Argumentation Maps

Argumentation maps were proposed to facilitate participatory planning using Internet geographic information systems (GIS) technology. Argumentation mapping combines online discussion forums with online mapping to enable participants in discussions to provide explicit geographic references for their contributions. The concept draws on principles of geospatial data modeling and participatory GIS and poses new challenges for geographic information science. This entry describes the basic idea and conceptual model of argumentation maps, their multidisciplinary origin, and their potential applications.

The argumentation map concept combines elements from geographic data modeling and argumentation theory. Geographic data modeling defines various approaches for representing spatial phenomena, including the vector and the raster data models. Argumentation theory is concerned with formal modeling of human discourse. [Page 109]Combining these two foundations, argumentation maps describe relations between geographic objects and argumentation elements. On the map side, geographic objects are being used as reference objects for contributions to discourses. On the argumentation side, elements of text messages are being linked to those geographic references.

Argumentation maps respond to an observation from participatory planning processes, where participants can be found to refer to different places in their expressed views. Whether in oral statements, written submissions, or online comments, people regularly refer to their home location, neighborhood, and place of work, as well as to the location of planned development projects. The argumentation map model aims at making these implicit linkages more explicit and available for further computer-based processing.

Conversely, argumentation between humans usually involves interconnected expressions of personal opinions, which include direct responses to existing statements as well as references to other contributions. More elaborate argumentation models include issue-based information systems, which use typed argumentation elements. The available types include issues, positions, and arguments that can be placed in predefined relations with each other. The older Toulmin model uses claims, data, warrants, and relationships between these elements to structure human argumentation. The linking of this argumentation logic to geographic objects adds a layer of complexity to the spatial relations between geographic objects. In this respect, argumentation mapping goes beyond map annotation, which adds comments to places on maps but does not connect these annotations themselves.

Related concepts in cartography and geographic information science include hypermaps and geotagging. The common principle is the use of standard geographic references (geographic features, coordinates, geospatial tags) to localize text and multimedia documents. GIS databases are usually not able to handle complex data of this nature. Argumentation tends to be relatively simple (e.g., the question-reply model), but through its above-mentioned internal logical structure, it poses additional demands on the data modeling and analytical functions of participatory GIS tools.

More fundamentally, argumentation mapping benefits from a paradigm shift in computer science that expanded the view of the computer as a data processor to include its function as a medium for human-to-human communication. An argumentation map provides a cartographic representation of a discussion and can be used to explore, query, analyze, and participate in this discussion. Participatory GIS and, more recently, geocollaboration examine the theoretical and practical implications of using computer networks to support collaborative decision making in the geospatial domain.

...