10
79 Participatory Tool Development for Participatory Spatial Planning – The GEOKOM-PEP Environment Sabine HENNIG & Robert VOGLER Abstract Today’s spatial planning processes require public participation and interactive communica- tion between different stakeholders. While computer-based environments generally offer a variety of (new) ways to involve the public in planning processes, with the rise of Web 2.0 and interrelated aspects like e.g. web mapping, even more possibilities for advanced infor- mation exchange, consensus finding and decision-making emerge. The integration of dif- ferent components and services allows the involvement of the public by various interactions including combinations of geomedia and multimedia. In a nutshell it enables geo- communication. Ultimately, these tools can also be of practical relevance and aptitude for geography education in that they enable pupils and students as well as interested members of the general public to be empowered to participate in planning their own environments. However, although technical possibilities can be considered quite mature, of particular relevance to computer-based participatory planning applications is the question, how these tools should look like and work in practice, to address especially the (lay) public? How can these tools achieve a high level of usability and user-orientation? This issue is discussed via the example of the (prototype) GEOKOM-PEP 1 Environment, which deals with an actual urban planning problem in Salzburg. The public (i.e. a focus group made up of mainly pupils, students, and teachers) is directly engaged in the tool development process. This centers on a participatory approach whereby the tool development process is applied using the content management system WordPress and the web mapping tool ScribbleMaps. As a result of this, the user-created GEOKOM-PEP Environment is characterized by user- generated content, user-selected interactivity, and a user-designed interface. The environ- ment was tested and evaluated using several real-world scenarios. 1 Setting the Scene and Research Question For today’s society, dealing with all kinds of problems, planning is an integral aspect. Thereby planning “(...) is figuring out what needs to be done and how to do it” (RANDOLPH 2004:16). It involves setting objectives, gathering and analyzing information, formulating and evaluating alternative policies, projects or designs to meet the objectives (ibid). Giving here some superficial attention to planning the following can be stated: Many of the problems treated in planning are spatial in nature and most information used therefore con- tains a spatial component like address, zip code, or latitude/longitude (SIEBER 2006). Thus, planning frequently is a question of spatial planning, whereby spatial planning refers to all 1 GEOKOM-PEP (http://projects.giscience.at/geokom-pep) is a project funded by “Sparkling Sci- ence”, a research education framework of the Austrian Ministry of Science and Research (BMWF). Jekel, T, Koller, A., Donert, K. & Vogler, R. (Eds.) (2011): Learning with GI 2011. © Herbert Wichmann Verlag, VDE VERLAG GMBH, Berlin/Offenbach. ISBN 978-3-87907-510-2. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

Participatory Tool Development for Participatory Spatial ...gispoint.de/fileadmin/user_upload/paper_gis_open/537510014.pdf · Participatory Tool Development for Participatory

  • Upload
    dangthu

  • View
    234

  • Download
    1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Participatory Tool Development for Participatory Spatial ...gispoint.de/fileadmin/user_upload/paper_gis_open/537510014.pdf · Participatory Tool Development for Participatory

79

Participatory Tool Development for Participatory Spatial Planning – The GEOKOM-PEP Environment

Sabine HENNIG & Robert VOGLER

Abstract

Today’s spatial planning processes require public participation and interactive communica-tion between different stakeholders. While computer-based environments generally offer a variety of (new) ways to involve the public in planning processes, with the rise of Web 2.0 and interrelated aspects like e.g. web mapping, even more possibilities for advanced infor-mation exchange, consensus finding and decision-making emerge. The integration of dif-ferent components and services allows the involvement of the public by various interactions including combinations of geomedia and multimedia. In a nutshell it enables geo-communication. Ultimately, these tools can also be of practical relevance and aptitude for geography education in that they enable pupils and students as well as interested members of the general public to be empowered to participate in planning their own environments.

However, although technical possibilities can be considered quite mature, of particular relevance to computer-based participatory planning applications is the question, how these tools should look like and work in practice, to address especially the (lay) public? How can these tools achieve a high level of usability and user-orientation? This issue is discussed via the example of the (prototype) GEOKOM-PEP1 Environment, which deals with an actual urban planning problem in Salzburg. The public (i.e. a focus group made up of mainly pupils, students, and teachers) is directly engaged in the tool development process. This centers on a participatory approach whereby the tool development process is applied using the content management system WordPress and the web mapping tool ScribbleMaps. As a result of this, the user-created GEOKOM-PEP Environment is characterized by user-generated content, user-selected interactivity, and a user-designed interface. The environ-ment was tested and evaluated using several real-world scenarios.

