Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
Of course, the numbers in
Table 1
mean little without a sense of the quality
or usefulness of the information that can be retrieved. An assessment
model will be developed as part of the research that aims to provide a
method for attaching such indicators to these resources. Potential data
attributes for quality indicators could be the data source, data contributors
and the level of PV control involved in UCI, whereas the usefulness of
data could depend on the level of access (is it a mere digital record or can
it be viewed online) or how users can sift through search results. These
data attributes are not straightforward to assess however and can be vari-
able or subjective. For example, information from reputable organisations
may show bias whereas personal blogs may be written by educated
amateurs. It is feasible that some of the alternative data sources will end up
being regarded as
additional information
that is made easily available in
the event someone is interested in further information. Or the end result
could be an evolving model: as the data source is used, users can add their
personal quality or usefulness ratings for others to consider. As develop-
ment of the assessment model is still underway, the figures in
Table 1
for
now aim to highlight the potentially useful
other
data that exist.
5.3 Park visitor survey
Contributions from park visitors and other stakeholders are another alter-
native data source. Information obtained from this group can include im-
ages or comments about their recent stay uploaded onto the Web; specific
knowledge that amateurs may possess (and are willing to share via a Web
enabled collaborative forum), or the sharing of fishing conditions by
recreational fishermen using mobile devices. They could also be recruited
for crowdsourcing projects.
To gain insight into park visitors' perception of Web 2.0 and their
perceived willingness to participate and contribute, a visitor survey was
conducted at WPNP. The survey took place over a three day period in
September 2010. 83 people completed the questionnaire - 49 females and
34 males divided into four age groups: 18-30, 31-45, 46-60 and 61 and
over. The youngest and oldest age groups were slightly underrepresented
because of the Victorian school spring break chosen to conduct the survey.
Of the 83 participants, 78 used the Internet. 59 of these 78 were aware of
or familiar with Web 2.0 with differences observable by age group (see
Figure 3
).
