Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Portland State UniversityPDXScholar
TREC Friday Seminar Series Transportation Research and Education Center(TREC)
2-10-2017
Individual Decision Making in Online Public-ParticipationTransportation PlanningMartin SwobodzinskiPortland State University, [email protected]
Let us know how access to this document benefits you.Follow this and additional works at: http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/trec_seminar
Part of the Spatial Science Commons, and the Transportation Commons
This Book is brought to you for free and open access. It has been accepted for inclusion in TREC Friday Seminar Series by an authorized administratorof PDXScholar. For more information, please contact [email protected].
Recommended CitationSwobodzinski, Martin, "Individual Decision Making in Online Public-Participation Transportation Planning" (2017). TREC FridaySeminar Series. 109.http://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/trec_seminar/109
Martin Swobodzinski, Ph.D.Assistant Professor of GeographyDirector, Center for Spatial Analysis and ResearchPortland State [email protected]
Individual decision making in online public-participation transportation planning
February 10, 2017TREC Friday Seminar
Acknowledgements
Participatory GIS for Transportation Project (www.pgist.org). Research
supported by National Science Foundation Grant No. EIA 0325916, funded through the Information Technology Research Program, and managed in the Digital Government
Program.
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
Acknowledgements
PrincipalsTim Nyerges, UW
Piotr Jankowski, SDSU
Rhonda Young, UWY
Terry Brooks, UW
Scott Rutherford, UW
ConsultantsRobert Aguirre
Fixie Consultants
Puget Works
PartnersPuget Sound Regional Council
King County
City of Seattle
Research AssistantsMatthew Wilson
Kevin Ramsey
Mike Lowry
Arika Ligmann-Zielinska
Martin Swobodzinski
Adam Hindman
Michael Patrick
John Le
Zhong Wang
Jie Wu
Guirong Zhou
Tao Zhong
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
Participation
(based on Arnstein, 1969)
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
Citizen Control
Delegated Power
Partnership
Placation
Consultation
Informing
Manipulation
Therapy
citizen power
tokenism
nonparticipation
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
Use of Technology
Satisfaction
Process Technology Outcomes
Performance
TechnologyProcess Outcomes
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
Illustration
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
Task-Technology Fit
(based on Jarupathirun and Zahedi, 2007)
Geographical Tasks
GIS Technology
Spatial Abilities
Intrinsic Incentive
Goal Commitment Goal Level
Task-Technology Fit
PerformanceSystem
Utilization
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
PGIST
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
Puget Sound
Snohomish
King
Pierce
Kitsap
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
LIT Steps
1
M
o
n
t
h
3.Individual Package
4.Group Package
5.Report
2.Factors
1.Concerns
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
Challenge
Groups of users with similar user interaction
?Cognitive Style Indicator*
Socio-demographics
Travel behavior
Computer/Internet proficiency
*(Cools and van den Broeck, 2007)
?individual characteristicsuser interaction
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
Server Log File
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
Capturing Activities
deliberation
analysis
information gathering
25 activities 9 activities
total duration
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
HCI Analysis Overview
Analysis Iteration
Extraction
Clustering
Regression
Group
Predictors
User Activities
Groups of similar
interaction
Server Logs
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
Clustering Algorithms
• Multiple sequence alignment analysis*
• Hierarchical cluster analysis
*(Abbott, 1990; Shoval and Isaacson, 2007; Fabrikant et al., 2008)
Alice Bob
Alice
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
Clustering Summary
• HCA: Usable classification for total time
• MSA: Reliability concerns
• Analytical synergies MSA HCA
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
Groups of users with similar user interaction
Logistic Regression Summary
Cognitive Style Indicator*
Socio-demographics
Travel behavior
Computer Literacy
*(Cools and van den Broeck, 2007)
Groups with similar overall
interaction duration Online transportation discussions
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
*COOLS, E. & VAN DEN BROECK, H. (2007) Development and validation of the
cognitive style indicator. Journal of Psychology, 14, 359-387.
What about Individual Choices?
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
Location Analysis
60%17%
23%40%
40%30%
22%8%
60%
100%
Outside buffers
Walking distance
Bicyling distance
Driving distance
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
Cost Analysis
Me
$159 $378
You
vs
$8,731 $16,348
Median
Sum
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
Location/Cost Analysis Summary
• Self-centrism prevailing
• Need for moderation
• Feed observed patterns into process
• Complexity! Performance?
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
Conclusions
• System, process, outcomes
• Capturing, evaluating HCI in web-based DSS (LIT as case study)
• Analysis of behavior; profiling of the ‘public’
• PPGIS, spatial equity; greater good?
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
Access
Representation Attrition
Conclusions
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
Take-home Message
• Public :: individuals
• Participation = f(opportunities for participation)
• Towards an individual-centered approach
Center for Spatial Analysis and Research (CSAR)
