Point, polygon, or marker? In search of the best geographic entity for mapping cultural ecosystem services using the online public participation geographic information systems tool, “My Green Place”

Abstract

The mapping of cultural ecosystem services through online public participation GIS (PPGIS) has predominantly relied on geographic entities, such as points and polygons, to collect spatial data, regardless of their limitations. As the potential of online PPGIS to support planning and design keeps growing, so does the need for more knowledge about data quality and suitable geographic entities to collect data. Using the online PPGIS tool, "My Green Place," 449 respondents mapped cultural ecosystem services in Ghent by using all three geographic entities: point, polygon, and the novel "marker." The three geographic entities' accuracy was analyzed through a quadrat analysis, regressions against the collective truth, the Akaike information criterion, and a preference test based on the survey's outcomes. The results show that the point reflects the weakest the collective truth, especially for mapping dynamic cultural practices, and the marker reflects it the strongest. The polygon's performance compares to that of the marker's, albeit slightly weaker. The marker delivers a more nuanced image of the respondents' input, is simpler to use, and has less risk of spatial errors. Therefore, we suggest using the marker instead of the point and the polygon when collecting spatial data in future cultural ecosystem services research.

A reliability study of the Park Life public participatory geographic information system survey

“…We identified 13 studies that used PPGIS methods that focused on urban green spaces (Bijker & Sijtsma, 2017; Brown et al, 2014, 2018; de Vries et al, 2013; Heikinheimo et al, 2020; Hughey et al, 2021; Korpilo et al, 2021; Latinopoulos, 2022; Pietrzyk‐Kaszyńska et al, 2017; Rall et al, 2019; Ramírez Aranda et al, 2021; Raymond et al, 2016; Schrammeijer et al, 2022). Nine studies explicitly asked participants to identify and map the green spaces they used.…”

“…There was also some ambiguity about what is measured in these studies. Phrases about the “activities” engaged in within the spaces, the “motivations” for use, or reasons the parks were “attractive” for use also differed across the studies from asking about “activities” (Brown et al, 2014, 2018; Raymond et al, 2016), “benefits” (Brown et al, 2014, 2018), “cultural practices” (Ramírez Aranda et al, 2021), “cultural ecosystem services” (Rall et al, 2019), or “qualities” (Bijker & Sijtsma, 2017; de Vries et al, 2013). These differences make comparison across studies difficult.…”