1 Setting the Scene and Research Question

For today’s society, dealing with all kinds of problems, planning is an integral aspect. Thereby planning “(...) is figuring out what needs to be done and how to do it” (RANDOLPH 2004:16). It involves setting objectives, gathering and analyzing information, formulating and evaluating alternative policies, projects or designs to meet the objectives (ibid).

Giving here some superficial attention to planning the following can be stated: Many of the problems treated in planning are spatial in nature and most information used therefore con-tains a spatial component like address, zip code, or latitude/longitude (SIEBER 2006). Thus, planning frequently is a question of spatial planning, whereby spatial planning refers to all

1 GEOKOM-PEP (http://projects.giscience.at/geokom-pep) is a project funded by “Sparkling Sci-

ence”, a research education framework of the Austrian Ministry of Science and Research (BMWF).

Jekel, T, Koller, A., Donert, K. & Vogler, R. (Eds.) (2011): Learning with GI 2011. © Herbert Wichmann Verlag, VDE VERLAG GMBH, Berlin/Offenbach. ISBN 978-3-87907-510-2. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

Page 2: Participatory Tool Development for Participatory Spatial ...gispoint.de/fileadmin/user_upload/paper_gis_open/537510014.pdf · Participatory Tool Development for Participatory

S. Hennig & R. Vogler 80

measures to develop guiding principles of a strived, ideal state of space and to provide requirements for their realization, as well as to all methods used to influence the distribu-tion of people and activities in space across various scales.

Commonly, (spatial) planning is carried out within certain frameworks like the strategic planning process, which are structured by various stages: They are based on a generic prob-lem solving procedure, which begins with problem definition and description, involves various forms of analysis, moves to prediction and thence to prescription or design, which often involves the evaluation of alternative solutions to the problem. However, over the years the way in which (spatial) planning processes are conducted have evolved. RANDOLPH (2004:16) states: “(…) Public participation grew in the 1970s, communication became the emphasis in the 1980s, and the 1990s saw more collaborative approaches in-volving stakeholders and partners reasoning together.” In today’s planning processes public participation is considered as a pivotal element. More than other fields, it relies on collabo-ration between various groups, i.e. the public, planners and the authorities – as experts or laymen (JIANG, HUANG & VASEK 2003). Accordingly, the public should actively be in-volved in all planning tasks. Citizens should be able to contribute, comment, amend, assess, and evaluate information in each process step (JAKOWSKI 2009, RENN et al. 1993).

However, in recent years, due to the rapid development of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs), big changes were generated in the ways in which the public can par-ticipate in planning (see RAMASUBRAMANIAN 2010). Technology regarding all aspects of communication has been increasingly pushed forward by the Internet. As presented in Ta-ble 1, new digital media provide new possibilities in which the public can collaborate (see e.g. DA TRINDADE & WEHRHAHN 2010, MILOVANOVIC 2003).

Table 1: Spectrum and technics of public participation (adapted from IAP2 2007; KINGSTON 2002, MILOVANOVIC 2003)

One-way communication

Two-way communication

Inform Consult Involve Collaborate Empower

Obj

ecti

ves

To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, opportunities and/ or solutions.

To obtain public feedback on analysis, alterna-tives and/ or decisions.

To work directly with the public throughout the process to ensure that public concerns and aspirations are consistently under-stood and considered.

To partner with the public in each aspect of the decision includ-ing the development of alternatives and the identification of the preferred solution.

To place final decision-making in the hands of the public.

