open source based online map sharing to support real-time

OSGeo Journal Volume 10 Open source based online map sharing to support real-time collaboration

Open source based online map sharing tosupport real-time collaborationMuhammad A Butt, Songnian Li

AbstractCollaboration is an important part of many tasks in-volving people from different organizations, in whichmaps often play a central role in informing and improv-ing debates and facilitating decision making. Allowinggroups to share and view maps and spatial imagesinteractively over the Web in real-time not only pro-vides an effective solution to decision makers, but alsofacilitates scientific and public debates with real-timegeospatial information. A few tools have been devel-oped using proprietary software approaches, e.g., PCIGeoconference. More recently, some efforts have beenmade using open map services to develop simple mapsharing applications. However, little has been doneon designing and developing such online tools basedon open source. Further, a literature search indicatesthe lack of scientific publications on empirical studiesof their practical applications. This paper describes astudy on using Open Source Geographical InformationSystem (OSGIS) and mapping solutions to design anddevelop real-time map sharing applications, which relyon the data served through open map/data serviceswith the option of integrating local data. The studyfocuses on not only real-time map (or geospatial in-formation) sharing, but also the integration of otheropen source based groupware solutions. Existing opensource solutions are evaluated for the design and devel-opment of various prototype collaborative map sharingtools. The prototype is applied in an online virtual pub-lic meeting space for initial usability studies. The paperalso discusses the issues related to the design, data re-quired to support better map sharing, and adoption ofrelated standards.

IntroductionMulti-user collaboration is increasingly integrated inmany tasks involving people from different organiza-tions, in which maps often play a central role for pro-viding visual information to support collaborative de-cision making. The rapidly expanding range of Webtechnology has made it possible to collaboratively makedecisions over the Web. Demands for web-based openmapping Application Programming Interface (API), in-tegrated with other information and Computer Sup-ported Cooperative Work (CSCW) tools, have rapidlybecome more important for supporting real-time mapsharing solutions. Therefore, the establishment of real-

time collaborative map-based applications is one pos-itive step taken by the researchers that are progres-sively working in many fields, for example, urban plan-ning projects, emergency system, GIS data production,etc., that incorporate collaborative involvement (Chang2010; Al-Kodmany 2002; Huang 2001; Roseman 1992;Brail et al. 2001; Klosterman 2001).

A synchronous approach is developed to supportcollaboration among users (Chang 2010); however, littlehas been done on designing and developing such OpenSource Software (OSS) - based online map sharing toolsto support real-time collaboration. By examining theresearchers’ contributions from the literature review,this study seeks to outline the significance of ensuringthe implementation of valuable and adequate methods,techniques and tools to fill the research gap. Multi-user synchronous communications and/or discussionsamong the participants and between the participantsand decision makers often improves the understandingthat leads to effective feedback and enhanced decision-making (Evans et al. 1999; Ventura et al. 2002; Tang2006; Bryant et al. 2006; MacEachren et al. 2001; Li etal. 2007; Jankowski and Nyerges 2001; Jankowski andNyerges 2003). This study expects to develop an openmapping API-based real-time collaborative infrastruc-ture with the option of integrating local data for en-hancing involvement during debate. The study focuseson not only real-time map (or geospatial information)sharing, but also integration of other open source basedgroupware solutions. The objective is to make sure thatthe model with synchronous collaborative support ofinformation and map sharing mechanisms will helpto improve/increase participants’ involvement and/oraid decision makers in reaching a final decision effi-ciently (Chung et al. 1994; Begole et al. 1999).

The study also models and presents the prototypedevelopment of an integrated online synchronous col-laborative system by putting together the practical in-tegration of various OSGIS, Web GIS, OSS-based toolsand open mapping APIs. Some of this research pro-totype’s components are still in development and inearly stage of testing. The core purpose of developingsuch a model is to allow interested groups to share andview maps and spatial images interactively over theWeb in real-time: for instance, providing adequate ac-cess to real-time collaboration tools (i.e., real-time mapsharing for exploring spatial context) to provide infor-mation and data as maps and visualizations, which theusers can explore in order to make better choices (Liet al. 2007; Li et al. 2006; Li et al. 2004; Laurini 2004;Dragicevic 2004; Laurini 1998; Obermeyer 1998; Rin-

Page 4 of 67


ner 1999; Edelenbos 1999). This study explains certainfacts or observations (i.e., core concepts, design andtesting, etc.) with an overview of enabling technologiesfor analyzing and designing a successful mechanism.Moreover, it describes a prototype development basedon a research project that looks into integrating CSCWprinciples and open source groupware tools with web-based GIS.

The enhanced OSS-based prototype integrates so-cial collaboration tools, Web-mapping functionalities,and Human Computer Interaction (HCI) principles. Inbrief, the prototype system is the integration of varioustypes of open source based modules and open map ser-vices i.e., Google, Yahoo, etc. to provide synchronous-based Collaborative Real-time Map sharing Infrastruc-ture (CRMI) to support and/or enhance input duringplanning and decision making related workflows.

In addition, as a part of the study, there is a planof testing the prototype’s usability by providing acase study and/or pilot project involving participantsconcerned with planning issues at the York Regionalmunicipality in Canada. The municipality data areprovided and acquired by the municipality Website(http://www.york.ca) to create a mock case study forin-house usability testing (see Section 4.1 for more in-formation about the study area and selected sites). Inauthors’ opinion, Web-based synchronous GIS applica-tions need consistent usability evaluation during devel-opment and after development regarding end-user’srequirements. Therefore, if authors get any chance ofan approval and/or agreement from municipal bodies(of York) for conducting the test in a real scenario atlater stages (of this study), then the prototype usabilitytesting will be conducted again to get more precise re-sults. The main purpose of this usability evaluation isto find out the results which will depict/conclude thatthe synchronous collaborative map sharing framework,when integrated and developed with Internet-basedGIS and OSS technologies, can provide cost effective so-lutions and significant support in enhancing real-timeparticipation as well as improving decision making pro-cess.

