Geo citizen science and the role of participatory design in the field of geomorphology

Посмотреть или загрузить статью (Eng)

Об авторах

Sabine Hennig

University of Salzburg, Department of Geoinformatics — Z_GIS,
Schillerstr., 30, 5020, Salzburg, Austria;

Lorena Abad

University of Salzburg, Department of Geoinformatics — Z_GIS,
Schillerstr., 30, 5020, Salzburg, Austria;

Daniel Hölbling

University of Salzburg, Department of Geoinformatics — Z_GIS,
Schillerstr., 30, 5020, Salzburg, Austria;


Citizen science, aiming at integrating citizens, their commitment and knowledge into scientific research, is a powerful way to create additional research outputs and scientific knowledge. This is particularly true when geospatial technology is used to enable citizens to contribute spatial data. While fields such as biology and ecology make abundant use of geo citizen science, only a limited number of projects approach topics related to geomorphology. Due to climate change and its impact on the Earth’s surface, research activities that use citizen science are considered very useful to support the work of geomorphologists. However, geomorphology is a complex topic to engage with citizens. Thus, to reach and involve citizens in geomorphological research, we need spatial data collection tools that are tailored to their needs and raise their interest in geomorphology. For this, participatory design is a valuable option since it allows us to get comprehensive information about citizens and their requirements and to integrate this information into the development process. Now, does participatory design reveal requirements otherwise unknown to the developers? What additional efforts must be made when cooperating with citizens in participatory design? The citizenMorph project, which addresses these questions, found that detailed and valuable insights can be gained (regarding, e.g., information delivery, design issues, and community building), but also that additional efforts are required in terms of the composition of the project team, the interaction and communication during the development process, and the selection of methods, tools and material to be used.

Ключ. слова

collaborative GIS/web mapping, geomorphology, landscape dynamics, geo citizen science, participatory design.

