Visualization for Citizen Participation: User Perceptions on a Mainstreamed Online Participatory Tool and Its Usefulness for Climate Change Planning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This draft has shown valuable results as an empirical study using modern online participatory tools (OPTs) . However, I assessed that it was necessary to make corrections based on the proposals commented below.
1. Introduction
Most of the research methods in this study are based on focus group interviews. It has some work in the research field of "qualitative GIS", needs to be reviewed.
2. OPT criteria
In participatory GIS research and citizen science, it has been pointed out that usability is as important as accessibility (for example, ISO19157). However, even in 4.2, too few specific references are made, and the standards are ambiguous. Please show them clearly.
3. Quantitative evaluation?
Is it possible to quantitatively evaluate actual usage, such as analyzing the access logs of CityPlanner? Since this study uses only one tool and not compare multiple tools, it may be necessary to explain the position of CityPlanner to the reader.
4. Basic features of focus group interview
Although the FG is the main focus of this research, information on the personal attributes of the respondents (generation, understanding of city planning, PC skills, etc.) is missing. Also, it is necessary to summarize the characteristics of FG in a table or the like in discussions and conclusions.
Author Response
|
1. Introduction Most of the research methods in this study are based on focus group interviews. It has some work in the research field of "qualitative GIS", needs to be reviewed. |
Two articles on Qualitative GIS have been reviewed and referred to in the discussion section in relation to how feedback mechanisms could be developed. We were not able to find studies on focus group methods for assessing GIS-based tools for citizen participation in planning. We are happy to review such work for this study if the reviewer has any specific studies in mind. |
|
2. OPT criteria In participatory GIS research and citizen science, it has been pointed out that usability is as important as accessibility (for example, ISO19157). However, even in 4.2, too few specific references are made, and the standards are ambiguous. Please show them clearly. |
We agree that usability is at least as important as accessibility, which should be clear when summarizing the applied assessment criteria. We have added explanatory text in section 2.2 that hopefully make the assessment criteria less ambiguous. However, we do not understand what the reviewer mean with “too few references are made” in section 4.2 (no references to literature is made in the results section). |
|
3. Quantitative evaluation? Is it possible to quantitatively evaluate actual usage, such as analyzing the access logs of CityPlanner? Since this study uses only one tool and not compare multiple tools, it may be necessary to explain the position of CityPlanner to the reader. |
Yes, we have analyzed access logs of CityPlanner. This has been clarified in the methods-section. We have further clarified that municipalities in other countries also use this tool.
|
|
4. Basic features of focus group interview Although the FG is the main focus of this research, information on the personal attributes of the respondents (generation, understanding of city planning, PC skills, etc.) is missing. Also, it is necessary to summarize the characteristics of FG in a table or the like in discussions and conclusions. |
We have not analyzed how each individual participant in the focus groups experienced the tool, but rather how the tool was discussed by the groups consisting of two groups viewed as underrepresented in current urban planning (youth and elderly). Judging from the discussions held, though, previous understanding of city planning and PC skills differed greatly among participants (though not specifically asked for) and can be seen as somewhat representative of citizens in general. Further, in order to not make the paper too long and since the main messages did not differ so much between the groups we don’t see the added value to include such a table. |
Reviewer 2 Report
I read the article with great interest and pleasure. In general, the article is clear and well structured: the research path (questions, survey method, presentation of results) is robust and clearly illustrated.
The topic of using "OPT" tools as effective resources/instrument to increase the quality of planning processes is interesting and urgent (in relation to the diffusion of on-line interactive tools).
I would like to thank the authors: an interesting and inspiring reading both on the academic/research front (methodology and research questions on the use of OPT tools for participation) and on the operational and planning front ("factual" inputs to improve the planning and urban design tools and processes using the OPT tools).
Author Response
Thank you for positive feedback! As far as we understand no revisions were asked for
Reviewer 3 Report
Clear writikng. Interesting tool to address real issues. Good methodology. Useful anecdotes. Useful recommendations; it would be useful to link recommendations to lit review sources.
Proofread for typos, grammar, etc.
Author Response
|
Clear writing. Interesting tool to address real issues. Good methodology. Useful anecdotes. Useful recommendations; it would be useful to link recommendations to lit review sources. |
We have linked our recommendations in the conclusions to previous literature. |
|
Proofread for typos, grammar, etc. |
The paper has been proofread and grammar errors and typos have been fixed |
Reviewer 4 Report
Thank you for the invitation to review the paper.
The paper is well written using best academic standards.
The paper has all elements those the good paper should have.
The topic and contents are related to the Sustainability journal.
The contents is quite modern.
I suggest only extend the description what is the science development thatnks to the study results.
Congratulations to the Authors
Author Response
|
I suggest only extend the description what is the science development thanks to the study results |
We have tried to be more explicit in the conclusions on foremost what further research are needed to make better use of OPTs in municipal planning |