It is hypothesized that with the lower cost and moreeffective real-time collaborative communication chan-nels, partially due to the adoption of open source solu-tions, the prototype would help increase the degree towhich the citizen, local bodies, environmental assess-ment, government agencies and decision authoritieswork at the same time.

Background-Related WorkThe CSCW application or groupware technologies al-low people in remote places to interact with each otherby sharing the documents and files through voice, dataand video links (Scientific 1990; Antunes et. al 2009;Abdalla et al. 2010). Baecker (1993) defined group-

ware as information technology used to help peoplework together more effectively. The decision makingprocess is based on group and collaborative activities,however, the procedures that used in GIS have been de-veloped for use by individuals. Armstrong (1994) statesGIS applications are not well designed for collabora-tive activities (e.g., decision making). A few GIS-basedtools having groupware and CSCW functionalities havebeen developed using proprietary software approaches,e.g., PCI geo-conference (see Section 3.3 for detailedcomparison between authors’ prototype and PCI Geo-conference – a commercial tool). More recently, someefforts have been made using open map services todevelop simple map sharing applications.

Rinner (1999), Rinner (2006) and Li et al. (2007) re-alize the need to support collaborative discussions byintroducing asynchronous-based geo-referenced map-ping frameworks in which the discussion thread of eachindividual is linked with one or many elements on themap. These techniques offer a limited way of exploringspatial data or map information collaboratively, whilecurrent study is focusing more on providing ways inwhich participants solve spatial problems together us-ing synchronous communication.

Several prototypes that facilitate anywhere (real-time) collaboration are designed and developed as a re-sult of recent advancements in Geographic InformationTechnology (GIT) that support large spatial databases,groupware technologies and Web-based GIS (Churcher1999; Jones et al. 1997; Dragicevic et al. 2004; Bou-los et al. 2010). For instance, Spatial Group Choice, aspatial decision support prototype was developed byJankowski et al. (1997) to support the CSCW technique.Similarly, GroupARC was proposed and developed byChurcher (1996) which provides a tool to geographi-cally scattered people to collaboratively view and an-notate map/spatial data. The prototype Real-time En-vironment Information Network and Analysis System(REINAS) was designed and developed by Pang (1995)which includes functionalities that are useful in theanalysis of geospatial data. Virtual Emergency Oper-ations Center prototype was developed which aimsto provide a collaborative virtual environment thatenables interactivity among participants while execut-ing synchronous, script-driven tests and simulations(Fiedrich et al. 2007). Chang (2010) developed Syn-chronous collaborative 3D GIS to support synchronouscollaboration efforts among geographically-distributedpeople for enhancing collaborative decision-making.

Research related to the design and implementationof real-time collaborative mapping technologies is stillat an early stage of development. There is not muchliterature in this field. As a result, there have beenonly a few and/or inadequate empirical studies ad-dressing the synchronous collaboration, real-time mapsharing mechanism and procedure of group spatial de-cision making designed to facilitate collaborative work

Page 5 of 67


(MacEachren 2000; Boroushaki et al. 2010). The rapidchanges in technology, especially, in the field of GIS,OSGIS, GIT, CSCW, groupware, Internet computingtechnology, virtual reality, geographic visualization,geo-collaborative technology and others will have asignificant influence on the shift and/or merge of thosetechnologies into collaborative synchronous GIS.

Design and Development of OS-based Collaborative Map sharingToolThe CRMI aims for a combined action or synergy ofmultiple components that are responsible for a varietyof unit functions using two tiers of communication pro-tocols. The presentation tier is called the CRMI protocolsuite which runs over HTTP/S and is designed for real-time communication between users (e.g., decision mak-ers) with the help of Web console. The application tierwhich constitutes CRMI internal architecture is basedon OSS-based components, modules and services.

CRMI ArchitectureThe CRMI architecture is mainly built by using opensource modules and services. Figure 1 depicts theCRMI architecture.

Figure 1: Architecture of collaborative real-time mappinginfrastructure

The CRMI backend architecture is internally com-prised of three major components that are linked witheach other for two-way communications by usingAdobe flex framework and JAVA scripting modules.These backend components along with the HTTP servercomponent collectively form the Collaborative Real-time Map Sharing Infrastructure, which are briefly dis-cussed below.

Real-time Collaboration Services: provide the infras-tructure which enables developers to add real-time col-laboration capabilities (real-time push messaging) totheir applications. Collaboration service is JavaScript

Object Notation over HTTP/S based system that lever-ages Web 2.0 messaging and interaction paradigm(Lemos 2006). It is usually commoditized by usingRed5 open source media server that uses real-time mul-timedia protocol to support audio/video streaming(Wang et al. 2010).

Blaze Data Service (BlazeDS): provides real-time Webmessaging capabilities (a complete publish/subscribeinfrastructure allowing Flex clients and the server toexchange messages) for rich Internet applications usingActionScript message format over HTTP/S.

Web Mapping Modules: handle the user’s request onthe maps displayed on users’ screen by producing openmap APIs (Google, Yahoo, and Bing). The synchronousbehavior of maps is created to enable co-browsing (co-shared maps) among the participants’ Web console(user’s screen) by using Adobe Flex framework, mapAPI for flash and Action/Java script programming lan-guage. In addition, the open source Flex software de-velopment kit provides an integration link betweenreal-time collaboration services and map APIs modulesfor the development and deployment of CRMI.