Список литературы

  1. Agarwal B.B., Tayal S.P. Software engineering. Bangalore: Laxmi Publications, 2009. 302 p.
  2. Albrecht F., Hölbling D., Weinke E., Eisank C. User requirements for an Earth Observation (EO)-based landslide information web service. Landslides and engineered slopes. Experience, theory and practice: Proceedings of the 12th International Symposium on Landslides. Associazione Geotecnica Italiana, 2016. V. 2. P. 301–308. DOI: 10.1201/b21520-27.
  3. Baek E.-O., Cagiltayik K., Boling E., Frick T. User-centered design and development. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology. New York: Routledge Chapman & Hall, 2007. P. 659–670.
  4. Bevan N. UsabilityNet Methods for user centred design. Human-Computer Interaction: theory and practice. Proceedings of HCI International. June 22–27, 2003. Part 1. V. 1. Crete, Greece: Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003. P. 434–438.
  5. Bonney R., Ballard H., Jordan R., McCallie E., Phillips T., Shirk J. Public participation in scientific research: defining the field and assessing its potential for informal science education. A CAISE Inquiry Group Report. Washington, D.C.: Center for Advancement of Informal Science Education (CAISE), 2009. 58 p.
  6. Bullinger R. Rapid prototyping modell. 2009. Web resource: (accessed 20.01.2020) (in German).
  7. Dickinson J.L., Bonney R., Louv R., Fitzpatrick J.W. Citizen science: public participation in environmental research. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press, 2012. 304 p.
  8. Fan X., Scaringi G., Korup O., West A.J., Westen C.J., Tanyas H., Hovius N., Hales T.C., Jibson R.W., Allstadt K.E., Zhang L., Evans S.G., Xu C., Li G., Pei X., Xu Q., Huang R. Earthquake-induced chains of geologic hazards: patterns, mechanisms, and impacts. Reviews of Geophysics, 2019. No 57. P. 421–503. DOI:
  9. Fidgeon T. User-Centered Design (UCD) — 6 Methods. 2005. Web resource: (accessed 20.01.2020).
  10. Follett R., Strezov V. An analysis of citizen science-based research: usage and publication patterns. PLoS ONE, 2015. No 10. P. 1–14. DOI:
  11. Galli M., Ardizzone F., Cardinali M., Guzzetti F., Reichenbach P. Comparing landslide inventory maps. Geomorphology, 2008. No 94. P. 268–289. DOI:
  12. Haklay M., Mazumdar S., Wardlaw J. Citizen science for observing and understanding the Earth. Earth Observation Open Science and Innovation. Cham: Springer, 2018. P. 69–88.
  13. Hallewell Haslwanter J.D., Neureiter K., Garschall M. User-centered design in AAL. Univ Access Inf Soc., 2018. P. 57–67. DOI:
  14. Hennig S. Motivation and its consideration in participatory spatial data contribution. The Professional Geographer, 2019. P. 1–15. DOI:
  15. Hennig S., Hölbling D., Ferber N., Tiede D. Framework and components for citizen science project — the citizenMorph Project. AGIT Journal, 2019. No 5. P. 2–13 (in German).
  16. Hennig S., Vogler R. User-centred map applications through participatory design: experiences gained during the ‘YouthMap 5020’ project. The Cartographic Journal, 2016. No 53. P. 213–229.
  17. Johnson B.A., Mader A.D., Dasgupta R., Kumar P. Citizen science and invasive alien species: an analysis of citizen science initiatives using information and communications technology (ICT) to collect invasive alien species observations. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2020. No 21. P. 1–14. DOI:
  18. Juang C.S., Stanley T.A., Kirschbaum D.B. Using citizen science to expand the global map of landslides: introducing the Cooperative Open Online Landslide Repository (COOLR). PLoS ONE, 2019. No 14. P. 1–28. DOI:
  19. Kautz K. Participatory design activities and agile software development. Human benefit through the diffusion information systems design science research. Berlin: Springer, 2010. P. 303–316.
  20. Kumar S. What is Prototype model — advantages, disadvantages and when to use it? 2003. Web resource: (accessed 28.01.2020).
  21. Liu S.B., Poore B.S., Snell R.J., Goodman A., Plant N.G., Stockdon H.F., Morgan K.L.M., Krohn M.D. USGS iCoast — did the coast change? Proceedings of the Companion Publication of the 17th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing — CSCW Companion’14. February 2014. Baltimore, MD. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2014. P. 17–20. DOI:
  22. Matear L., Robbins J.R., Hale M., Potts J. Cetacean biodiversity in the Bay of Biscay: suggestions for environmental protection derived from citizen science data. Marine Policy, 2019. No 109. P. 1–11. DOI:
  23. McCully W., Lampe C., Sarkar C., Velasquez A., Sreevinasan A. Online and offline interactions in online communities. WikiSym’11: Proceedings of the 7th International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration. October 3–5, 2011. Mountain View (California), New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2011. P. 39–48.
  24. Muller M.J., Druin A. Participatory design. The third space in HCI. The Human-Computer Interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications. Mahwah (New Jersey): Lawrence Erlbaum, 2012. P. 1051–1068.
  25. Muray T. Tracking ecosystem change through citizen science. 2018. Web resource: (accessed 25.12.2019).
  26. Muttarak R., Lutz W. Is education a key to reducing vulnerability to natural disasters and hence unavoidable climate change? Ecology and Society, 2014. V. 19. No 1. Art. 42. DOI:
  27. Naylor L.A., Spencer T., Lane S.N., Darby S.E., Magilligan F.J., Macklin M.G., Möller I. Stormy geomorphology: geomorphic contributions in an age of climate extremes. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 2017. No 42. P. 166–190. DOI:
  28. Nov O., Arazy O., Anderson D. Scientists@Home: What drives the quantity and quality of online citizen science participation? PLOS ONE, 2014. V. 9. No 4. P. 1–11. DOI:
  29. Pànek J. From mental maps to GeoParticipation. The Cartographic Journal, 2016. No 53. P. 300–307. DOI:
  30. Sanders E.B.-N. From user-centered to participatory design approaches. Design and the social sciences. London: Taylor & Francis, 2002. P. 18–25. DOI: 10.1201/9780203301302.ch1.
  31. Sanders E.B.-N., Brandt E. A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design. 11th Biennial Participatory Design Conference. November 2010. Sydney, Australia. New York: Association for Computing Machinery, 2010. P. 195–198. DOI: https://
  32. Seeger C., Lillihoj C., Wilson S., Jensen A. Facilitated-VGI, smartphones and geodesign: building a coalition while mapping community infrastructure. Digital Landscape Architectur. Berlin: Herbert Wichmann Verlag, VDE Verlag, 2014. P. 300–308.
  33. Simm D. Boring, boring … geomorphology? The need for higher education to engage with schools and further education. Geophemera, 2008. V. 102. P. 6–10.
  34. Spencer T., Naylor L., Lane S., Darby S., Macklin M., Magilligan F., Möller I. Stormy geomorphology: an introduction to the special issue. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 2017. V. 42. No 1. P. 238–241. DOI:
  35. Steen M., Kuijt-Evers L., Klok J. Early user involvement in research and design projects — a review of methods and practices. 23rd EGOS Colloquium, EGOS (European Group for Organizational Studies). July 5–7, 2007. Vienna, Austria, 2007. P. 1–21.
  36. Thielmann T., van der Velden L., Fischer F., Vogler R. Dwelling in the Web: towards a Googlization of space. HIIG Discussion Paper Series. No 2012–03. Berlin: Institut für Internet und Gesellschaft, 2012. 91 p. Web resource: (accessed 28.01.2020).
  37. Tsou M.H. Chapter 14: An intelligent software agent architecture for distributed cartographic knowledge bases and internet mapping services. Maps and the Internet. Amsterdam: Elsevier Press, 2003. P. 301–321.

For citation: Hennig S., Abad L., Hölbling D. Geo citizen science and the role of participatory design in the field of geomorphology InterCarto. InterGIS. GI support of sustainable development of territories: Proceedings of the International conference. Moscow: Moscow University Press, 2020. V. 26. Part 1. P. 116–126. DOI: 10.35595/2414-9179-2020-1-26-116-126