Tec

hn

iqu

es Fact sheets

Open houses

Public com-ment

Surveys Public mee-

tings

Workshops Deliberative polling

Citizen advisory commmittees

Consensus-building Participatory deci-

sion-making

Citizen juries Ballots Delegated

decison

ICT

Exa

mp

le

(Basic) Web sites On-line polls On-line discussion forums

On-line services, forms & documents in electronic form

On-line decision making sup-port systems

Page 3: Participatory Tool Development for Participatory Spatial ...gispoint.de/fileadmin/user_upload/paper_gis_open/537510014.pdf · Participatory Tool Development for Participatory

Participatory Tool Development for Participatory Spatial Planning 81

Hence, participants can be directly involved in discussion and the exchange of ideas. Quali-ty and speed of communication between the participants can be improved, i.e. increase. The process of gaining insight is supported. In these circumstances positive effects are proved by better planning results (JIANG, HUANG & VASEK 2003, MILOVANOVIC 2003). In conse-quence, demands grow for planners to make use of new communication tools that allow for public involvement via Internet (DEVISCH 2008). In practice, what should these tools look like if the lay public is to feel comfortable with them – bearing in mind that former applica-tions often focused on technical issues while fading out the need to pay special attention to particular user requirements? This is discussed through the example of the GEOKOM-PEP Environment. This prototype online tool was created in the framework of the correspondent project. Besides the project scope to enhance participatory planning in general (VOGLER et al. 2010), both tool development and especially tool use (primary in school education) center on developing necessary social and technical skills for emancipatory (spatial) appro-priation via (geo)media as well. These required competences are for example important in modern geography education (see e.g. GRYL, JEKEL & DONERT 2010, RAMASUBRAMANIAN 2010).

2 Core Component Geo-Communication

For spatial planning, spatial data and maps are an important media of communication (see e.g. SIEBER 2006). Thus, besides concepts, levels, and methods of participation, the im-portance of geo-communication for spatial planning must be highlighted. The purpose of communication is to effectively send a message to the receiver rather or reader. Information must be transmitted in a way that people without great knowledge of a subject can perceive and understand that subject and that recipients can create a pertinent idea thereof. For that task the used media must show and/or explain an object or phenomenon in a vivid and realistic manner. Selection and design of either a single communication medium or a com-bination of several diverse media is generally based on the functions that the media have to accomplish/fulfill in the communication process. Therefor different functions exist (DRANSCH 2000): the function of demonstration, putting in context, construction, motiva-tion, increasing important information, avoiding the overload of a single sense, supporting double encoding of information, supporting creation of mental models. However, for spatial planning the use of geomedia (i.e. geoinformation, maps, and cartographic representations) must be underlined as important media of communication. In participatory online systems, comparable to analog plans – to clarify the content, and give context etc. – geomedia should be accompanied by explanations and statements made available by e.g. multimedia (see e.g. VON HAAREN 2004). The process of integrating different kinds of geomedia and multime-dia, as well as interactive techniques – usable and useful for participatory spatial planning – can be described as geo-communication (BRODERSEN & NIELSEN 2006, JOBST 2009). For one-way and two-way communication as an integral part of participatory spatial planning this idea can be put into action with several computer-based tools.

3 Participatory Tool Development Process

In a broad sense, usability refers to the design and structure of a graphical user interface, the informational content and the interactivities implemented in terms of the corresponding

Page 4: Participatory Tool Development for Participatory Spatial ...gispoint.de/fileadmin/user_upload/paper_gis_open/537510014.pdf · Participatory Tool Development for Participatory

S. Hennig & R. Vogler 82

tool (RICHTER & FLÜCKINGER 2007). To provide a tool that is as usable as possible, a sys-tematic (user) requirement assessment is needed comprising user awareness, situation awareness and capability awareness (BRODERSEN & NIELSEN 2006). According to this, the main principle behind the GEOKOM-PEP Environment is that it is developed to be ex-tremely user- and task- as well as context-of-use oriented. To facilitate computer-based participation in spatial planning, the use of geomedia and multimedia as well as interactiv-ity must be designed to suit the context of the designated users and their tasks (see e.g. VON HAAREN 2004). Due to this, as is the rule for today’s software realization processes, the GEOKOM-PEP Environment has been developed applying state-of-the-art Software Engi-neering rather than Web Engineering techniques and methods. It has been created recogniz-ing experiences from common software development processes, which are broken down in several stages like e.g. IT project management, conception, design, creation, and implemen-tation (BALZERT 2000, KEMPER, BAARS & MEHANNA 2006, SOMMERVILLE 2007).

This dissection of the development process into separated phases provides the advantage that particular attention is paid to the specification of the software requirements. For soft-ware development, concretizing application requirements is seen as pivotal element. Be-sides system requirements, they encompass functional and non-functional requirements, domain requirements, qualitative requirements, process-related requirements, and compre-hensive (user) requirements. They define the product characteristics, which together reflect the different points of view of e.g. the public, planners, the authorities, ICT- and GI-experts and software developers (RICHTER & FLÜCKINGER 2007). The scale of their observation and implementation can be used for software quality assessment. Thus, determining re-quirements and structures can increase the usability of software applications. ISO 9241 defines usability as “(…) the extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction in a specified context of use.”