HTTP Server: handles the user’s requests sent fromfront-end Web interface (i.e., Firefox or Internet Ex-plorer) to the Web server (Apache) and then responseback (i.e., an interface along with real-time map sharingfunctionalities) to the Web client using HTTP protocols.

OSS-based Collaborative Map Sharing Tool

A prototype as a proof of the concept was designed anddeveloped to support the collaboration in multi-userenvironment for informing and improving debates andfacilitating decision making. Two major componentsof the prototype which support real-time map sharingmechanism are briefly discussed as follows:

1) Collaborative Map Sharing Component

A collaborative map sharing component was imple-mented with some basic mapping functions to exploreplanning and development scenarios within geographi-cal contexts of the projects. A picture is worth a thou-sand words. For many planning and decision orienteddiscussions, having a map or map-based displays ofdifferent scenarios shared by participants greatly facili-tates their discussion on some issues. For that reason, acollaborative map sharing component was developedwhich allow participants and decision makers to col-laboratively explore geographic contexts of the projectswhile discussing issues. Figure 2 shows the main Webinterface of the collaborative map sharing component.

Page 6 of 67


Figure 2: Real-time collaboration using Google mapping API

The component integrates a number of features, in-cluding map sharing, chatting, video conferencing andwhite-boarding, into a single interface that can be in-voked and run in a new window. It is intended to beused by a group of participants who have a commontopic of discussion, which requires access to map dis-plays to make their points clearer. Any participant caninitiate a collaboration session and invite others to join.All participants who join the session are given the rightto use white-boarding tools for creating drawings aswell as annotating on a Google map. For example, afree hand drawing object (new student center buildingarea) on the map can be created by one participant andshared by all participants during the meeting session(see Figure 2).

This synchronous (real-time) collaboration functionis currently implemented using Google maps as thebase map, and authors are working on how to addproject-related GIS data into the display. Another fea-ture is to record the session history so it can be replayedat a later time, a feature very useful to later comers.

2) Collaborative Geo-conferencing Component

The virtual geo-conferencing with real-time map shar-ing is a supplement to the real meetings to give thosewho cannot physically attend the conference and/orseminars a chance to participate (Boulos et al. 2010;Haklay et al. 2008; Cammack 2007; Doyle et al. 1998).The idea is to stream real meetings online and pro-vide facilitating tools to enable online users to ques-tion and interact, and to allow presenters to integratetheir electronic presentations and maps (Google, Ya-hoo, etc.) into the virtual conferencing environment.Figure 3 shows a view of the virtual collaborative geo-conferencing interface.

Figure 3: Virtual collaborative geo-conferencing interfacewith real meeting streams

By incorporating the collaborative map sharing com-ponents, the interface allows the presenters to sharemap displays in the same way as PowerPoint slides areshared on screens in many other web conferencing/-groupware systems. The presenters can also use thebuilt-in whiteboard tools to select features, add anno-tations, and draw graphics to improve debates amongmulti-users. However, during the virtual conferencing,only the presenters can initiate the tools and controlhow the map data should be displayed to facilitatetheir presentations.

Comparison between PCI Geo-Conferenceand CRMI Geo-Conferencing Component

Table 1 presents a comparison chart constructed usingthe PCI Geomatics geo-conference application and thedeveloped RCMI geo-conferencing components’ fea-tures. Both systems were designed to provide an in-novative way to share maps, data and images withgeographically spread participants in real-time thatenhance the participatory approach in the planningand development related discussions. Intended useof these systems is to facilitate the GIS profession-als, the decision authorities, the non-professionals andthe public to increase participation and enhance de-cision making. Some of the features of the PCI geo-conference application are unknown, for instance, itssupport to open map APIs, i.e., Google, Yahoo, Bing,MapQuest for maps sharing as well as its support to

Page 7 of 67


Table 1: Comparison chart for PCI geo-conference and RCMI geo-conferencing component

documents such as PDF, Microsoft PowerPoint andWord for real-time file sharing. Another major dif-ference is that CRMI geo-conferencing component ispurely Web-based (needs Web browser to initiate thesession), whereas PCI geo-conference is built aroundtwo main components: 1) the geo-conference clientapplication, and 2) geo-conference server. The usersaccess and participate in Internet mapping conferencesessions via the geo-conference client which needs tobe installed and configured (on the user’s machine) inorder to connect or participate during the participatorysession.

Usability Study of the PrototypeComponents

Usability Evaluation of CRMI: A Plan of Im-plementing A Mock Case Study in RegionalMunicipality, Canada

Study Area: To validate or test the research prototype’susability, an existing urban expansion (future amend-ment) project in York Region, Canada, was selectedas a case study. York regional municipality is cov-ers 1,776 square kilometres from Lake Simcoe in thenorth to Steeles Avenue in the south. It borders Sim-coe county and the Region of Peel in the west and theDurham Region in the east. York Region has nine mu-nicipalities: Georgina, East Gwillumbury, Newmarket,Aurora, Whitchurch Stouffville, Markham, Vaughan,Richmond Hill and King. The region is very diversewith quaint rural villages, bustling suburban commu-

Page 8 of 67


nities and vibrant cosmopolitan urban areas. With apopulation over 1 million and with one of the nation’shighest growth rates, the region is a rapidly growingand changing area. As a result of growing populationin the region, issues related to urban planning havebecome increasingly important.

