BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
PRODID:-//pretalx//talks.staging.osgeo.org//foss4g-europe-2024//talk//TNCNQ
 Y
BEGIN:VTIMEZONE
TZID:EET
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:20000101T000000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYMONTH=1;UNTIL=20001231T220000Z
TZNAME:EET
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:STANDARD
DTSTART:20021027T050000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=-1SU;BYMONTH=10
TZNAME:EET
TZOFFSETFROM:+0300
TZOFFSETTO:+0200
END:STANDARD
BEGIN:DAYLIGHT
DTSTART:20020331T040000
RRULE:FREQ=YEARLY;BYDAY=-1SU;BYMONTH=3
TZNAME:EEST
TZOFFSETFROM:+0200
TZOFFSETTO:+0300
END:DAYLIGHT
END:VTIMEZONE
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:pretalx-foss4g-europe-2024-TNCNQY@talks.staging.osgeo.org
DTSTART;TZID=EET:20240704T121000
DTEND;TZID=EET:20240704T121500
DESCRIPTION:The popularity of participative mapping continuously grows and 
 is becoming an essential tool to involve citizens in urban planning\, arch
 itectural solutions and transport design. Citizens can quickly and easily 
 review proposals and variants\, explore models and visualizations\, expres
 s their opinions\, pin comments\, and vote on their favourites (Ribeiro an
 d Ribeiro 2016). Emotional maps and similar mapping tools are frequently u
 sed in Czechia\, especially for mapping citizens’ attitudes towards both
  physical and social features of the urban environment. Quantitative asses
 sment of mapping results can help urban planners better understand citizen
 s’ perception and improve the targeting of planned measures (Camara\, Ca
 mboim\, and Bravo 2021). Discussion sometimes arises about the validity of
  such mapping\, complementarity or substitution of traditional questionnai
 re surveys. The objective of the paper is to discuss benefits and weakness
 es of such tools and to compare them with questionnaire surveys.\nThe case
  study is focused on two middle-sized Czech cities\, Ostrava (OV) and Hrad
 ec Kralove (HK)\, and selected rural municipalities in their surroundings.
  Participants are all seniors (age 65+) due to the project aim of understa
 nding seniors’ spatial mobility\, accessibility and perception. \nThe qu
 estionnaire survey was conducted in 2022 by the Research Agency STEM/MARK 
 (n=536\, PAPI method 86%\, CAWI method 14%). Quota sampling used stratific
 ation by age\, gender\, territory\, and urbanization based on census data.
 \nAt the same time\, two web map applications were launched - the emotiona
 l and mobility maps. We used the platform EmotionalMaps.eu which utilizes 
 a Leaflet library (Pánek et al. 2021).\nIn the map application\, responde
 nts indicate their age group and health limitations\, and mark one or more
  locations: attractive locations\, repulsive locations\, barriers to movem
 ent\, attractive paths\, repulsive paths\, and approximate residence locat
 ion. Each marked target can be further specified by 16 reasons with a mult
 iple-choice option\, visiting frequency\, schedule\, and weather and socia
 l constraints (Horak et al. 2022).\nIn the mobility map\, respondents spec
 ify one or more of their favourite locations in the following categories: 
 home\, workplace\, retail\, pharmacy\, post office\, doctor\, supermarket\
 , ATM\, worship\, services\, park\, restaurant\, visiting family or friend
 s\, garden or cottage\, or other place. After marking each point\, they ma
 y specify frequency of attendance and transport mode.\nThe main advantages
  for emotional and mobility web mapping are cost effectiveness\, flexibili
 ty of use\, usually large sample size\, attractiveness of design\, ease of
  use for people with computer or mobile skill\, ability for accurate posit
 ioning of the targets\, customized map design (zoom\, pan\, etc.)\, larger
  extent\, ability to describe more specific conditions\, use of illustrati
 ve pictures or icons\, interactive help\, consistency monitoring\, integri
 ty constraints\, and selection from specified options. Disadvantages inclu
 de no validation of the respondent profile\, bias of respondents towards m
 ore technically skilled and wealthier people\, privacy concerns\, and dupl
 icate responses (Wikstrøm 2023).\nThe biggest problems were encountered w
 hen drawing lines to specify attractive and repulsive paths. We obtained o
 nly 32 records from OV and 29 records from HK and evident errors represent
  19% and 40%\, respectively. \nQuota sampling was not applied on the web m
 apping data\, only a basic selection of the relevant age group and residen
 ce in HK or OV. The differences of the respondents’ profiles between the
  three methods of survey show clear bias towards younger and more healthy 
 seniors in the case of web mapping and CAWI. \nAny surveys’ raw data con
 tains some inaccuracies\, errors\, or odd responses from people misunderst
 anding questions\, misusing tools\, trial responses\, intention to damage 
 data or outputs\, or having concerns (e.g.\, losing privacy). Deviations f
 rom planned quota shares in the quota-based survey may result in the remov
 al of some respondents and/or the need to conduct an additional survey (in
  our case\, 40-46% in two villages). The data's temporal consistency is de
 teriorated by such changes. \nThe primary aim of the survey was to discove
 r seniors’ mobility targets. We asked for their dwelling location and up
  to four of their most important targets\, listed in descending order by t
 heir perceived importance\, written as a free text. To specify the locatio
 ns of residence and targets we asked for addresses or another useful speci
 fication. Respondents identified 23 kinds of important targets in HK and 2
 4 in OV with the following main priorities: shopping (37 and 24%\, resp.)\
 , doctor (19 and 22%)\, family (10 and 13%)\, walking (8 and 6%)\, and fri
 ends (5 and 4%). An additional problem is that 5% of free-text destination
 s had multiple targets.\nThe web mobility mapping requested specification 
 of favourite locations for one or more targets in the 13 categories\, the 
 residence and the “other” target (specified by free text). Respondents
  identified 16 kinds of important targets in HK and 12 in OV with the foll
 owing priorities: retail (15 and 12%\, respectively)\, supermarket (12 bot
 h)\, pharmacy (12 and 10%)\, post office (11 and 10%). Such a flat distrib
 ution is caused by the respondents’ tendency to mark only one target per
  category.\nThe accuracy of location is variable. While the web mapping ap
 plication instantly provides coordinates for each location\, the targets f
 rom questionnaires require geocoding. In our case\, geocoding was successf
 ul only for 65% of records. Among these\, 18% were geocoded by utilizing t
 he complete address\, 53% were geocoded by finding the nearest matching de
 stination\, 24% were geocoded manually with interpretation\, and 5% were g
 eocoded but only to the center of the street\nFurther\, the spatial distri
 butions of targets were compared. The clustering of both indicated targets
  and all targets available in OpenStreetMap is confirmed by the M-function
  in both variants (questionnaire and web mapping). The analysis of distanc
 es from a residence to an indicated real target shows more clustering for 
 questionnaire targets around a residence than for those from web mobility 
 mapping. However\, the selection of closer destinations in the questionnai
 re is influenced by the age bias of respondents and by the limited number 
 of requested targets (up to four).\nThe study contributes to the discussio
 n on the validity of participative mapping and sheds a light on the import
 ance of carefully preparing such surveys and pre-processing data comprehen
 sively.
DTSTAMP:20260417T025427Z
LOCATION:Omicum
SUMMARY:Benefits and pitfalls of emotional and mobility web mapping - Nikol
 a Koktavá
URL:https://talks.staging.osgeo.org/foss4g-europe-2024/talk/TNCNQY/
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR