation of a user interface for decision support in
natural resource management. GIS/LIS '91 Proceedings, 1, 399-406.
Elwood S. (2002). GIS use in community planning: a multidimensional analysis of
empowerment. Environment and Planning A, 34(5), 905-922.
Elwood, S. and Leitner, H. (1998). GIS and community-based planning: Exploring the
diversity of neighborhood perspectives and needs. Cartography and Geographic
Information Systems, 25(2), 77-88.
Fagence, M. (1977). Citizen Participation in Planning. Oxford, U.K.: Pergamon.
Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee (FFERDC). (1996).
Final Report of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue
Committee: Consensus Principles and Recommendations for Improving Federal
Facilities Cleanup. Available: [http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/fferdc.htm]
Feyeraband, P. (1993). Against Method. Versa: London
Fonsesca, A. and Raper, J. (1992). Assessing the use of multimedia tools in the
development of GIS educational materials. Proceedings ofEGIS '92 Conference, 2,
1238-1245.
Forester, J. (1989). Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley, CA: University of
California Press.
Frey, J.H. and Fontana, A. (1993). The group interview in social research. Successful
Focus Groups: Advancing the State of Art. London: Sage, 20-34.
Fritze, R. (1994). A visual mapping approach to the evaluation of multimedia learning
materials. In: Beattie, K., McNaught, C , and Wills, S. (eds). Interactive Multimedia
in University Education: Designing for Change in Teaching and Learning. North
Holland: Amsterdam, 273-285.

117

Ghose, R. (2003). Community participation, spatial knowledge production and GIS use
in inner city revitalization. Journal of Urban Technology, 10(1), 39-60.
Ghose, R. (2001). Use of Information Technology for Community Empowerment:
Transforming Geographic Information System into Community Information Systems.
Transactions in GIS, 5(2), 141-163.
Geneletti, D. (2005). Multicriteria analysis to compare the impact of alternative road
corridors: a case study in northern Italy. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal,
23(2), 135-146.
Grant, J. (1994). The Drama of Democracy: Contention and Dispute in Community
Planning. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Haklay, M., and Tobon, C. (2003). Usability evaluation and PPGIS: towards a usercentered design approach. InternationalJournal of Geographical Information
Science, 17(6), 577-592.
Halvorsen, K. (2001). Assessing public participation techniques for comfort, convenience,
satisfaction, and deliberation. Environmental Management, 28(2), 179-186.
Hamersley Chambers, F. and Beckley, T. (2003). Public involvement in sustainable
boreal forest management. In: P.J. Burton, C. Messier, D.W. Smith, and W.L.
Adamowicz (eds.). Towards Sustainable Management of the Boreal Forest. Ottawa:
NRC Research Press, 113-154.
Harris, T. and Weiner, D. (1998). Empowerment, marginalization and 'communityintegrated' GIS. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 25(2), 67-76.
Harris, T.M., Weiner, D., Warner, T., and Levin, R. (1995). Pursuing social goals
through participatory GIS: Redressing south africa's historical political ecology. In:
Pickles, J.(eds.). Ground Truth: The Social Implications of Geographic Information
Systems. New York: The Guilford Press, 196-222.
Harrison, C and Haklay, M. (2002). The potential of public participation geographic
information systems in UK environmental planning: Appraisals by Active Publics.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 45(6), 841-863.
Head, C. G. (1984). The map as natural language: A paradigm for understanding.
Cartographica, 21, 1-32.
Healey, P. (1993). Planning through debate: The communicative turn in planning theory.
In: F. Fischer and J. Forester (eds.). The Communicative turn in Policy Analysis and
Planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

118

Healey, P. (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented
Societies. New York: MacMillan.
Healey, P. (1998). Collaborative planning in a stakeholder society. Town Planning
Review, 69(1), 1-21
Henig, J. (1982). Neighbourhood mobilization: Redevelopment
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

and response. New

Holdaway, S. (2003). Spatial technology and archaeology: The archaeological
applications of GIS. Journal of Anthropological Research, 59(3), 376-378.
Holden, M. (2000). GIS in democratic and sustainable land use planning: Lessons from
critical theory and the Gulf Islands. Journal of Planning Education and Research,
19(3), 287-296.
Holsti, O.R. (1969). Content Analysis for the Social Sciences and Humanities. London:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Innes, J. E. and Booher, D.E. (2000). Collaborative dialogue as a policy making strategy.
International Society of Ecological Economics, Canberra.
Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning through consensus building: A new view of the
comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4),
460-72.
Innes, J.E., and A. Simpson. (1993). Implementing GIS for planning. Journal of the
American Planning Association, 59, 230-236.
Innes, J.E. (1990). Knowledge and Public Policy: The Search for Meaningful Indicators.
New Brunswick, N.J.: Transaction Publishers.
Integrated Land Management Bureau (ILMB). (2005). Province of British Columbia.
Available: [http://ilmbwww.gov.bc.ca/north/]
Ives, B. (1982). Graphical user interfaces for business information systems. MIS
Quarterly, Special Issue, 15-42.
Jarvis, K. A., and Spearman, A.M. (1995). Geomatics and political empowerment. The
Yaqui. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 18(4), 58-61.
Kangas, J., Kangas, A., Leskinen, P., and Pykalainen, J. (2001). MCDM methods in
strategic planning of forestry on state-owned lands in Finland. Journal of MultiCriteria Decision Analysis, 10, 257-271.
Kemmis, D. (1990). Community and the politics of place. Norman: University of
Oklahoma Press.
119