However, by tradition there exists some misunderstandings between software users and software developers. Among others, software developers frequently forget that in most cases they are not the typical users. Hence, constructive co-operation between users and developers can be seen as a fundamental precondition to software project success. This co-operation sconcern e.g. the extent by which involved persons (i.e. users and developers) understand the project aims as well as the extent by which the users really take part in the project. Common procedures to involve users in software development processes are inter-views and surveys, observations, studies and analyses of documents, common working meetings, and the analogy method (RICHTER & FLÜCKIGNER 2007). Recently, GLUCHOWSKI, GABRIEL & DITTMAR (2008) and EVANS-COWLEY (2010) point out, that it is purposeful to involve some future users to assist the development process. This participa-tive approach with regard to software or platform development contributes to enhance tool usability and in consequence user acceptance. Technical aspects are controlled to allow usability to come to the fore, use and content of the tool to be ostensibly treated. Thus, concerning the development of the GEOKOM-PEP Environment – to be eminently suitable for lay users – the public, i.e. as a focus group, should actively and directly be engaged in all stages of the development process (see Fig. 1).

Page 5: Participatory Tool Development for Participatory Spatial ...gispoint.de/fileadmin/user_upload/paper_gis_open/537510014.pdf · Participatory Tool Development for Participatory

Participatory Tool Development for Participatory Spatial Planning 83

Fig. 1: Schematic workflow of the participatory tool development process (adapted from BRANDT-POOK & KOLLMEIER 2008)

To produce the GEOKOM-PEP Environment, based on such a participatory tool develop-ment processes, an interdisciplinary project team was formed. The team collaborating in all process stages integrates different stakeholders: (1) Planners and the authorities (for the part of the spatial planning process), (2) software engineers or rather web engineers, ICT- and GI-experts, i.e. ICT-staff (for the part of the software development process), as well as (3) the public, which was represented in this case mainly by pupils, university students, and postgraduate students.

In several workshops the project team ran through an entire spatial planning process. Dur-ing the individual planning stages participants contributed, discussed and evaluated indi-vidual information, ideas, and opinions and voted on them to collaboratively find a consen-sus and make decisions. This occurred either by talking face-to-face (group and plenary discussions) or by exchanging information and ideas in written form online (phpBB Forum Software). Documents and sketches on the description of the actual situation of the plan-ning object, on planning objectives (i.e. visions) as well as measures to achieve the specific planning aims were compiled. In doing so, the team learnt about collaborative spatial plan-ning, its underlying processes, public participation as well as one-way and two-way (geo-) communication (see e.g. VOGLER et al. 2010). The experience conceived through these workshops served as a basis for the development and design of the GEOKOM-PEP Envi-ronment. Thus, its requirements – mainly taking into account interface design and structure, interactivity and information content, i.e. (geo)media – were specified based on the experi-ences and material gained during the planning process. Comprehensive information was provided by results from analyzing literature and computer-based planning tools regarding (spatial) planning, computer-based participatory planning, GIS 2.0, PPGIS, CGIS, web mapping etc. Requirements were structured and documented using the Volere Requirements Specification Template (http://www.volere.co.uk/template.htm). According to the require-ments specification the application was designed and implemented by the public and tech-nically supervised by the ICT-staff. The GEOKOM-PEP environment was tested and eval-

Page 6: Participatory Tool Development for Participatory Spatial ...gispoint.de/fileadmin/user_upload/paper_gis_open/537510014.pdf · Participatory Tool Development for Participatory

S. Hennig & R. Vogler 84

uated in a variety of situations including workshops, advanced training courses, and univer-sity courses.

The project team experienced this planning process by undertaking a real word urban plan-ning problem, which was proposed by the city of Salzburg. This was based in one of the central urban districts, Schallmoos, where the urban planners of the city have been paying attention to, Current topics being dealt with refer to typical urban planning problems such as housing, traffic, recreation or amenities (AMT FÜR STADTPLANUNG UND VERKEHR, MAGISTRAT STADT SALZBURG 2009). This approach on a local planning scale ensures first, an understanding of the spatial planning process, secondly, knowledge of and empathy with the local situation, and finally, motivation for participation because people`s personal living environment is directly affected (see e.g. JANKOWSKI 2009, JANKOWSKI & STASIK 1997).

