A gamified map application utilising crowdsourcing engaged citizens to refine the quality and accuracy of cadastral index map border markers

Figures & data

Figure 1. (A) The accumulated 13 million border markers and (B) the 2 million inaccurate border markers of the cadastral index map of Finland in a 10-km² grid. Pink areas have no inaccurate border markers, such as the capitol region.

Figure 2. Root causes of why a significant portion of the quality and accuracy of border markers is insufficient.

Figure 3. The crowdsourcing task performed by citizens described in the requirement phase of the artefact creation process.

Figure 4. The artefact concept of a mobile application enabling crowdsourced refinement of border markers was depicted in the design phase.

Table 1. The main design issues during the creation of the artefact, issue solutions, and solution rationales for the artefact sorted by their DSR phase of when the issue emerged.

Issue	Solution	Rationale	DSR phase
Inaccurate border markers need to be measured at the physical border marker	The artefact was designed on a mobile map	A mobile map is more usable for the citizens	Problem
There are millions of inaccurate border markers	The artefact utilises crowdsourcing	Crowdsourcing is more cost effective	Problem
Citizens may accidentally or intentionally contribute for the wrong marker	A proximity check is performed before a contribution	Validation is needed to assure the contribution is conducted at the correct border marker	Problem
	A photo of the border marker is required to be attached to the measurement
Avoid excluding citizens	Artefact is available for the whole country	Possible for everyone to use	Problem
Wide geographical coverage for measurements		Analysis of differences in different parts of the country
Border markers must be visible in terrain	Release the artefact for the summer period	Border markers feasible to find without snow cover	Problem
Citizens should have time to play the game		Citizens more willing to play during their summer holidays
Citizens need to be motivated to contribute	Border marker contribution was gamified	Gamification increases motivation to contribute	Design
Selecting the appropriate gamification affordances for motivating citizens to contribute	Simple gamification methods were chosen over complex ones	Easy for citizens to understand and easy to implement	Design
Maximise the number of motivated participants	Build and communicate working together spirit through public marketing and gamification	Altruism is one of the most shared motivators for participation among player types. Competition can lead to self-exclusion from participation	Design
Gamification should not cause conflicts or divide between participants		Conflicts may arise from artificial confrontation	Design
Local reach of potential participant in the limits of the available marketing resources	Marketing was targeted to one specific region	People are easier to motivate at local level. Resources were available for one region	Design
Some inaccurate markers have been lost due to changes in the environment	Lost markers can be reported via the artefact	Reported lost markers are a valuable source of information	Demonstration
A border marker requires multiple measurements for maximum accuracy	Marketing for multiple measurements	Resources were available for marketing, but not for altering the gamification affordance to motivate multiple measurements	Evaluation

Table 2. The artefact categorisation (Gómez-Barrón et al. 2016; Morschheuser et al. 2017a).

Crowdsourcing archetype	Non-emergent crowd-processing
Work type and participants	Reporting location-based information by an unspecified crowd
Task and gamification approach	Homogeneous and crowd-based. Individualistic
Gamification affordances	Points, leaderboard, and progression
Incentive	Gamification, advertisement, and a weekly monetary reward based on performance
Psychological outcomes	Engagement, enjoyment, and motivation
Positive effects	Quantitative contribution, willingness to contribute, continued work, and long-term engagement

Figure 5. The map-based user interface of the artefact is simple. (A) The background map was customised for moving on foot in the terrain including cadastral border lines. The citizen layer consisted of unmeasured (green) and measured (orange) inaccurate border markers. (B) A measurement required a photo and the location measurement of the border marker. (C) Border markers measured by the citizen were displayed on the map with a special icon to follow one’s progression.

Figure 6. The artefact was demonstrated during the summer and autumn months with citizens.

Figure 7. Heatmap of accumulated contributions over the pilot period from 1st of July to 28th of October. Each heatmap displays the situation on the first day of the month except for November where the last day of contributions was chosen to be 28th of October.

Figure 8. (A) The areas with contributions (purple), the areas without contributions (yellow), and empty areas where there are no inaccurate border markers (white) displayed on a 10-km² grid. (B) The accumulated contributions on the 10 km² grid show regional hotspots. (C) The region with the marketing campaign (South to -West) and the region with the self-organised mapping party (North to East)

Figure 9. The number of contributions per day show a large spike at the start of the vacation period in July and some drop at the end of the vacation period in September. The contributions mean was 164, median 135 per day while the peak was 810.

Figure 10. Chosen player types (multi-choice) in the questionnaire by citizens (n = 423).

Figure 11. Border marker measurements (blue) and border markers reporting missing (orange) by player types selected by citizens. The citizen could select with multiple player types.

Figure 12. The average and median of contributions by player types show that the differences between player types were not statistically significant.

Figure 13. The top 10% of the player types have made more than half of the all the contributions of said player type.

Figure 14. The utility of the artefact had mainly positive effects on respondent motivation. Faraway marker and nearby marker were added as control questions. Mean score of the utility is in parenthesis.

Figure 15. New gamification affordances added to the artefact would have positive effects on respondent motivation.

Figure 16. The artefact was considered easy to use both in the tasking and reporting phase by the respondents.

Figure 17. The questionnaire respondents found the experience of using the artefact pleasant.

Gómez-Barrón, J. P., MÁ Manso-Callejo, R. Alcarria, and T. Iturrioz. 2016. “Volunteered Geographic Information System Design: Project and Participation Guidelines.” ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 5 (7): 108. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi5070108

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Morschheuser, B., J. Hamari, J. Koivisto, and A. Maedche. 2017a. “Gamified Crowdsourcing: Conceptualization, Literature Review, and Future Agenda.” Inter-national Journal of Human-Computer Studies 106: 26–43. doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.04.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data gathered in this study consisting of contributions and questionnaire responses by citizens who have given consent. The contributions contain both a unique identifier (an email address or username) and a geolocation (likely to reveal a movement pattern or approximate location of residence). The questionnaire contains unique identifiers that can be connected to the contributions. Therefore, the data in this study is not ethical to be shared as such.