Kemp, R. (1985). Planning, political hearings, and the politics of discourse. In: J. Forester
(ed.). Critical theory and public life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
King, S., Conley, M., Latimer, B., and Ferrari, D. (1989). Co-design: Aprocess of design
participation. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
Kingston, R. (2002). Web based PPGIS in the United Kingdom. In: Craig, W., Trevor
Harris, and Daniel Weiner. Community Participation and Geographic Information
Systems. London: Taylor and Francis, 101-12.
Kolacny, A. (1969). Cartographic information: A fundamental concept and term in
modern cartography. The Canadian Cartographer, 6, 47-49.
Kraak, M.J. (1999). Dealing with time. Cartography and Geographical Information
Systems, 26(2), 83-84.
Krygier, J. B. (1999). Public Participation Visualization: Conceptual and Applied
Research Issues. Available: [http://www.owu.edu/~jkrygie/krygier_html/lws/ppviz.html]
Krygier, J and Wood, D. (2005). Making Maps: A Visual Guide to Map Design for GIS.
The Guilford Press.
Krygier, J.B., Reeves, C , DiBiase, D., and Cupp, J. (1991). Multimedia in geographic
education: Design, Implementation, and evaluation of multimedia resources for
geography and earth science education. Proceedings 17th International Cartographic
Conference, Barcelona, 2, 637-645.
Kweit, M. and Kweit, R. (1990). People and Politics in Urban America. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth
Kyem, P. (2004). Of intractable conflicts and participatory GIS applications: The search
for consensus amidst competing claims and institutional demands. Annals of the
Association of American Geographers, 94(1), 37-57.
Kyem, P.A.K. (2001). Public participation GIS applications and the community
empowerment process: A review of concerns and challenges. Cartographica,
38(3&4), 5-17.
Lach, D., and Hixson, P. (1996). Developing indicators to measure values and costs of
public involvement activities. Interact, 2(1), 51-67.
Langendorf, R. (1995). Towards an improved information utilization in design decisionmaking: A case study of the Hurricane Andrew recovery efforts. Environment and
Planning B: Planning and Design, 22(3), 315-30.

120

Laukkenen, S., Palanfer, T. and Kangas, J. (2004). Applying voting theory in
participatory decision support for sustainable timber harvesting. Canadian Journal
for Forest Research, 34, 1511-1524.
Leitner, H., El wood, S., Sheppard, E., McMaster, S., and McMaster, R. (2000). Modes of
GIS provision and their appropriateness for neighborhood organizations: Examples
from Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota. Urban and Regional Information Systems
Association (URISA) Journal, 12(4), 43-56.
Levine, M., Marchon, I., and Hanley, G. (1984). The placement and misplacement ofyouare-here maps. Environment and Behavior, 16(2), 139-57.
Lobben, A. (2004). Tasks, strategies, and cognitive processes associated with navigational
map reading: A review perspective. The Professional Geographer, 56(2), 270-281.
Lindner, J., Murphy, T., and Briers, G. (2001). Handling no response in social science
research. Journal of Agricultural Education, 42(4), 43-48.
Linn, S.E. (1997).The effectiveness of interactive maps in the classroom: A selected
example in studying. Journal of Geography, 96(3), 164-170.
Lloyd, R. (2000). Self-organized cognitive maps. The Professional Geographer, 52(3),
517-531.
Lloyd, R., and Steinke, T. (1984). Recognition of disoriented maps: The cognitive
processes. Cartographic Journal, 21, 55-59.
Luria, S.M., Neri, D.F., and Jacobsen, A.R. (1986). The effects of set size color matching
using CRT displays. Human Factors, 28(1), 49-61.
Lynn, F. M. and Busenberg, G. J. (1995). Citizen advisory committees and
environmental policy: What we know, what's left to discover. Risk Analysis, 15(2),
147-162.
MacEachren, A. (1995). How Maps work: Representation, Visualization, and Design.
New York, London: The Guilford Press.
Mack, N., Woodsong, C , MacQueen, K., Guest, G., and Namey, E. (2005). Qualitative
Research Methods: A Data Collector's Field Guide. Family Health International,
13-27.
Margerum, R. D. (2002). Collaborative planning: Building consensus and building a
distinct model for practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21(3),
237-53.
Mark, D., Chrisman, N., Frank, A., McHaffie, P., and Pickles, J. (n.d.). The GIS History
Project. Available: [www.geog.buffalo.edu/ncgia/gishist/bar_harbor.html]

121

Martin, E. and Davis, C. (2000). The Pacific Northwest Conservation GIS User
Assessment. Seattle: CommenSpace.
McCool, S. and Stankey, G. (2001). Representing the future: a framework for evaluating
the utility of indicators in the search for sustainable forest management. In: R. J.
Raison, A.G. Brown, and D.W. Flinn. Criteria and Indicators for Sustainable Forest
Management. Wallingford, UK: CABI Publishing, 93-105.
McGuinness, C. and Ross, V. (1995). User interactions with alternative map displays in a
GIS environment. Proceedings 17f International Cartographic Conference, 2, 20042014.
Mendoza, G. and Prabu, R. (2005). Combining participatory modeling and multi-criteria
analysis for community-based forest management. Forest Ecology Management, 207,
145-156.
Mennecke, B.E., Crossland, M.D., and Killingsworth, B.L. (2000). Is a map more than a
picture? The role of SDSS technology, subject characteristics, and problem
complexity on map reading and problem solving. MIS Quarterly, 24(4), 601-629.
Miller, D.C. (1977). Handbook of Research Design and Social Measurement.. New York:
David McKay Company.
Moore, S. (1996). Defining "successful" environmental dispute resolution: Case studies
from public land planning in the United States and Australia. Environmental Impact
Assessment Review, 16, 151-169.
Moote, M., McClaran, M., and Chickering, D. (1997). Theory in practice: Applying
participatory democracy theory to public land planning. Environmental Management,
21(6), 877-89.
Morain, S., (ed.) (1999). GIS solutions in natural resource management: Balancing the
Technical-political Equation. Santa Fe, NM: Onwood Press.
Morita, T. (1991). Using the Eye movement measurement method. Proceedings of the
15th International Cartographic Association Conference, 2, 886-890.
Muerhcrke, P.C. (1990). Cartography and geographic information systems. Cartography
and Geographic Information Systems, 17(1), 7-15.
Myers, J. and Ghose, R. (1995). GIS and neighborhood planning: A model for revitalizing
communities. Journal of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association,
7(2), 63-67.
Neuman, W.L. (2003). Social Research Methods: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches. Boston, MA: Pearson Education,