4 Tools for Realization and Use

To develop the environment, participatory development asks for tools that are appropriate to be handled by laymen. Their use must be easy to learn and they should be targeted at non-experts. In the case of the creation and implementation of the GEOKOM-PEP Envi-ronment,decisions came from the off-the-shelf tools WordPress and ScribbleMaps.

4.1 WordPress

As the GEOKOM-PEP Environment was intended to be an online application the imple-mentation process was strongly associated with the Internet, which at present is strongly related to the principles and practices of Web 2.0. To take full advantage of this, the GEOKOM-PEP Environment was implemented using the Content Management System WordPress (http://www.wordpress.com). The decision to use WordPress came from nu-merous reasons: WordPress is classified as a self-hosted content management system or rather a platform to create websites and weblogs. Everything, from the documentation to the code itself, was created by and for the community. Through an infinite number of ex-tensions WordPress is also completely customizable. For instance, web mapping services can be added and different kinds of media can be integrated. Concerning its usability, WordPress is extremely user-oriented. It is easy to learn and to be used by laymen. For the development of the GEOKOM-PEP Environment the project team decided on appropriate themes, widgets and plugins to build their WordPress application. To meet user require-ments, numerous modifications occurred as well as some programming of the components incorporated in the environment.

4.2 ScribbleMaps

To communicate their intended planning input, first of all, users need to produce own geo-spatial or cartographic representations. Thereby, – following MACEACHREN et al. (2004) – users geo-visualize individual information, knowledge and experience as well as expecta-tions and demands. For that reason, in terms of the GEOKOM-PEP Environment, the plan-ning participants made use of web mapping.

On the Internet various free web mapping services are available to organize user participa-tion around geographic features and their attributes. To leverage geomedia in the

Page 7: Participatory Tool Development for Participatory Spatial ...gispoint.de/fileadmin/user_upload/paper_gis_open/537510014.pdf · Participatory Tool Development for Participatory

Participatory Tool Development for Participatory Spatial Planning 85

GEOKOM-PEP Environment, several free web mapping services were compared. Based on the possibilities they offered, like map versioning, map sharing or jpeg-export, the web mapping tool ScribbleMaps (http://www.scribblemaps.com) was considered the most suita-ble to enable the users to provide geomedia in the GEOKOM-PEP Environment. Besides standard navigation options (pan and zoom), different map backgrounds (satellite, topogra-phy, hybride etc.) and aspects for map creation (showing markers via addresses, events; integrating complex maps with markers, lines, polygons including multimedia info win-dows) several more features, like e.g. language selection, are available.

With a WordPress (geo-)communication component (article, comment, thread etc.) the individual geomedia, i.e. web map, can be integrated. Therefore two different modes exist-ed: Firstly, the WordPress plugin directory knows numerous plugins for these purposes; secondly, the option widget embedding can be applied.

5 Components and Capabilities

The GEOKOM-PEP Environment was provided with an aligned structure to guide the pub-lic through the planning process. This occurred in an easy to use environment provided with an intuitive graphical user interface to address above all the (lay) public. The planning application consisted of different screen areas, which defined the high-level structure of the page: a navigation area, an application area and an information/ notification area. The menu structure of the application reflected the slightly adapted strategic planning process (Fig. 2).

A key aspect of the GEOKOM-PEP Environment was to offer different participation modes, i.e. mean of geo-communication. Here, WordPress provided several possibilities for one-way and two-way communication: e.g. static pages, weblogs, i.e. articles and com-ments, forums, i.e. threads, and wikis. Their implementation as well as design and settings in the GEOKOM-PEP Environment were related to the different characteristics and ad-vantages of the particular communication components as discussed by e.g. EBERSBACH, GLASER & HEIGL 2011, and STUKER 2007. Moreover, their configuration corresponded to the diverse communication needs specified by the project team within the scope of the spatial planning process and its stages: Information collection on the planning object and the planning problem occurred by a weblog, i.e. articles and comments. This information was (collaboratively) summed-up in a wiki-document. Thus, the user was provided with a comprehensive overview and background on the planning object, considered to be relevant information for the next steps in the planning process. Collection of visions and measures took place using forums, whereas different forums existed corresponding to the focal points of the specific spatial planning problem: i.e. housing, traffic, recreation etc. This helped to facilitate and assist collection of users’ visions as well as constructive discussions. Infor-mation gathered and discussed in forums was summed up in articles. Categorized com-ments on the user’s visions helped to reach consensus. Eventually, for final decision-making a polling tool was implemented. All the results of the visions were collaboratively brought together in a wiki-document. The collaborative elaboration of the measures, regard-ing the agreed visions, followed the same workflow as the process passed through for the development of visions.