Selecting Sites in York Region: Based on the by-laws and like other municipalities and regions inCanada, York is required to hold meetings regard-ing forthcoming projects related tasks undertaken byYork Regional council. Notices are posted on the re-gion’s website, as well as advertised in local munic-ipality newspapers. The planning department of re-gional municipality of York has selected three potentialsites for amendments in the town of East Gwillimbury,Markham and city of Vaughn in York Region. Noticeof the first prehearing conference appeared in newspa-pers with general circulation in York Region on March24, 2011. The planning department welcomes any par-ticipation with suggestions or recommendations fromlocal residents and/or citizens regarding potential/pre-selected locations for future urban expansion or devel-opment.

Amendment 1 to the York Region Official Plan - Ur-ban Expansion in the Town of East Gwillimbury: Thisamendment proposes to expand the urban area of theTown of East Gwillimbury to provide opportunitiesfor urban growth to the year 2031. The lands subjectto this amendment (was adopted by regional councilon September 23, 2010) are shown in the key map (seeFigure 4).1

Figure 4: Urban Expansion in the Town of East Gwillimbury

Amendment 2 to the York Region Official Plan - UrbanExpansion in the City of Vaughan: This amendment pro-poses to expand the urban area of the City of Vaughanto provide opportunities for urban growth to the year2031. The lands subject to this amendment are shown

in the key map (see Figure 5).1 This amendment wasadopted by regional council on September 23, 2010 andwas subsequently appealed to the Ontario municipalboard.

Figure 5: Urban Expansion in the City of Vaughan

Amendment 3 to the York Region Official Plan - Ur-ban Expansion in the Town of Markham: This amend-ment proposes to expand the urban area of the Town ofMarkham to provide opportunities for urban growthto the year 2031. This amendment was adopted by re-gional council on September 23, 2010 and shown in theFigure 6.1

Figure 6: Urban Expansion in the Town of Markham

Evaluation of CRMI

The described context of the case study is used to evalu-ate and test a system prototype. The system is targetedfor different participants or attendees involved duringthe planning and development related workflows toenhance public involvement. The following explains

1Source: http://www.york.ca/Departments/Planning+and+Development

Page 9 of 67

http://www.york.ca/Departments/Planning+and+Development


further the procedures/steps taken during the usabil-ity evaluation of the research prototype componentsas there is a prospective plan of implementing a mockcase study (at above mentioned sites) using the urbanexpansion projects from the Region of York to validatethe proposed approach.

Development of Evaluation CriteriaThis section discusses the aspects, based on which theprototype is to be evaluated. These aspects mainlyconcentrates on: 1) intended users; 2) initial cost; 3)interactivity; 4) effective participation; 5) real-time com-munication; and 5) usefulness. The criteria for theevaluation of prototype implementation are somewhatsimilar to the ones adopted by different researchers,such as Chang (2010), Tang (2006), Zhao and Coleman(2006), Rinner (2006) and Ma (2006). Answering thequestions in connection with the evaluation criteria canalso indicate to what extent the (level of) successfulimplementation of the developed prototype is possible.

1) Intended Users: Does the prototype provide a vir-tual platform to facilitate the non-professionals andcitizens for participation during the planning relateddiscussions?

2) Initial Cost: The prototype was developed usingopen source software, open source components/-modules and open source GIS technologies, there-fore, the initial cost of the prototype developmentis almost absent. Does the prototype provide a costeffective solutions to smaller municipality regions?

3) Interactivity/HCI: Does the prototype provide user-friendly and interactive user-interfaces? Howquickly can participants communicate with the con-sultants/mediators and receive a response back fortheir queries?

4) Effective Participation: As compared with the exist-ing applications, Can the prototype fulfill participa-tion (public involvement) needs in a more efficientmanner? To what extent? Can the prototype fulfillparticipation needs for spatially related discussionduring planning? Is the multi-way of participationpossible among users as well as higher authorities?Do the proposed participation approaches automatethe planning workflows and/or improve decisionmaking significantly? To what extent?

5) Real-time Collaboration/Communication: Towhat extent are Web GIS-based Virtual Public Meet-ing Space collaboration components (i.e., collabora-tive map sharing and geo-conferencing) beneficialin facilitating the moderator to share his/her ideas,documents, mapping information, spatial data anddecisions related to development among other par-ticipants or meeting attendees on a real-time basis?

6) Usefulness/Connectivity: Does the system allowparticipants to easily access additional informationand documentation necessary to provide input to the

project under consultation? Could this platform beuseful for York Region’s future amendments? Whatcould be missed in prototype functional aspects interms of user-friendliness? What could be improvedin prototype functional aspects?

How to EvaluateThe evaluation is conducted in three parts: 1) apre-questionnaire with queries about the user’s back-ground, computers expertise and GIS knowledge; 2)using analytical method with the help of Google An-alytics tool; and 3) final questionnaire/CRMI pollingcomponent for collecting feedback concerning the us-ability of the system. The procedure is described indetail as follows:

1. The pre-questionnaire will contain some questionsabout the user’s experience of other Web GIS appli-cations, for instance, questions about their GIS expe-rience, finding store location/address, Web surfingexperience and public participatory planning expe-rience besides the questions about the user’s back-ground.