122

Newsom, D. E. and Matrani, J. E. (1993). Geographic information system applications in
emergency management. Journal of Contingencies & Crisis Management, 1(4), 199.
Nichols, P. (1991). Social Survey Methods. A Field Guide for Development Workers.
Oxfam: Oxford.
Nie, N.H., Junn, J., and Stehlik-Barry, K. (1996). Education and Democratic Citizenship
in America. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Nyerges, T.L. and Jankowski, P. (2001). Geographic Information Systems for Group
Decisions Making: Towards a Participatory, Geographic, Information Science. New
York, London: Taylor & Francis.
Nyerges, T., Jankowski, P., and Drew, C. (2002). Data-gathering strategies for socialbehavioural research about participatory geographical information system use.
International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 16(1), 1-22.
Obermeyer, N. (1998). The Evolution of Public Participation GIS. Cartography and
Geographic Information Systems, 25(2), 65-66.
O'Brien, K. (2003). Duke park neighbourhood association: Partners against crime.
Proceedings of the Second Annual Public Participation GIS Conference. Park Ridge,
IL: URISA, 364-72.
Ortolano, L. and Wagner, T.P. (1977). Field evaluation of some public involvement
techniques. Water Resources Bulletin, 13(6), 1131-1139.
Patton, M.Q. (1982). Practical Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Patton, M.Q. (1987). How to Use Qualitative Methods in Evaluation. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.
Patton, M. Q. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text. London:
Sage.
Pedersen, P., Farrell, P., and McPhee, E. (2005). Paper versus pixel: Effectiveness of
paper versus electronic maps to teach map reading skills in an introductory physical
geography course. Journal of Geography, 104(5), 195-202.
Peterson, M. P. (1995). Interactive and Animated Cartography. New Jersey: PrenticeHall, Inc.
Pettit, C. and Pullar, D. (1999). An integrated planning tool based upon multiple criteria
evaluation of spatial information. Computers, Environment and Urban System, 23,
339-357.

123

Pickles, J. (1995). Ground Truth: The Social Implications of Geographic Information
Systems. New York and London: The Guilford Press.
Poisner, J. (1996). A civic republican perspective on the National Environmental Policy
Act's process for citizen participation. Environmental Law, 26, 53-94.
Poole, P. (1995). Indigenous peoples, mapping & biodiversity conservation: An analysis
of current activities and opportunities for applying geomatics technologies.
Biodiversity Support Program Discussion Paper Series. Washington, D C : WWF,
The Nature Conservancy, World Resources Institute.
Punch, K.F. (2005). Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and
Approaches. London: Sage Publications, Ltd.

Qualitative

Ragin, C. C. (1992). Casing and the process of social inquiry. In C. Ragin and H. Becker
(eds.). What is a case: Exploring the foundations of social inquiry. New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1-18.
Raimond, R. (2001). Trust and Conflict in Public Participation. Division of Hazardous
Materials and Waste Management, Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment. Available: [http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/publicparticipation.asp]
Regional District of Nanaimo (RDN). (2005). Electoral Area A Community Trails Study.
RRL Recreation Resources Ltd.
Regional District of Bulkley Nechako (RDBN). (2007). Available:
[http://www.rdbn.be.ca/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=
57]
Reilly, D., Rodgers, M., Argue, R., Nunes, M., and Inkpen, K. (2006). Mark-up maps:
Combining paper maps and electronic information resources. Personal & Ubiquitous
Computing, 10(4), 215.
Renn, O., Webler, T., and Wiedemann, P. (1995). Fairness and Competence in Citizen
Participation: Evaluating Models for Environmental Discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
Rubin, A. and Babbie, E. (2005). Research Methods for Social Workers (5 th ed). Belmont,
CA: Brooks/Cole
Salant, P. and Dillman, D. (1994). How to Conduct your Own Survey. New York: John
Wiley & Sons.
Salter, G. (1995). Quantitative analysis of multimedia audit trails. Proceedings
ASCILITE'95. Melbourne: Australian Society for Computers in Learning Tertiary
Education, 456-461.

124

Sawicki, D. and Peterman, D. (2002). Surveying the extent of PPGIS practice in the
united states. In: Craig, Will, T. Harris, and D. Weiner. Community Participation and
Geographic Information Systems. Taylor and Francis, London, 17-36.
Schoenberger, E. (1991). The corporate interview as a research method in economic
geography. Professional Geographer, 43, 180-189.
Schroeder, P. C. (1996). Report of public participation GIS workshop. In: T. Harris and
D. Weiner. GIS and Society: The Social Implications of How People, Space and
Environment are Represented in GIS. Santa Barbara, CA: National Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis, 28-29.
Schuett, M., Selin, S., and Carr, D. (1998). Collaborative planning and national forest
management: A preliminary perspective from external partners. Northern Journal of
Applied Forestry, 15, 123-129.
Sedogo, L. G., and Groten, S. E. (2000). Definition of land management units for GIS
support to participatory planning: A case on participatory land management in
Burkino Faso. Canadian Journal of Development Studies, 21, 523^12.
Selin, S., Schuett, M., and Carr, D. (1997). Has collaborative planning taken root in the
national forests? Journal of Forestry, 95(5), 25-28.
Sewell, W. and Phillips, S. (1979). Models for the evaluation of public participation
programmes. Natural Resources Journal, 19, 337-358.
Shannon, M.A. (1990). Building trust: The formation of a social contract. In: R.G. Lee,
D.R. Field, and W.R. Burch (eds.). Community and Forestry: Continuities in the
Sociology of Natural Resources. Boulder, Colorado: 229-239
Sheppard, E. (1995). GIS and society: Towards a research agenda. Cartography and
Geographic Information Systems, 22(1), 5-16.
Sheppard, S.R.J., and Achiam, C M . (2004). Public participation in forest decision
making. Encyclopedia of Forest Sciences. Oxford: Academic Press/Elsevier, 11731182.
Sheppard, S. (2005). Participatory decision support for sustainable forest management: a
framework for planning with local communities at the landscape level in Canada.
Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 35, 1515-1526.
Shiffer, M. (1998). Planning support systems for low-income communities. In D. A.
Schon, B. Sanyal, and W. J. Mitchell. High Technology and Low-income
Communities: Prospects for the Positive Use of Advanced Information Technology.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 193- 211