In the GEOKOM-PEP Environment, for the purpose of geo-communication, different me-dia as appropriate were used. Geomedia and multimedia could be interlaced with static

Page 8: Participatory Tool Development for Participatory Spatial ...gispoint.de/fileadmin/user_upload/paper_gis_open/537510014.pdf · Participatory Tool Development for Participatory

S. Hennig & R. Vogler 86

pages, weblogs, comments, forums, and wiki-documents. This occurs by uploading, linking or embedding the related material. The object embedding method was applied to integrate an individual map (produced by the individual user in ScribbleMaps) with the provided communication content (being e.g. text or other media). This approach corresponds to common practices on handling multimedia within Web 2.0 applications.

Fig. 2: The GEOKOM-PEP Environment: Structure, organisation and components

6 Conclusion

The GEOKOM-PEP project places an emphasis on several interrelated objectives that tar-get enhancing public participation in spatial planning. Efforts strive to develop a tailor-made and flexible Web 2.0-based planning environment that allows different levels of pub-lic participation to be achieved within all stages of spatial planning processes. Due to the participatory tool development approach employed, the GEOKOM-PEP Environment can be described as a user created application characterized by user-generated content, user-

Page 9: Participatory Tool Development for Participatory Spatial ...gispoint.de/fileadmin/user_upload/paper_gis_open/537510014.pdf · Participatory Tool Development for Participatory

Participatory Tool Development for Participatory Spatial Planning 87

selected interactivities, and a user-designed interface. Its participatory realization and col-laborative use results in several benefits: Firstly, software engineers acquire (spatial) plan-ning skills and directly experience user requirements. Secondly, the public – being involved in the development process – learns about technical skills (ICTs, geoinformation and web mapping) and spatial planning. Thirdly, the GEOKOM-PEP Environment is specifically suited to constructivist geography education. Here, participatory planning and collabora-tive learning are considered to be very similar processes (see e.g. VOGLER, AHAMER & JEKEL 2010, VOGLER et al. 2010). For instance, the competence framework for relevant skills regarding an emancipatory use of geoinformation in everyday life – described by the term spatial citizenship – is achieved by the collaborative creation of spatial meanings (GRYL, JEKEL & DONERT 2010).

Thus, in conclusion, the GEOKOM-PEP Environment can be harnessed to treat many as-pects of the participatory planning process as well as improving and duplicating learning achievements associated with social and technical skills related to the activities of different focus groups in touch with the tool.

References

AMT FÜR STADTPLANUNG UND VERKEHR, MAGISTRAT STADT SALZBURG (2009), Die zu-künftige Entwicklung der Stadt Salzburg. Räumliches Entwicklungskonzept der Stadt Salzburg REK 2007. Ziele und Maßnahmen, Strukturuntersuchung und Problemanalyse. Schriftreihe zur Salzburger Stadtplanung, 35. http://www.stadt-salzburg.at/rek2007

BALZERT, H. (2000), Lehrbuch der Software-Technik, Spektrum Akademischer Verlag. BRANDT-POOK, H. & KOLLMEIER, R. (2008), Softwareentwicklung kompakt und verständ-

lich: Wie Softwaresysteme entstehen. Vieweg+Teubner. BRODERSEN, L. & NIELSEN, A. (2006), Spatial Data Infrastructure in the Perspective of

Modern Geo-communication. Models, Mutual Dependencies and Definitions. AutoCarto 2006 Research Symposium in Vancouver, WA, Jun 2006.

DA TRINIDAD, S.-C. & WEHRHAHN, R. (2010), Urban Governance und Partizipation. Geo-graphische Rundschau, 7/2010: 42-49.

DEVISCH, O. (2008), Should planners start playing computer games. Arguments from SimCity and second life. Planning Theory and Practices, 9 (2): 209-226.