2. As mentioned above, the second part of the evalua-tion is the actual interaction with the system. In ad-dition, to evaluate the usability of the prototype andassess the degree of public involvement in the onlinevirtual public meeting session, meeting attendees’ in-teraction and each move on the prototype interfaceswill be recorded using Google Analytics. GoogleAnalytics is an easy to use, free, and very handy us-ability testing tool that provides a comprehensive setof website data tracking and analysis tools. Usabilityresearchers who want to understand user/partici-pant behaviors can use these tools to gather a greatamount of usage statistics and reports (Atterer et al.2007; Aditya 2010). By using the Google Analytics,it is possible to collect highly detailed and usefuldata about the actual usage of the prototype andits components. Data includes user sessions, visits,page views, button clicks, audio and video capturing,and the user’s screen (through a desktop-streamingtool) are automatically captured and/or recorded.These data elements are useful for evaluating theusability as well as measuring the degree of publicinput during the process of participatory planningand decision-making.

3. Finally, the users are asked to fill out a questionnaireat the end of the online participation virtual meetingsession. Questions related to ease of use or interac-tivity of using Prototype interfaces will be includedin this questionnaire.

Banati et al. (2006) states two approaches of pro-totype evaluation: (1) an inspection method usuallyperformed by system developer, and (2) a user testingwhen actual users are involved to walk through the

Page 10 of 67


system’s functionality. Therefore, the evaluation crite-ria ‘outcomes’ may not be measured precisely, until thesystem is deployed and evaluated with a real scenari-o/case related to any project (Bevan 1995; Lantz 1986;Carl et al. 2005) or by addressing the above questionsduring the system’s usability evaluation that followsany IT-based testing standards (i.e., ISO or IEEE, etc.).In brief, the study goal, developing a GIS-based syn-chronous map sharing mechanism to involve the userduring discussion, will only be achieved if the answersto the majority of the above questions (discussed inevaluation criteria) are favorable.

Evaluation results of this research are not presentedin this paper as prototype’s usability testing has notbeen fully accomplished up to this point. No doubt,the ongoing usability testing will more be focused onmeasuring the prototype’s capacity to meet its intendedpurpose.

Related DiscussionThis study introduces collaborative methods to encour-age a synchronous approach that support users’ in-volvement during planning and decision-making pro-cesses. Although some components of a prototypeare designed and developed as a proof of the concept,which support real-time map sharing mechanism alongwith functionalities of groupware tools. There are stillsome key design and implementation issues, whichneed to be further studied and resolved in the next-stepof the ongoing research, before its deployment into thereal-world scenario testing (i.e., system usability andperformance evaluation, etc.). Some of the implemen-tation issues faced during the study and preliminaryprototype development is discussed in the followingparagraphs.

The authors also expect some sociological issuesand forthcoming risks, which may occur after the sys-tem deployment, e.g., facing difficulties by the users(public, city staff, project proponent, etc.) for acceptingand responding to the Web GIS, multimedia and group-ware technologies in connection to traditional practice.These potential hindrances also led authors to use themodular/component-based design implementation (al-low and support the incremental implementation of thedeveloped methods), which may be helpful in acquaint-ing users with the shift of new technologies. However,this issue might need further inspection at later stagesof the study.

One of the organizational issues is to deal with theprivacy of data, which was another concern duringthe design and development of the prototype. It ne-cessitates the needs for protocols to be implementedthat manage the privacy of project data in connectionto its copyright protection law. Setting the rights andprivileges of the users at the different levels of theirinteraction with the system may resolve this issue.

Another big issue is to be considered during thesystem development in terms of interface designs, in-teractivity, and quick system responsiveness. In ad-dition, special consideration is taken while providinginteractivity and user-friendly interfaces by followinga common set of rules of HCI. We anticipate that withthe implementation of HCI principles, such as strive forconsistency using cascading style sheet for fonts andcolors, informative feedback using Java-based dynamiceffects of tooltips and error prevention using JavaScript-based popup messages, the system can provide moreefficient, interactive and user-friendly interfaces to theend-users. The prototype is composed of different par-ticipation components, which require or involve somesort of GIS-based functional integration (some technicalknowledge is required to better utilize the tools). There-fore, design of such interfaces by keeping in mind theexpertise of the naive users or non-technical participantbecomes a big challenge during development.

The prototype developed is an effort of technologyintegration from a technological perspective. Some(main) key design issues related to technologies usedduring the development of the prototype are describedas follows:

As the mapping component was designed ini-tially for the proof of the concept, GIS mapping func-tionality over the base layer (Google map) is lim-ited, which needs to be enhanced by embracing morecarefully-selected functions. Moreover, the real-time(synchronous) collaborative participation componentis currently developed and implemented using Googlemaps as the base map, whereas, it should be able to useany open map APIs (Yahoo, Bing, MapQuest, Open-Street, etc.) to implement synchronous participatorybehaviors and/or function based on the presented ar-chitecture for sharing spatial data during discussionand/or debate. As discussed earlier, in the future au-thors are working on how to add project-related GISdata as a background layer into the display.

The collaborative real-time map sharing componentwas initially designed for enabling “spatial” virtualconferencing along with WebGIS support. This com-ponent was developed using Google map API, adobeflex, and flash collaboration service technologies. TheAdobe Flex platform provides and builds real-timecollaboration-enabled applications rapidly as it offersa complete software development kit, which containsready-to-use components, designed with collaborativeworkflow. The issue at this moment is that flash collab-oration services in the Adobe platform does not sup-port screen or media sharing protocols (another designchallenge, which is not considered during the initialdevelopment). The purpose of this function is to recordthe session history during the conference/seminars soit can be replayed and shared at a later time. However,the issue might need further inspection at later stagesof the study.