125

Sieber, R. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A Literature
Review and Framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3),
491-50.
Sieber, R. (2000). Conforming (to) the opposition: the social construction of geographical
information systems in social movements. InternationalJournal of Geographical
Information Science, 14,775-93.
Sieber, R. E. (1997). Computers in the grassroots: Environmentalists, GIS, and Public
Policy. Ph.D. dissertation: Rutgers University.
Siegel, A.W. and White, S. H. (1975). The development of spatial representations of
large-scale environments. In: H.W. Reese (Ed.). Advances in Child Development and
Behaviour. New York: Academic, 234-285.
Singleton, R. and Straits, B. (2005). Approaches to Social Research. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Smith, P. (1980). A Review of some Methods for Weighting Criteria in the Evaluation of
Multi-dimensional Alternatives (Planning research Paper No. 4) .Queensland,
University of Queensland: Department of Regional and Town Planning.
Smith, P., McDonough, M., and Mang, M. (1999). Ecosystem management and public
participation: Lessons from the field. Journal of Forestry, 97(10), 32-38.
Stewart, D. and Shamdasani, P. (1998). Focus group research: Exploration and discovery.
In: Bickman, L. and D.J. Rog (eds.). Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods.
Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications, 505-526.
Susskind, L. and Cruikshank, J. (1987). Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to
Resolving Public Disputes. New York: Basic Books.
Susskind, L. and Field, P. (1996). Dealing with an Angry Public: The Mutual Gains
Approach to Resolving Disputes. New York: The Free Press.
Talen, E. (2000). Bottom-up GIS: A new tool for individual and group expression in
participatory planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(3), 279294.
Taylor, D. (1994). Cartography for knowledge, action, and development: retrospective
and prospective. The Cartographic Journal, 3(1), 52-55.
Thompson-James, M. (2000). Computer Use and Internet Use by Members of Rural
Households. Statistics Canada, 40.

126

Tuler, S., and Webler, T. (1999). Voices from the forest: What participants expect of a
public participation expect of a public participation process. Society and Natural
Resources, 12, 437-453.
Turk, A.G. (1990). Towards understanding of human-computer interaction aspects of
geographic information systems. Cartography, 19(1), 31-60.
Ulin, P.R. Robinson, E.T. and Tolley, E.E. (2005). Qualitative Methods in Public Health:
A Field Guide for Applied Research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
US Department of Energy (US DOE). (1996). Site Specific Advisory Board Initiative:
Evaluation Survey Results. Washington, DC: US DOE.
US DOE. (1997). Site Specific Advisory Board Initiative: 1997 Evaluation Survey Results.
Washington, DC: US DOE.
Verba, S., Schlozman, K. K., and Brady, H.E. (1995). Voice and Equality: Civic
Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Warren, C. and Karner, T. (2005). Discovering Qualitative Methods: Field Research,
Interviews, and Analysis. Los Angeles: Roxburry Publishing Company.
Warwick, D. and Osherson, S. (1973). Comparative analysis in the social sciences. In: D.
Warwick and S. Osherson (eds.). Comparative research methods. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall, 3-11.
Wolfinger, R. E., and Rosenstone, S. J. (1980). Who Votes? New Haven, CT: Yale Univ.
Press
Wong, S., and Chua, Y. L. 2001 (published 2004). Data intermediation and beyond:
Issues for web-based PPGIS. Cartographica, 38(3&4), 63-80.
Wood, D. (1992). The Power of Maps. New York: The Guilford Press.
Wood, J. (2005). 'How green is my valley?' Desktop geographic information systems as a
community-based participatory mapping tool. Area, 37(2), 159-170.
Yin, R. (1998). Case Study Research-Design and Methods: Applied Social Research
Methods Series 5. Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 24-25.
Zanetell, B. and Knuth, B. (2002). Knowledge partnerships: Rapid rural appraisal's role
in catalyzing community-based management in Venezuela. Society and Natural
Resources, 15, 805-825.

127

Appendix A- Pretest

Potential Wildlife Habitat

Legend
—

Unpaved road
River

K l

midlife habitat

• H i Forest
] Steep Slope

Produced by: Dtpt. of Const rvation
Data: Oct. 20th

(1) Match the Correct term to the Statement or Question.
A. Roads
B. South-West
C. Rivers
D. Habitat

E. North-east
F. Scale
G. Layers
H. Structures

I. Legend
J. Equator
K. Compass Rose
L. Mercator

(a) What do the brown lines represent?
(b) What do the blue lines represent? _
(c) What do the pink areas represent? _
(d) Where is the majority of the Wildlife habitat located?
(f) The
is the distance on earth represented on the map.
(g) The
shows the maps user what the different symbols mean.
(h) The
indicates the direction on the map.

128

(2) Please match the following GIS features:

(a) Polygon

(b) Point

(c) Buffer

(3) Please match the following symbol to its term.

(a) Zoom Out

(b) Measure Distance
(c) Measure Area

(e) Select by Layer
(f) Zoom In

(g) Identify
(h) Pan
(i) Draw Line

129

Please check the appropriate category.
How often do you use the following in a year?
0
1-5 times a year
5-10 times a year
10-15 times a year
15-25 times a year
25-35 times a year
35-50 times a year
Over 50 times a year

Computers

Paper Maps

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

Computer-based Maps

•
•
•
•
•
•
D

•

In your experience with paper maps, how would you evaluate the following factors of
performance?
Please circle your choice.
l=Low
4=Mode rate
7=Hieh
1 - 2 - 3 - 4
- 5 - 6 - 7
Difficulty of Use
1 - 2 - 3 - 4
Quality of Design
- 5 - 6 - 7
Amount of relevant information
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7
Efficiency
1 - 2 - 3 - 4
- 5 - 6 - 7
In your experience with computer-based maps, how would you evaluate the following
factors of performance?
l=Low
4=Moderate
7=High
1 - 2 - 3 - 4
- 5 - 6 - 7
Difficulty of Use
Quality of Design
1 - 2 - 3 - 4
- 5 - 6 - 7
Amount of relevant information
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7
Efficiency
1 - 2 - 3 - 4
- 5 - 6 - 7
Which do you prefer:
(1) Paper Maps
(2) Computer-based Maps
(3) Don't know/ Unsure

130

Why:

Sex: Male

Female

Are you colorblind?
Yes
No_
If Yes, what kind of colorblindness? (For example: Green Colors look like black)

Select the age group you are in:
(a) 0-19
(b) 20-24
(c) 25-34
(d)35-44
(e) 45-54
(f) 55-64
(g) 65-74
(h) 75-older
What is the highest level of education you have completed? (Circle number.)
(1) No formal education
(2) Some Grade School
(3) Completed Grade School
(4) Some high school
(5) Completed High School
(6) Some diploma
(7) Completed diploma
(8) Some University
(9) Completed University
(10) Some Graduate School
(11) A Graduate Degree
What is your current job title?

