How to support citizen science (geoparticipation) by modern digital methods and frameworks

Description

Geoparticipation in the context of citizen science represents a specific group of participatory methods that enable the public to actively contribute to the collection of spatially explicit data through digital map‑based interfaces. In both Czech and international practice, this approach is most commonly implemented through so‑called emotional (participatory) mapping, in which respondents record their experiences, opinions, or subjective perceptions of specific places directly into a map using points, lines, or polygons. These spatial inputs are typically supplemented with textual descriptions, photographs, comments, or predefined thematic categories.

The collected data are subsequently processed using standard Geographic Information Systems (GIS) workflows, including data cleaning, aggregation, spatial analysis, and visualization. A wide range of visualization techniques can be applied to emotional mapping data; however, digital cartographic methods such as heat maps, aggregated visualizations using hexagonal grids of varying resolutions, cartograms, cartodiagrams, or clustering techniques are most commonly used to facilitate interpretation of results by end users.

Unlike conventional questionnaire surveys, geoparticipation captures not only respondents’ opinions but also their precise spatial location associated with each response. This makes the method particularly suitable for topics where spatial context is essential, such as transportation, safety, quality of public spaces, environmental issues, or spatial and urban development. In practice, geoparticipation is often implemented as an extension of a traditional questionnaire enriched with spatial questions.

The method is not intended to produce statistically representative samples but rather to serve as a targeted participatory survey whose main value lies in identifying specific locations and issues that are typically absent from administrative datasets or difficult to detect through conventional means. The collected responses provide valuable supporting evidence for municipal and regional authorities when making strategic decisions informed by public opinion.

The key features in a nutshell

The fundamental characteristic of geoparticipation is the active involvement of citizens in the collection of spatial data through a simple map‑based application. The method supports mapping of points, lines, and polygons, with each spatial entry accompanied by a textual comment and, where applicable, a predefined thematic category specified by the research designer.

Geoparticipation can be used as a standalone research tool or as an extension of a traditional questionnaire by adding a spatial dimension. It is applicable across diverse respondent groups and, due to its intuitive design, is suitable for both technically skilled users and lay participants without advanced IT knowledge. Data collection can take place entirely online via a publicly accessible map application or directly in the field using tablets or mobile phones under the guidance of trained facilitators.

Typical topics include perceived safety and fear, positively and negatively perceived places, proposals for urban development (parks, playgrounds, greenery, benches), problematic traffic situations, noise, pollution, or parking issues. The method enables the collection of data that are otherwise largely unavailable and creates an important bridge between expert planning practices and the everyday experiences of residents.

How does the format work?

Implementing a geoparticipatory mapping project requires careful preparation of the methodology, technical solution, and survey questions. Equally important is the selection of the mapping location and the target group of respondents. A key methodological decision concerns the choice of geometry type—whether respondents will map only points or also lines and polygons. While point mapping is user‑friendly and efficient, lines and polygons allow for more precise representation of phenomena but place higher demands on user orientation and subsequent data processing.

The selection of an appropriate base map is equally critical. In some cases, orthophotos are preferable, while in others topographic maps or detailed urban plans are more suitable. An inadequately chosen base map can significantly reduce the quality of the mapped data. Each mapped feature should include a mandatory description and ideally a thematic category to facilitate later analysis, as spatial clicks without contextual information have limited interpretative value.

It is recommended to use widely familiar map backgrounds to ensure respondents feel comfortable using an interface similar to everyday map applications.

Geoparticipation is best combined with a short non‑spatial questionnaire integrated into the same tool. This usually includes questions on overall satisfaction with the topic and basic sociodemographic information (e.g., age, gender). In some cases, information about the respondent’s place of residence is also collected, typically in a partially anonymized form (such as city district or street), to distinguish between local residents and visitors to the area.

From a technical perspective, only a limited number of tools currently support geoparticipation. Basic scenarios can be implemented using tools such as Survey123; however, more complex logic usually requires the development of a custom solution. While specialized PPGIS platforms are used internationally, none offer a universally applicable solution. In exceptional cases, digital data collection may be supplemented by paper‑based methods (e.g., for seniors or young children), although subsequent data integration is both methodologically and technically demanding.

In the Czech Republic, a specialized company (https://www.pocitovemapy.cz/) develops and implements customized web environments tailored to specific formats, locations, and thematic requirements.

Role of Participants

The academic sector typically ensures methodological design, selection of technical solutions, configuration of the mapping application, and subsequent data processing and evaluation using GIS. Its role also includes interpretation of results and preparation of outputs understandable to both public authorities and the general public.

Municipalities or regions define the thematic focus, specify practical decision‑making questions, and ensure communication with citizens, particularly through promotion of data collection via websites and social media. Citizens contribute local knowledge and experiences that are not available in official datasets. In some cases, targeting specific population groups—such as primary school children when mapping safe routes to school—can be particularly beneficial.

In general, the greater the number and diversity of responses collected within a given area, the more robust and valid the results can be considered.

Benefits for participations

The principal benefit of geoparticipation lies in its ability to generate unique spatial data that are otherwise largely unavailable. The collected data represent respondents’ opinions linked to precise spatial locations. A higher concentration of responses in a given location increases the credibility of the findings.

The method enables precise localization of problems and their qualitative description directly from the perspective of residents. For public authorities, geoparticipation represents a fast and flexible tool for identifying priorities and local issues. For academia, it offers significant opportunities for applied research and collaboration with public administration. Students benefit from working with real‑world data and participating in projects with direct practical impact.

Challenges (and ways to address them)

A fundamental limitation of geoparticipation is the non‑representative nature of the respondent sample and the risk of collecting a low number of responses. Results must therefore be interpreted as exploratory rather than statistically representative. This limitation can be partially mitigated through targeted promotion and involvement of local institutions.

Additional challenges include the technical and methodological complexity of project preparation, particularly when developing custom solutions, as well as issues related to data privacy and anonymization when combining spatial and personal information.

Tasks and Resources

Geoparticipatory projects are both time‑ and expertise‑intensive. Preparation typically takes approximately one month, data collection another month, and evaluation at least one month. The overall project duration therefore usually spans around three months.

In terms of funding, geoparticipation is most commonly implemented through contractual research or close collaboration with municipalities. Universities are generally unable to provide such services free of charge, as they require experienced teams and adequate technical infrastructure.

Example

In recent years, Palacký University Olomouc has implemented a number of geoparticipatory projects, including mapping urban temperature phenomena in the city of Olomouc, monitoring mosquito occurrence in the Litovelské Pomoraví Protected Landscape Area, emotional maps of perceived fear, and the Safe Route to School project focusing on problematic traffic situations from the perspective of primary school children. Additional public outputs are available through specialized web portals dedicated to emotional mapping in the city of Olomouc.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de