Page 11 of 67


The collaborative geo-conferencing component(having combined functionality of collaborative mapand documents media sharing) was designed and de-veloped using JAVA and Adobe Flex platforms. In-tegration between two platforms was a challenge inrelation to their suitability, connectivity and scalabilityin the beginning of the development. For instance, Flexcode requires a flash player to run or execute, whereasJava requires Java Virtual Machine (JVM) to executethe compiled code. Other problems common to allonline application developments are the compatibil-ity of different web browsers (i.e., Internet Explorer,Mozilla and Google Chrome, etc.) and Internet connec-tion speed. The benefit of using a JAVA platform willresolve the issue related to screen and video sharingprotocol of Adobe flash collaboration services. There-fore, the share/record screen module will be developedand added as a recording function along with a meetingplanner component (useful to the city staff for schedul-ing public meeting reminders or auto-notification) us-ing JAVA as a part of the virtual public meeting inter-face at later stages of the study and prototype develop-ment.

Finally, the usability evaluation and performancetesting for measuring the functionality of the proto-type during the case study (at York Region) will bean important future task of this research, which needsto be performed for evaluating important aspects: (1)to determine whether or not the designed frameworkwill help in improving the public participation duringthe planning process by maximizing public substan-tial input; (2) to evaluate that to what extent the sys-tem will be usable and to fulfill participatory needsof the current practice; (3) to deduce how the publicresponds in adopting the GIT-based means of partic-ipation; (4) to assess the amount of training requiredfor non-technical staff and/or participants to use thesystem’s components efficiently; (5) to find out howthe city staff, higher authorities, and project proponenthandle the citizen’s feedback in timely fashion for thequick and/or effective decision-making and determinehow quickly the system responds to participant; and (6)to find out how citizens’ access to information, commu-nication channels, level of public participation, and theoverall decision-making process may be impacted orinfluenced by adopting the prototype, in relation withtraditional participatory approaches (Li et al. 2007). Inaddition, to get the proper feedback and have the an-swers to all above-mentioned questions it is necessaryto implement the system in a real world scenario as acase study and/or pilot project for part of the study.

ConclusionsThe study reported in this paper brings together OSGIS,groupware, other web-based information technologies,and open source mapping APIs-based solutions to de-

sign and develop real-time collaborative map sharingcomponents, which rely on the data served throughopen map/data services with the option of integratinglocal data. Armstrong (1994), Craig (1998), Craig (2002)and Baker et al. (2005) state more collaboration amongusers involved during developing the plan, the morelikely that the plan will appropriately address issuesthat are important to the bodies. The prototype aimsat providing a web-based virtual conferencing environ-ment that encourages multi-users to get involved.

CRMI map sharing and geo-conferencing compo-nents have been presented as a concept for enhancingpublic involvement and aids decision support in spa-tial planning related tasks. The effectiveness of such asystem in supporting real-time collaboration, especiallyusing a synchronous participatory approach that pro-vides a virtual conferencing platform through whichlive meetings/seminars, spatial data and informationcan be accessed anywhere and anytime on a real-timebasis. Furthermore, it gives users online access to theirwork, convenient Web-based mapping, and the abilityto increase collaborative decision-making via real-timeparticipatory functions, i.e., open API-based map shar-ing, screen sharing, seminar recording, video streaming,and easy project documents sharing (Bailey 2010).

The prototype framework is designed and imple-mented using OSS-based technologies to obtain a qual-ity and to minimize a potential cost (i.e., dependenceon vendors, a huge early investment and high licensingcost) required to implement the system, which providesthe somehow cost effective solutions for the end-users(e.g., small municipalities) with limited or inadequatefinancial resources. On the contrary, there is a debateamong some groups of people about the negative as-pects (i.e., stability, scalability, maintenance and relia-bility, etc.) of the OSS technologies, which was wellconsidered during its selection in the development ofthe prototype.

During the system development, special attentionis given to the selection of enabling OSS technologiesas it plays an important role for increasing throughput(quick response), scalability, and design/maintenancecost of the system. For example, the spatial data inthe prototype is handled by using PostGIS, the spa-tial database extension of an open source PostgreSQLObject Relational Database Management System (OR-DBMS) that supports broad scale-interoperability withspatial data handling in relation to other open sourcesORDBMS (Sano et al. 2003; Wangmutitakul et al. 2003;Wangmutitakul et al. 2004; Wuttiwat et al. 2003). Atthis stage, due to the lack of availability of the spa-tial data related to the real projects, the prototype is notdemonstrated and configured by using spatial databasePostGIS.

The prototype offers user-friendly and self-explanatory functions (with the implementation of HCIrules) for interactive exploration of communication

Page 12 of 67


among participants using Web GIS-based virtual meet-ing participatory platform.

Future work on the prototype will concentrate onthe integration of missing features described in the dis-cussion section. The benefits of an integration of OSS-based modules and groupware technologies will beanalyzed when the realistic usability testing and evalu-ation of the prototype (as a proof of concept) is set upor performed, as a mock spatial planning case studyfor the municipal region, Canada. As the prototypedevelopment is based on object-oriented procedures(reusability), further enhancement of the prototype ispracticable.

AcknowledgementThis work reported in this paper was partially sup-ported by the funding from the Canadian National Sci-ence and Engineering Research Council (NSERC).

References1. Abdalla R, Li J (2010) Towards effective application

of geospatial technologies for disaster management.International Journal of Applied Earth Observationand Geoinformation, 12: 405-407.

2. Aditya T (2010) Usability Issues in Applying Partic-ipatory Mapping for Neighborhood InfrastructurePlanning. Transactions in GIS, 14: 119-147

3. Antunes P, Zurita G, Baloian N (2009) A model fordesigning geocollaborative artifacts and applications.Groupware: Design, Implementation, and Use, 278-294.