131

Appendix B- Traditional Method Questionnaire
This questionnaire is designed to gather your opinions concerning the overall use of the
participatory method used in the planning process.
A participatory method refers way that your opinions about the planning process are
collected. In this case, the participatory method refers the traditional participatory method
(paper maps, satellite photos, etc.) which will assist in gathering your opinions about the
planning of a long range trail system within the Bulkley Valley.
(1) Planning processes have many roles within communities, including assessing needs,
determining basic goals, and directing policies. For example, a planning process may
include but is not limited to the designation of subdivisions, the implementation of a road
network through a town, city, or region, and the sustainability of natural resources.
Have you ever participated in a planning process before? Yes_
If no, please go to Question #2

No

If yes, please complete the following:
I have participated in a planning process as a: Planner_

Citizen

Both

I last participated in a planning process in the year
The kinds of planning processes I have participated in are:
Official Community Plan
Provincial Park plan
National Park plan
Forest plan
LRMP plan
SRMPplan

(City

Town

Village

Regional district

Other:

(2) How did you feel about the following factors when using the traditional method?
Please circle your choice.
l=Low
4=Moderate
7=Hieh
Difficulty of Use
- 5 - 6 - 7
1 - 2 - 3 - 4
Quality of Design
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7
Amount of Relevant Information
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7
Efficiency
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7

132

(3) Please check the box that best represents your opinion when using the traditional method.
(a) Do you feel better informed about trails in the Bulkley Valley than you did before you
used the traditional method?
No better informed 1 2

•

3

D •

4

5

•

6

7

D •

Better informed

•

(b) Do you feel you were able to provide a lot of your knowledge about the trails in the
Bulkley Valley when using the traditional method?
Provided nothing

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

Provided a lot

• • • • • • D

(c) Do you feel this method made it easy or hard for you to offer your knowledge and
opinions?
Very hard

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

• • • • • •

Very easy

•

(d) How quickly were you able to move between the various maps?
Very slowly

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

• • D • • •

•

Very quickly

(e) Did you feel it was easy or hard to draw a trail or area on the paper maps?
Very hard

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

• • • • • •

•

Very easy

(f) How quickly could you find the following features on the paper maps?

Roads

•1 2 • •3 •4 •5 •6 •7 Very quickly
• • • • • • •

Existing Trails

•

Mountains/Glaciers

• • • • • •

Lakes

Very slowly

D •

133

•

•

D D

•

(4) Please check the box that best represents your opinion of the traditional method.
Very Much
Complex
L-l
Useless
>-l

Slow

•

Uninformative Q
Unfriendly
Q
Uncomfortable Q
Boring
^
Hard
0
Distrust
L-l
Did not enjoy D

Somewhat

a
a
a
a
a

D

a
D

a
a

Neither

a

D

a
a
a
a
a
a
a
a

Somewhat

a
a
a
a
a

D

a
a
a
a

Very Much

a
a
a
a
a

D

a
a
a
a

Simple
Useful
Quick
Informative
Friendly
Comfortable
Interesting
Easy
Trust
Enjoy

(5) What would you change about this traditional method?

(6) What pleased you about using the traditional method (For example: provided knowledge
quicker)

(7) What irritated you about using the traditional method (For example: could not zoom in)?

134

(8) (a) Please list up to five tasks you tried to perform with the traditional method.
(For example: Wanted to show that the trail should run parallel with the Bulkley River)

(b) How many of these tasks did you accomplish?
(c) If you did not accomplish all your tasks, what do you suppose prevented you from
accomplishing them?

Thank you for answering this questionnaire for the evaluation of this GIS tool.

135

Appendix C- PPGIS Tool Questionnaire
This questionnaire is designed to gather your opinions concerning the overall use of a
certain kind of participatory method applied in some kinds of land use planning processes.
A participatory method is one used to collect your opinions. In this case, the participatory
method refers to the computer-based mapping tool that assisted in gathering your opinions
about some of the trails within the Bulkley Valley.
(1) How did you feel about the following areas of operation when using the GIS tool in the
exercise you have just completed?
Please circle your choice.
l=Low
4=Moderate
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
1 - 2 -• 3 - 4 - 5
1 - 2 -• 3 - 4 - 5

Difficulty of Use
Quality of Design
Amount of Relevant Information
Efficiency

7=Hieh
- 6 - 7
- 6 - 7
- 6 - 7
- 6 - 7

(2) Please check the box that best represents your opinion of the GIS tool.
(a) Do you feel better informed about trails in the Bulkley Valley than you did before you
used this tool?
No better informed 1 2

3

4

5

6

• • • • D •

7

•

Better informed

(b) Do you feel you were able to provide a lot of your knowledge about the trails in the
Bulkley Valley when using this tool?
Provided nothing

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

• • • • • •

•

Provided a lot

(c) Do you feel this tool made it easy or hard for you to offer your knowledge and opinions?
Very hard

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

• • • • • •

•

Very easy

(d) How quickly were you able to move between the map areas on the screen?
Very slowly

1 2

3

4

5

6

• • • • • •

136

7

•

Very quickly

(e) Did you feel it was easy or hard to draw a trail or area on the maps?
Very hard

1 2

3

4

5

• • • • • •

6

7

Very easy

•

(f) How quickly could you find the following features on the screen?
Very slowly
Lakes
Roads
Existing Trails
Mountains/Glaciers

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

• • • • • •

•

• • • • • •
• • • • • •
• • • • • •

•
•
•

Very quickly

(3) Please check the box that best represents your opinion of the GIS tool.
Very Much
Complex
1-1
Useless
Ll
Slow
0
Uninformative LJ
Unfriendly
EJ
Uncomfortable LJ
Boring
Ll
Hard
Q
Distrust
D
Did not enjoy LJ

Somewhat

•
•
•
•

D

•
•
a
a
a

Neither

a
a

Somewhat

a

•
•
•
•

D

D

D

•
a
a
•
a

(4) What would you change about this GIS tool?

137

•
•
•
•
•

Very Much

•
•
•
•
•

D

•

D

•
•

Simple
Useful
Quick
Informative
Friendly
Comfortable
Interesting
Easy
Trust
Enjoy

(5) What pleased you about using this GIS tool (For example: can draw in trails)?

