Over the past week, a lot of thought has been allocated into the formulation of our questionnaire. This questionnaire, as I have mentioned before, is going to be used in a PPGIS study that is being prepared.

I am encountering, as I believe everyone who has created a questionnaire has, that there is a fine line between all of the information a researcher wants, and how much the researcher can get from the respondent without wearing them out.

Currently our biggest concerns are (1) getting the necessary data, (2) getting enough data, (3) and making sure that the respondent isn’t bored and gives us BS filler data. The very nature of PPGIS requires a lot for even a few points. In each point there is a lot of information that we want, but can’t necessarily ask for! For example, I want to know a place that a respondent may feel is endangered, by what, and for what reason. Further, I may even want to know their priority in their points. Finding a method to obtain all of this information with the fewest clicks is imperative!

In this study, we will be assessing landscape values that are associated with places of concern. But the list of landscape values, in some studies, have been as long as 13 values (Brown, 2005)! I am currently in the process of narrowing down this list to an amount that doesn’t provide too much information overload and addresses our concerns the best. Due to the lack of prior literature on most effective landscape values, there is some room for flexibility in creating our own, or changing the names of certain values.

By next week the typology will be close to finalized.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.