4. Armstrong MP (1994) Requirement for the develop-ment of GIS-based group decision support systems.Journal of the American society for information sci-ence 45:667-677

5. Al-Kodmany K (2002) Visualization tools and meth-ods in community planning: From FreehandSketches to Virtual Reality, Journal of Planning Liter-ature 17 (2)

6. Atterer R., Schmidt A. and Wnuk M., 2007, “A Proxy-based Infrastructure for Web Application Sharingand Remote Collaboration on Web Pages”, Proceed-ings of the 11th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, Septem-ber 2007, 74-87,

7. http://murx.medien.ifi.lmu.de/~albrecht/pdf/interact2007-usaproxy.pdf Accessed April 04, 2009

8. Baecker RM (1993) Reading in groupware and com-puter supported cooperative work: assisting human-human collaboration. San Fransisco, Morgan Kauf-man

9. Bailey K, Grossardt T (2010) Toward Structured Pub-lic Involvement: Justice, Geography and Collabora-tive Geospatial/Geovisual Decision Support Systems.

Annals of the Association of American Geographers,100: 57-86

10. Banati H, Bedi P, Grover PS (2006) Evaluating Webusability from the user’s perspective. Journal of Com-puter Science 2(4): 314-317

11. Baker WH, Addams HL, Davis B (2005) Critical fac-tors for enhancing municipal public hearings. PublicAdministration Review 65 (4):490-499

12. Bevan N (1995) Measuring usability as quality of use.Software Quality Journal 4 (2):115-130

13. Brail RK, Klosterman RE (2001) Planning support sys-tems: Integrating geographic information systems,models, and visualization tools. ESRI Press, Red-lands, California

14. Boulos M, Warren J, Jianya G, Peng Y (2010) Web GISin practice VIII: HTML5 and the canvas element forinteractive online mapping. International Journal ofHealth Geographics, 9: 14-26

15. Boroushaki S, Malczewski J (2010) Measuring consen-sus for collaborative decision-making: A GIS-basedapproach. Computers, Environment and Urban Sys-tems, 34: 322-332

16. Bryant L, Wilcox D (2006) Some lessons fromWeb 2.0 for participation and e-democracy.http://www.headshift.com/archives/002787.cfm.Accessed June 2006

17. Begole J, Struble CA, Shaffer C, Smith RB (1999)System resource sharing for synchronous collabo-ration. Technical Report TR-99-11, Computer Sci-ence, Virginia Tech. http://eprints.cs.vt.edu:8000/archive/00000524/01/BetEtAl99b.pdf. Accessed Oct2011

18. Cammack R (2007) Cartographic Approaches to WebMapping Services. Multimedia Cartography 1: 441-453

19. Carl C, Warwick I, Neville C (2005) A User Evalu-ation of Synchronous Collaborative Software Engi-neering Tools, Proceedings of the 12th Asia-PacificSoftware Engineering Conference (APSEC’05)

20. Chang Z (2010) Synchronous Collaborative 3D GISwith Agent Support. PhD. Thesis, Ryerson Univer-sity, Toronto, Canada

21. Chung G, Jeffay K, Abdel-Wahab H (1994) Dynamicparticipation in computer-based conferencing system.Journal of Computer Communications, 17(1): 7–16

22. Churcher N, Churcher C (1999) Realtime conferenc-ing in GIS, Transactions in GIS, 1999, 3(1):23-30

23. Churcher N, Churcher C (1996) GroupARC – a collab-orative approach to GIS, proceedings of 8th annualcolloquium of the spatial information research center,University of Otago, New Zealand, July 9-11, 1996,pp. 156-163

24. Craig WJ, Elwood SA (1998) How and why commu-nity groups use maps and geographic information.Cartography and Geographic Information Systems25 (2):95-104

25. Craig WJ, Harris TM, Weiner D (2002) Community

Page 13 of 67


participation and geographic information systems.London: Taylor and Francis

26. Dragicevic S, Balram S (2004) A Web GIS collabora-tive framework to structure and manage distributedplanning processes. Journal of Geographical Systems,6: 133-153

27. Dragicevic S (2004) The potential of Web-based GIS.Journal of Geographical Systems, 6: 79-81

28. Doyle S, Dodge M, Smith A (1998) The potential ofWeb-based mapping and virtual reality technologiesfor modelling urban environments. Computers, En-vironment and Urban Systems, 22:137-155

29. Edelenbos J (1999) Design and management of par-ticipatory public policy making. Public ManagementReview 1 (4):569-576

30. Evans A, Kingston R, Carver S, Turton I (1999) Web-based GIS used to enhance public democratic in-volvement. Geocomp’99 Conference Proceedings,Mary Washington College, Virginia, USA, July 27-281999

31. Fiedrich F, Burghardt P (2007) Agent-based systemsfor disaster management. Commun. ACM 50: 41-42

32. Haklay M, Singleton A, Parker C (2008) Web map-ping 2.0: the Neogeography of the Geoweb. Geogra-phy Compass, 2:2011-2039.