(6) What irritated you about using this GIS tool (For example: too slow to offer knowledge)?

(7) (a) Please list up to five tasks you tried to perform with the tool.
(For example: Wanted to show that the trail should run parallel with the Bulkley River)

(b) How many of these tasks did you accomplish?
(c) If you did not accomplish all your tasks, what do you suppose prevented you from
accomplishing them?

138

(8) Do you have any suggestions or feedback for this study?

(9) Overall, which did you prefer to use in this planning process:
Please circle your choice.
(a) Paper Maps
(b) Computer-based Maps
(c) Don't know/ Unsure
Do you believe that this GIS-based tool is more efficient at gathering local knowledge and
opinions than more traditional tools (For example: paper maps)?
Yes
No
Please explain:

Thank you for answering this questionnaire for the evaluation of this GIS tool.

139

Appendix D- Planner Questionnaire
This questionnaire is designed to gather a planner's knowledge as whether they would use
this GIS tool as a method for collecting public knowledge concerning a publicly involved
planning process.
Planning processes have many roles within communities, including assessing needs,
determining basic goals, and directing policies. For example, a planning process may
include but is not limited to the designation of subdivisions, the implementation of a road
network through a town, city, or region, and the sustainability of natural resources.
Have you ever participated in a planning process before? Yes

No

If no, please go to Question #2
If yes, please complete the following:
I have participated in a planning process as a: Planner

Citizen

Both

I last participated in a planning process in the year
The kinds of planning processes I have participated in are:
Official Community Plan
Provincial Park plan
National Park plan
Forest plan
LRMP plan
SRMPplan
Other:

(City

Town

Village

Regional district

)

How did you feel about the following areas of operation when using the GIS tool as a
method for gathering public knowledge?
Please circle your choice.
Difficulty of Use
Quality of Design
Amount of Relevant Information
Efficiency

=Low
4=Moderate
- 2 - 3 - 4 - 5
- 2 -• 3 - 4 - 5
- 2 -• 3 - 4 - 5
- 2 -• 3 - 4 - 5

140

7=Hieh
- 6 - 7
- 6 - 7
- 6 - 7
- 6 - 7

(3) Please check the box that best represents your opinion of the GIS tool.
(a) Do you feel better informed about trails in the Bulkley Valley than you did before you
used this tool?
No better informed 1 2

•

•

3

4

5

6

7

•

•

D D D

Better informed

(b) Do you feel this tool made it easy or hard for you to gather local knowledge and opinions?
Very hard

1 2

3

4

5

6

7

• • • • • •

•

Very easy

(c) How quickly were you able to move between the map areas on the screen?
Very slowly

1 2

3

4

5

6

• • • • • •

7

Very quickly

•

(d) Compared to more traditional tools (for example: paper maps) you have used, how
quickly was it to gather the following information?
Very slowly
Public Opinions

1 2
D
D

3
D

Public Trail Sketches

•

• •

• •

•

•

Existing Trails

D

D

D

D

D

D

141

4
D

5
D

6
D

7
D

D

Very quickly

(e) How did you feel about the following areas of operation when using the GIS tool as a
method for gathering public knowledge compared to more traditional participatory tools
(for example: paper maps)?
Please check the appropriate box that would be the best represent your opinion.
GIS tool Trad. Participatory tools

•
•

Greater Efficiency
Greater Amount of relevant information

•
•
•

D

Greater Quality of Design

Unsure

(4) Please check the box that best represents your opinion of the GIS tool.

Very Much
Complex
D
Useless
Ll

Somewhat

D

•

•
•

Uninformative LJ
Unfriendly
LJ
Uncomfortable L-l
Boring
L-l
Distrust
Q
Did not enjoy L-l

D
D
D
D
D
D

Slow

Neither

•
•

Somewhat

D

D

a
a
a
a
a
D

(5) What would you change about this GIS tool?

142

•
•
•
•

Very Much

•
•

D
D
D

D

•

•
•

D

D

•

•

Simple
Useful
Quick
Informative
Friendly
Comfortable
Interesting
Trust
Enjoy

(6) What pleased you about using this GIS tool (For example: public information was
organized efficiently)?

(7) What irritated you about using this GIS tool (For example: too slow to gather public
knowledge)?

(8) (a) Do you believe you would use this tool in a planning process?
Yes

No

If you answered No, please go to question 8(c).
(b) If yes, what kind of planning process would the tool be best suited for?

(c) Why?

143

(9) Do you feel that this participatory GIS tool should be solely gathering the public's
knowledge and opinions or also providing the public with an opportunity to be involved
in the decision-making process?
Solely gathering the public's knowledge and opinions
Also providing the public with an opportunity to be involved in the decision making
process
Don't know/Don't have an opinion
Why:

(10) Do you feel that this participatory GIS tool should be solely concerned with collecting
the publics' knowledge and opinions or also informing the public about the planning
process?
Solely concerned with collecting the publics thoughts
Also informing the public about the planning process
Don't know/ Don't have an opinion
Why:

(11) Overall, which did you prefer to use in this planning process:
Please circle your choice.
(a) Traditional Participatory Methods (Paper maps)
(b) Computer-based Maps
(c) Don't know/ Unsure
Do you believe that this GIS-based tool is more efficient at gathering local knowledge and
opinions than more traditional tools (For example: paper maps)?
144

Yes

No

Please explain:

(12) Do you have any suggestions or feedback for this study?

