A web-based collaborative-argumentation mapping experiment, which was used as part of a planning process in the city of Tampere, Finland, revealed a need for analytical tools to interpret the users' meaning making with this particular public participation GIS instrument. The main reason for this was the complexity of mediated interaction between different actors in and by means of the application: written comments, graphic symbols, and aerial photographs were combined to make meaning in particular context-specific situations. An analytical framework is discussed; it is shown to have the potential to grasp this type of signification process by studying the dynamics of different semiotic means and the production of discourse and settings in practice.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Al-KodmanyK, 2000, “Using web-based technologies and geographic information systems in community planning”Journal of Urban Technology71–30
2.
CarverSEvansAKingstonRTurtonI, 2001, “Public participation, GIS, and cyberdemocracy: evaluating on-line spatial decision support systems”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design28907–921
3.
DiloAde ByR ASteinA, 2007, “A system of types and operators for handling vague spatial objects”International Journal of Geographical Information Science21397–426
4.
ElwoodS, 2006, “Negotiating knowledge production: the everyday inclusions, exclusions, and contradictions of participatory GIS research”The Professional Geographers58197–208
5.
ElwoodS, 2009, “Geographic Information Science: new geovisualization technologies—emerging questions and linkages with GIScience research”Progress in Human Geography33256–263
6.
FischerF, 2003Reframing Public Policy: Discursive Politics and Deliberative Practices (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
7.
GhoseR, 2007, “Politics of scale and networks of association in public participation GIS”Environment and Planning A391961–1980
8.
GhoseRElwoodS, 2003, “Public Participation GIS and Local Political Context: Propositions and Research Directions”URISA Journal15(APA II) 17–24
9.
GoodwinCGoodwinM H, 1996, “Seeing as situated activity: formulating planes”, in Cognition and Communication at Work Eds EngeströmYMiddletonD (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge) pp 61–95
10.
HajerM, 2005a, “Rebuilding Ground Zero. The politics of performance”Planning Theory and Practice6445–464
11.
HajerM, 2005b, “Setting the stage: a dramaturgy of policy deliberation”Administration and Society36624–647
12.
HajerM, 2006, “The living institutions of the EU: analysing governance as performance”Perspectives on European Politics and Society741–55
13.
HajerM, 2009Authoritative Governance: Policy-making in the Age of Mediatization (Oxford University Press, Oxford)
14.
HajerMLawsD, 2006, “Ordering through discourse”, in Oxford Handbook of Public Policy Eds MoranMReinMGoodwinR E (Oxford University Press, Oxford) pp 252–268
15.
HaklayMTobónC, 2003, “Usability evaluation and PPGIS: toward a user-centred design approach”International Journal of Geographical Information Science17577–592
16.
HopferSMacEachrenA M, 2007, “Leveraging the potential of geospatial annotations for collaboration: a communication theory perspective”International Journal of Geographical Information Science21921–934
17.
HutchbyI, 2001Conversation and Technology. From the Telephone to the Internet (Polity Press, Cambridge)
18.
IedemaR, 2003, “Multimodality, resemiotization: extending the analysis of discourse as multisemiotic practice”Visual Communication229–57
19.
IedemaR, 2007, “On the multimodality, materially and contingency or organization discourse”Organization Studies28931–946
20.
JankowskiP, 2009, “Towards participatory geographic information systems for community-based environmental decision making”Journal of Environmental Management901966–1971
21.
KingstonR, 2002, “Web-based PPGIS in the United Kingdom”, in Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems Eds CraigW JHarrisT RWeinerD (Taylor and Francis, London) pp 101–112
22.
KingstonR, 2007, “Public participation in local policy decision-making: the role of web-based mapping”The Cartographic Journal44138–144
23.
KingstonRCarverSEvansATurtonI, 2000, “Web-based public participation geographical information systems: an aid to local environmental decision-making”Computers Environment and Urban Systems24109–125
24.
KressGvan LeeuwenT, 2001Multimodal Discourse: Multimodal Theory of Communication (Arnold, London)
25.
LemkeJ, 1998, “Multiplying meaning: visual and verbal semiotics in scientific text”, in Reading Science: Critical and Functional Perspectives on Discourses of Science Eds MartinJ RVeelR (Routledge, London) pp 87–113
26.
MonmonierM, 1996How to Lie with Maps2nd edition (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL)
27.
PengZ-R, 2001, “Internet GIS for public participation”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design28889–905
28.
RantanenHKahilaM, 2009, “The SoftGIS approach to local knowledge”Journal of Environmental Management901981–1990
29.
RinnerC, 2001, “Argumentation maps: GIS-based discussion support for on-line planning”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design28847–863
30.
RinnerC, 2006, “Argumentation mapping in collaborative spatial decision making”, in Collaborative Geographic Information Systems Eds BalramSDragicevicS (Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA) pp 85–102
31.
RinnerCBirdM, 2009, “Evaluating community engagement through argumentation maps—a public participation GIS case study”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design36588–601
32.
ScollonR, 2001, “Action and text: towards an integrated understanding of the place of text in social (inter)action, mediated discourse analysis and the problem of social action”, in Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis Ed. WodakR (Sage, London) pp 140–194
33.
ShifferM J, 1995, “Interactive multimedia planning support: moving from stand-alone systems to the World Wide Web”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design22649–664
34.
SidlarC LRinnerC, 2007, “Analyzing the usability of an argumentation map as a participatory spatial decision support tool”URISA Journal1947–55
35.
SidlarC LRinnerC, 2009, “Utility assessment of a map-based online geo-collaboration tool”Journal of Environmental Management902020–2026
SieberR, 2006, “Public participation geographic information systems: a literature review and framework”Annals of the Association of American Geographers96491–507
38.
SimaõADenshamP JHaklayM, 2009, “Web-based GIS for collaborative planning and public participation: an application to the strategic planning of wind farm sites”Journal of Environmental Management902027–2040
39.
SuchmanL, 2006Human — Machine Reconfigurations: Plans and Situated Actions2nd edition (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge)
40.
TuanY-F, 2003 [1977] Space and Place (University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, MN)
41.
van LeeuwenT, 2004, “Ten reasons why linguists should pay attention to visual communication”, in Discourse and Technology. Multimodal Discourse Analysis Eds LeVinePScollonR (Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC) pp 7–19
42.
WagenaarH, 2007, “Governance, complexity, and democratic participation. How citizens and public officials harness the complexities of neighbourhood decline”The American Review of Public Administration3717–50
