Compară metode
Examinează metodele selectate una lângă alta; rândurile care diferă sunt evidențiate.
| Public Participation GIS (PPGIS)× | Visual Preference Survey× | |
|---|---|---|
| Domeniu | Urban Studies | Urban Studies |
| Familie | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Anul apariției≠ | 2006 | 1994 |
| Autorul original≠ | Renee Sieber (synthesizing 1990s NCGIA work) | Anton C. Nelessen |
| Tip≠ | Participatory integration of local spatial knowledge into GIS | Survey eliciting community design preferences by rating images |
| Sursa seminală≠ | Sieber, R. (2006). Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(3), 491–507. DOI ↗ | Nelessen, A. C. (1994). Visions for a New American Dream: Process, Principles, and an Ordinance to Plan and Design Small Communities. American Planning Association. ISBN: 9780918286888 |
| Denumiri alternative | PPGIS, Participatory GIS, PGIS, Volunteered Geographic Mapping | VPS, Visual Preference Analysis, Image Preference Survey, Nelessen Visual Preference Survey |
| Înrudite | 4 | 4 |
| Rezumat≠ | Public participation GIS (PPGIS) is a family of practices that bring the spatial knowledge, values, and priorities of ordinary people into geographic information systems, so that community perspectives sit alongside expert and official data in planning and decision-making. Synthesized as a field by Renee Sieber in 2006, it ranges from facilitated workshops where residents mark up paper maps to web mapping platforms where thousands of people drop points marking places they value or fear. Its aim is both technical and political: to enrich spatial analysis with local knowledge and to widen who gets to shape decisions about place. | A visual preference survey (VPS) elicits a community's design preferences by asking residents to rate a curated set of photographs — of streets, buildings, public spaces, and landscapes — on a simple numeric scale. Developed and popularized by planner Anton Nelessen, it turns the often vague question of what a community wants its environment to look like into comparable scores, revealing which images people reward, which they reject, and where they agree or disagree. The averaged ratings give planners a defensible visual brief grounded in resident preference rather than professional taste. |
| ScholarGateSet de date ↗ |
|
|