Thank you for answering this questionnaire for the evaluation of this GIS tool

145

Appendix E- Letter of Informed Consent
Purpose - The purpose of this study is to evaluate the use of PPGIS tools that aims to
enhance public participation within a public planning process in northern BC. The utility of
this tool will be evaluated based three subjects of evaluation:
• the usefulness of the tools in planning processes;
• the willingness of community planners (including participating members of the
public) to use them;
• the chances that planners (including members of the planning public) would
actually prefer the tools over traditional decision-making tools
How Respondents Were Chosen -Within the Bulkley Valley, there are a number of trail
groups that function to maintain, build, and use the trails. In addition, many of the members of
these trail groups have local knowledge and opinions that would assist in the conservation of
existing trails and the planning of new trails. The members of the trail groups were chosen as
participants since they could use the paper maps and GIS tool to provide their knowledge and
opinions concerning local trails.
What The Participants Will Be Asked To Do (1) Write a computer-literacy pretest
(2) Using paper maps to provide opinions and knowledge relating to the planning process
(boundaries, unknown roads, etc.), then answer an evaluation questionnaire
(3) Using a GIS tool to provide opinions and knowledge on the planning process (boundaries,
unknown roads, etc.), then answer an evaluation questionnaire
Anonymity And Confidentiality - The names of participants will not be used in any reporting,
nor will any information which may be used to identify individuals. Each participant will have a
code name when participating in the Delphi process. All information shared in these pretests and
questionnaires will be held within strict confidence by the researchers. All records will be kept in
a locked office room at UNBC and accessible only to the research team. The information will be
kept until the final report of the project is complete. After this time, shredding will destroy all
information related to the pretests, questionnaires and Delphi forms.
Potential Risks And Benefits - The project team does not consider there to be any risks to
participation.
Voluntary Participation - Your participation in the research project is entirely voluntary and, as
such, you may chose not to participate. If you participate, you may choose not to answer any
question that makes you uncomfortable, and you have the right to terminate your participation at
any time and have all the information you provided withdrawn from the study.
Research Results - In case of any questions that may arise from this research, please feel free to
contact Conor Tripp (250-552-9694), Dr. Ray Chipeniuk (chipeniitojunbc.ca), or Dr. Roger
Wheate (250-960-5865) at UNBC. If the participants would like a copy of the final project report,
it can be distributed to them upon request by calling Conor Tripp.
Complaints - Any complaints about this project should be directed to the Office of Research at
UNBC: (250) 960-5820.

146

I have read the above description of the study and I understand the conditions of my
participation. My signature indicates that I agree to participate in this study.

(Name -please print)

(Signature)

147

(Date)

Appendix F-SPSS Database Guidebook-Descriptors
Demographics and Pretest;
Scores for each sections of the Pre-test:
(a) Map literacy

(b) Computer Icons

(c) GIS features

(d) Overall

Scores are entered in as numbers themselves (See SPSS file)
(A4) How often do you use the following in a year?
Please check the appropriate category.
(a) Computers

(b) Paper Maps

(c) Computer-based Maps

1 = 0 times a year
2=1-5 times a year
3 = 6-10 times a year
4 = 11-15 times a year
5 = 16-25 times a year
6 = 26-35 times a year
7 = 36-50 times a year
8 = Over 50 times a year
(A5) In your experience with paper maps, how would you evaluate the following
factors of performance?
(a) Difficulty of Use (b) Quality of Design (c) Amount of relevant information (d)
Efficiency
1 = Very low
2 = Low
3 = Fairly low
4 = Neutral
6 = Fairly high
7 = High
8 = Very high

148

(B5) In your experience with computer-based maps, how would you evaluate the
following factors of performance?
(a) Difficulty of Use (b) Quality of Design (c) Amount of relevant information (d)
Efficiency
1 = Very low
2 = Low
3 = Fairly low
4 = Neutral
6 = Fairly high
7 = High
8 = Very high
(A6) Which do you prefer:
1 = Paper Maps
2 = Computer-based Maps
3 = Don't know/Unsure
(A7) Sex:
1 = Male
2 = Female
(A8) Are you colorblind:
l=Yes
2 = No
(A9) Select the age group you are in:
1=0-19
2 = 20-24
3 = 25-34
4 = 35-44
5 = 45-54
6 = 55-65
7 = 65-74

149

(A10) What is the highest level of education you have completed? (check this one
out)
1 = With bachelor's degree or higher
2 = Some University
3 = Completed Diploma
4 = Some Diploma
5 = Completed High School
6 = Some High School
7 = Less than Grade Nine

Traditional Method Questionnaire
(All) (a) Have you ever participated in a planning process before?
l=Yes
2 =No
(b) If yes, please complete the following:
I have participated in a planning process as a:
1 = Planner
2 = Citizen
3 = Both
(c) The kinds of planning processes I have participated in are:
(A) Official Community Plan
(D) Forest Plan

(B) LRMP
(E) SRMP

l=Yes
2 = No

150

(C) Provincial Park Plan
(D) National Park Plan

(A12) How did you feel about the following factors when using the traditional
method?
(a) Difficulty of Use (b) Quality of Design (c) Amount of relevant information (d)
Efficiency
1 = Very low
2 = Low
3 — Fairly low
4 = Neutral
6 — Fairly high
7 = High
8 = Very high
(A13) (a) Do you feel better informed about trails in the Bulkley Valley than you did
before you used the traditional method?
1 = Informativeness - none
2 = Informativeness - very little
3 = Informativeness - little
4 = Informativeness - fair
5 = Informativeness - large
6 = Informativeness - very large
7 = Informativeness - a lot
(b) Do you feel you were able to provide a lot of your knowledge about the trails in
the Bulkley Valley when using the traditional method?
1 = Info provided - none
2 = Info provided - very little
3 = Info provided - little
4 = Info provided - fair
5 = Info provided - large
6 = Info provided - very large
7 = Info provided - a lot

151

(c) Do you feel this method made it easy or hard for you to offer your knowledge and
opinions?
1 = Very hard
2 = Hard
3 = Fairly hard
4 = Neutral
5 = Fairly easy
6 = Easy
7 = Very easy
(d) How quickly were you able to move between the various maps?
1 = Very slow
2 = Slow
3 = Fairly slow
4 = Neutral
5 = Fairly quick
6 = Quick
7 = Very quick

(e) Did you feel it was easy or hard to draw a trail or area on the paper maps?
1 = Very hard
2 = Hard
3 - Fairly hard
4 - Neutral
5 = Fairly easy
6 = Easy
7 = Very easy
(f) How quickly could you find the following features on the paper maps?
(a)Lakes (b) Roads (c) Mountain (d) Existing trails
1 = Very slow
2 = Slow
3 = Fairly slow
4 = Neutral
5 = Fairly quick
6 = Quick
7 = Very quick

152

(A14) Please check the box that best represents your opinion of the traditional
method
(a)Simple
(f) Comfortable