33. Huang B, Jiang B, Lin H (2001) An integration ofGIS, virtual reality and the Internet for visualiza-tion, wanalysis and exploration of spatial data. Inter-national Journal of Geographic Information Science15(5): 439 - 4

34. Jankowski P, Nyerges T (2001) GIS supported collab-orative decision making: Results of an experiment.Annals of the Association of American Geographers91 (1):48-70

35. Jankowski P, Nyerges T (2003) Toward a frameworkfor research on geographic information-supportedparticipatory decision-making. URISA Journal 15(1):9-17

36. Jankowski P, Nyerges T, Smith A, Moore TJ, HorvathE (1997) Spatial group choice: a SDSS tool for collabo-rative spatial decision making, International Journalof Geographical Information Science, 11(6):577-602

37. Jones RM, Copas CV, Edmonds EA (1997) GIS sup-port for distributed group-work in regional planning.International Journal of Geographical InformationScience, 11(1):53-71

38. Klosterman RE (2001) Planning support systems,ESRI Press, Redlands, California, pp 1–23

39. Lantz K (1986) An Experiment in Integrated Multime-dia Conferencing. In: Proceedings of the Conferenceon Computer-Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’86). Austin, Texas: ACM Press. Reprinted in I. Greif(editor), Computer-Supported Cooperative Work: ABook of Readings, pp. 533-552, Morgan Kaufmann,1988

40. Laurini R (1998) Groupware for urban planning: Anintroduction. Computers, Environment and Urban

Systems 22 (4):317-33341. Laurini R (2004) Computer systems for public partici-

pation. http://www.gisig.it/VPC_sommet/CD_Sommet/ws3/articololaurini.pdf. Accessed 10 January 2011

42. Lemos M (2006) PHP clases blog: Is PHP ready forWeb 2.0? http://www.phpclasses.org/blog/post/53-Is-PHP-ready-for-Web-20.html. Accessed 31 May2009

43. Li S, Chang Z, Yi R (2004) GIS-based internet no-ticeboard to facilitate public participation in munic-ipal developments. Proceedings of the 20th ISPRSCongress, Istanbul, Turkey, July 12–23 2004

44. Li S, Guo X, Ma X, Chang Z (2007) Towards GIS-enabled virtual public meeting space for public par-ticipation. Photogrammetric Engineering and Re-mote Sensing 73 (6):641

45. Li S, Ma X (2006) An open source GIS solution forsupporting public participation in municipal devel-opments. Proceedings of the ISPRS Commission IVSymposium on Geospatial Databases for SustainableDevelopment, Goa, India, September 27–30 2006

46. Ma X (2006) A prototype of Web-based PPGIS for mu-nicipal planning using open source software. MasterThesis, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada

47. MacEachren AM, Brewer I, Steiner E (2001)Geovisualization to mediate collaborativework: Tools to support different-placeknowledge construction and decision-making.http://hero.geog.psu.edu/products/ICC16009amm.pdf.Accessed 5 June 2010

48. MacEachren AM (2000) Cartography and GIS: facili-tating collaboration, progress in human geography24(1): 445-456

49. Obermeyer NJ (1998) The evolution of public partic-ipation GIS. Cartography and Geographic Informa-tion Systems 25 (2):65-66

50. Pang A, Fernandez D (1995) REINAS instrumenta-tion and visualization. Proceedings, OCEANS ’95.MTS/IEEE. Challenges of our changing global envi-ronment, San Diego, Oct. 9-15, pp. 1892-1899

51. Roseman M, Greenberg S (1992) GroupKit: A group-ware toolkit for building real-time conferencing ap-plications. In [CSCW92], (1992) 43-50,

52. Rinner C (1999) Argumentation maps – GIS-baseddiscussion support for online planning. Ph.D. disser-tation, University of Bonn, Germany

53. Rinner C (2006) Mapping in collaborative spatial deci-sion making. Collaborative Geographic InformationSystems, Idea Group Publishing, Hershey, PA, pp85-102

54. Sano J, Wanalertlak N, Maki A, Minoura T (2003) Ben-efits of web-based GIS/database applications. Pro-ceedings of 2nd Annual Public Participation GIS Con-ference, Portland, Oregon, July 2003

55. Scientific A (1990) Special issue on communications,Computers and Networks 265(3)

56. Tang M (2006) Design and implementation of a GIS-

Page 14 of 67

OSGeo Journal Volume 10 FOSS4G 2011 Conference Proceedings

enabled online discussion forum for participatoryplanning. M.Sc.E. thesis, Department of Geodesyand Geomatics Engineering Technical Report No.244, University of New Brunswick, Fredericton, NewBrunswick, Canada

57. Ventura S, Niemann B, Sutphin T, Chenoweth R(2002) GIS-enhanced land-use planning. In Com-munity Participation and Geographic InformationSystems. London: Taylor and Francis, pp113-124

58. Wang D, Xu K (2010) Red5 Flash server analysisand video call service implementation, Web Soci-ety (SWS), 2010 IEEE 2nd Symposium on 16-17 Aug.2010

59. Wangmutitakul, Paphun, et al. (2004) WebGD:Framework for Web-based GIS/database applica-tions, Journal of Object Technology 3(4): 209-225

60. Wangmutitakul P, Li L, Minoura T (2003) User par-

ticipatory Web-based GIS/database application. Pro-ceedings of Geotech Event Conference, Vancouver,British Columbia, March 16-19 2003

61. Wuttiwat T, Minoura T, Steiner J (2003) Using digitalorthographic aerial images as user interfaces. Proc.of ASPRS Annual Conference, Anchorage, Alaska,May 2003

62. Zhao J, Coleman DJ (2006) GeoDF: Towards a SDI-based PPGIS application for e-governance. Pro-ceedings of the GSDI 9 Conference, Santiago,Chile. http://www.gsdidocs.org/gsdiconf/GSDI-9/papers/TS9.3paper.pdf. Accessed 7 Dec 2010

Muhammad A Butt, Songnian LiDept of Civil EngineeringRyerson University, [email protected], [email protected]

Page 15 of 67

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

open source based online map sharing to support real-time

Documents