DRANSCH, D. (2000), The use of different media in visualizing spatial data. Computers & Geosciences, 26: 5-9.

EBERSBACH, A., GLASER, M. & HEIGL, R. (2011), Social Web. UTB. EVANS-COWLEY, J. S. (2010), Planning in the age of Facebook: the role of social network-

ing in planning processes. GeoJournal Springer Science+Business Media B.V. GLUCHOWSKI, P., GABRIEL, R. & DITTMAR, C. (2008), Management Support Systeme und

Business Intelligence. Computergestützte Informationssysteme für Fach- und Füh-rungskräfte, Springer.

GRYL, I., JEKEL, T. & DONERT, K. (2010), GI and Spatial Citizenship. In: JEKEL, T., KOLLER, A., DONERT, K. & VOGLER, R. (Eds.), Learning with Geoinformation V. Ber-lin/Offenbach: Wichmann, pp. 2-11.

IAP2 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (2007), Spectrum of Public Participation. http://www.iap2.org/associations/4748/files/spectrum.pdf.

Page 10: Participatory Tool Development for Participatory Spatial ...gispoint.de/fileadmin/user_upload/paper_gis_open/537510014.pdf · Participatory Tool Development for Participatory

S. Hennig & R. Vogler 88

JANKOWSKI, P. (2009), Towards participatory geographic information systems for commu-nity-based environmental decision making. Journal of Environmental Management, 90: 1966-1971.

JANKOWSKI, P. & STASIK, M. (1997), Spatial understanding and decision support system: A prototype for public GIS. Transactions in GIS, 2 (1): 73-84.

JIANG, B., HUANG, B. & VASEK, V. (2003), Geovisualization for Planning Support Systems. In: GEERTMAN, S. & STILLWELL, J. (Eds.), Planning Support Systems in Practice. Berlin: Springer, pp. 177-191.

JOBST, M. (2009), Neo-cartographic interlacement as barrier for Cartographic Heritage. E-Perimetron, 4 (4): 212-220.

KEMPER, H.-G., MEHANNA, W. & UNGER, C. (2006), Business Intelligence – Grundlagen und praktische Anwendungen. Vieweg.

KINGSTON, R. (2002), The role of e-government and public participation in the planning process. XVI AESOP Congress, Volos, Greece, July 10th – 14th 2002.

MACEACHREN, A. M., GAHEGAN, M., PIKE, W., BREWER, I., CAI, G. & LENGERICH, E. (2004), Geovisualization for Knowledge Construction and Decision Support. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 24 (1): 13-17.

MILOVANOVIC, D. (2003), Interactive planning – use of the ICT as a support for public participation in planning urban development: Serbia and Montenegro cases. 39th ISoCaPR Congress 2003.

RAMASUBRAMANIAN, L. (2010), Geographic Information Science and Public Participation. Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

RANDOLPH, J. (2004), Environmental Land Use Planning and Management. Washington/ Covelo/London: Island Press.

RENN, O., WEBLER, T., RAKEL, H., DIENEL, P. & JOHNSON, B. (1993), Public Participation in decision making: A three-step procedure. Policy Sciences, 26 (3): 189-214.

RICHTER, M. & FLÜCKINGER, M. (2007), Usability Engineering kompakt. München: Spektrum.

SIEBER, R. (2006), Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A Literature Re-view and Framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96 (3): 491-507.

SOMMERVILLE, J. (2007), Software Engineering. Pearson Studium. STUKER, J. (2007), Vergleich; Blog, Wiki, Forum.

http://wiki.computerwoche.de/doku.php/web_2.0/weblog-wiki-forum. VOGLER, R., AHAMER, G. & JEKEL, T. (2010), Geokom-PEP. Pupil led research into the

effects of geovisualization. In: JEKEL, T., KOLLER, A., DONERT, K. & VOGLER, R. (Eds.), Learning with Geoinformation V. Berlin/Offenbach: Wichmann, pp. 51-60.

VOGLER, R., JEKEL, T., HENNIG, S., MÜLLER, N. & SÖNSER, L. (2010), Partizipative Pla-nung, kollaboratives Lernen und digitales Webmapping – Versuch einer Schnittmen-genkonstruktion. GW-Unterricht 120 (4): 15-29.

VON HAAREN, C. (2004), Landschaftsplanung. Ulmer, UTB.