(b) Useful
(c) Quick
(g) Interesting (h) Easy

(d) Informative
(i) Trustable

(e) Friendly
(j) Enjoyable

1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree

PPGIS Tool Questionnaire
(B15) How did you feel about the following areas of operation when using the GIS
tool in the exercise you have just completed?
(a) Difficulty of Use (b) Quality of Design (c) Amount of relevant information (d)
Efficiency
1 — Very low
2 = Low
3 = Fairly low
4 = Neutral
6 = Fairly high
7 = High
8 = Very high
(B16) Please check the box that best represents your opinion of the GIS tool.
(a) Do you feel better informed about trails in the Bulkley Valley than you did
before you used this tool?
1 - Informativeness - none
2 = Informativeness - very little
3 = Informativeness - little
4 = Informativeness - fair
5 = Informativeness - large
6 = Informativeness - very large
7 = Informativeness - a lot

153

(b) Do you feel you were able to provide a lot of your knowledge about the trails in
the Bulkley Valley when using this tool?
1 = Info provided - none
2 = Info provided - very little
3 = Info provided - little
4 = Info provided - fair
5 = Info provided - large
6 = Info provided - very large
7 = Info provided - a lot
(c) Do you feel this tool made it easy or hard for you to offer your knowledge and
opinions?
1 = Very hard
2 = Hard
3 = Fairly hard
4 = Neutral
5 = Fairly easy
6 = Easy
7 = Very easy
(d) How quickly were you able to move between the map areas on the screen?
1 = Very slow
2 = Slow
3 = Fairly slow
4 = Neutral
5 = Fairly quick
6 = Quick
7 = Very quick
(e) Did you feel it was easy or hard to draw a trail or area on the maps?
1 = Very hard
2 = Hard
3 = Fairly hard
4 = Neutral
5 = Fairly easy
6 = Easy
7 = Very easy

154

(f) How quickly could you find the following features on the screen?
(a) Lakes (b) Roads (c) Mountain (d) Existing trails
1 = Very slow
2 = Slow
3 = Fairly slow
4 = Neutral
5 = Fairly quick
6 = Quick
7 = Very quick
(B17) Please check the box that best represents your opinion of the GIS tool.
(a)Simple
(f) Comfortable

(b) Useful
(c) Quick
(g) Interesting (h) Easy

(d) Informative
(i) Trustable

(e) Friendly
(J) Enjoyable

1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree
(B18) Overall, which did you prefer to use in this planning process:
1 = Paper Maps
2 = Computer-based Maps
3 = Don't know/ Unsure
(B19) Do you believe that this GIS-based tool is more efficient at gathering local
knowledge and opinions than more traditional tools (For example: paper
maps)?
l=Yes
2 = No

155

Planner Questionnaire
(Cl)(a) Have you ever participated in a planning process before?
l=Yes
2 = No
(b) I have participated in a planning process as a:
1 = Planner
2 = Citizen
3 = Both
(c) The kinds of planning processes I have participated in are:
(a) Official Community Plan
(d) Forest Plan

(b) LRMP
(e) SRMP

(c) Provincial Park Plan
(d) National Park Plan

l=Yes
2 = No
(C2) How did you feel about the following areas of operation when using the GIS
tool as a method for gathering public knowledge?
(A) Difficulty of Use (B) Quality of Design (C) Amount of relevant information (D)
Efficiency
1 = Very low
2 = Low
3 = Fairly low
4 = Neutral
6 = Fairly high
7 = High
8 = Very high

156

(C3) Please check the box that best represents your opinion of the GIS tool.
(a) Do you feel better informed about trails in the Bulkley Valley than you did
before you used this tool?
1 = Informativeness - none
2 = Informativeness - very little
3 = Informativeness - little
4 = Informativeness - fair
5 = Informativeness - large
6 = Informativeness - very large
7 = Informativeness - a lot
(b) Do you feel this tool made it easy or hard for you to gather local knowledge and
opinions?
1 = Very hard
2 = Hard
3 = Fairly hard
4 = Neutral
5 = Fairly easy
6 = Easy
7 = Very easy
(c) How quickly were you able to move between the map areas on the screen?
1 = Very slow
2 = Slow
3 = Fairly slow
4 = Neutral
5 = Fairly quick
6 = Quick
7 = Very quick

157

(d) Compared to more traditional tools (for example: paper maps) you have used,
how quickly was it to gather the following information?
(a) Public Opinions (b) Public trail sketches (c) Existing trails
1 = Very slow
2 = Slow
3 = Fairly slow
4 = Neutral
5 = Fairly quick
6 = Quick
7 = Very quick
(e) How did you feel about the following areas of operation when using the GIS tool
as a method for gathering public knowledge compared to more traditional
participatory tools (for example: paper maps)?
(a) Greater efficiency (b) Greater amount of relevant information (c) Greater quality of
design
1 = GIS tool
2 = Traditional participatory tool
3 = Unsure
(C4) Please check the box that best represents your opinion of the GIS tool.
(a) Simple
(b) Useful
(f) Comfortable (g) Interesting

(c) Quick
(h) Easy

1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Neutral
4 = Agree
5 = Strongly agree
(C5) Which do you prefer:
1 = Paper Maps
2 = Computer-based Maps
3 = Don't know/Unsure

158

(d) Informative
(i) Trustable

(e) Friendly
(j) Enjoyable

(C6) Compared to more traditional tools (for example: paper maps) you have used,
how quickly was it to gather the following information?
(a) Greater efficiency
(c) Greater quality of design

(b) Greater amount of relevant information
(d) Greater Ease of Use

1 = Very slow
2 = Slow
3 = Fairly slow
4 = Neutral
5 = Fairly quick
6 = Quick
7 = Very quick
(C7) Do you believe you would use this tool in a planning process?
1 = Planners that would use the PPGIS tool
2 = Planners that might use the PPGIS tool
3 = Planners that would not use the PPGIS tool
(C8) Do you feel that this participatory GIS tool should be solely gathering the
public's knowledge and opinions or also providing the public with an
opportunity to be involved in the decision-making process?
1 = PPGIS tool should solely collect public information
2 = PPGIS tool should collect public information and allow them to be involved in the
decision- making process
3 = Don't know/Unsure
(C9) Do you feel that this participatory GIS tool should be solely concerned with
collecting the publics' knowledge and opinions or also informing the public
about the planning process?
1 = PPGIS tool should solely collect public information
2 - PPGIS tool should collect public information and inform the public about the
planning process
3 = Don't know/Unsure
(CIO) Overall, which did you prefer to use in this planning process:
1 = Traditional participatory method
2 = PPGIS tool
3 = Don't Know/Unsure

159