{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029880478087649404, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009296148738379814, 'mean_word_length': 5.727678571428571, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A Review of Sampling Effects and Response Bias in Internet Participatory Mapping (PPGIS/PGIS/VGI)

Global interest in participatory mapping described as public participation GIS (PPGIS), participatory GIS (PGIS), and volunteered geographic information (VGI) continues to grow, but systematic study of spatial data quality and sampling effects is limited. This article provides a review and meta‐analysis of Internet‐based PPGIS studies conducted during the period 2006–2015 (n=26) to answer the following research questions: (1) How does mapping effort, as a proxy measure for spatial data quality, differ by sampling group? (2) Does the purpose and context of PPGIS influence mapping results? (3) What is the potential for mapping bias through sampling design? (4) Given the results, what should be the focus of future PPGIS research? Mapping effort was highest in sampling groups whose livelihoods were closely related to the purpose of the study, there was greater mapping effort in household sampling groups compared to volunteer groups, and participant domicile had strong effects on mapped results through spatial discounting. The use of online Internet panels provides higher response rates but lower spatial data quality. Future research should focus on increasing sampling response rates, assessing social trade‐offs using alternative spatial weighting schemes, and examining the capacity of the public to select land use alternatives as a complement to traditional expert‐driven planning systems.