Capturing the City’s Heritage On-the-Go: Design Requirements for Mobile Crowdsourced Cultural Heritage
- Which geo-located technological features can help us capture intangible cultural heritage?
- How can people be best motivated to use these features and contribute towards new and existing ICH content?
2. What Is Intangible Cultural Heritage (ICH)?
“The practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills—as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith—that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity”.
3. The Importance of Preserving ICH
4. Existing Ways of Safeguarding ICH
5. General Principles
5.1. What It Means to Preserve ICH
5.2. ICH Privacy Issues for Individuals and the Community
6. Mobile Apps for Capturing ICH
7. Towards Capturing ICH through Location-Based Crowdsourcing
- Imaging can be used to ask users to take and capture images of specific POIs.
- Geo-referencing can be used to link these images to coordinates on the map that will be used in the application. The app will do this automatically, or the user can do it manually if he or she thinks the coordinates that the app calculated are not accurate enough.
- Contextualization can be used to attribute information to these POIs. This information can include users’ stories, memories, folk tales, traditional songs, thoughts, and more. These can be uploaded using text or audio.
- Validation can be used to assess the quality of the contributions. Users can do this by voting on other people’s contributions and moderators can check these assessments.
- Sharing can be used to share contributions and other information in the app with other people. This way people get invited to also use the app and this may attract more users.
8. Assessing the Quality of Crowd-Sourced Geo-Spatial Data
- Lineage refers to knowing who uploaded what. This could be solved by implementing a system where users need to create an account with information about them, such as characteristics and interests. This way you always know who contributed what and at the same time the account can be used for other functionalities.
- Attribute accuracy refers to the terminology and classification being used. The app could provide the user with templates he or she needs to fill out when creating a Point of Interest (POI).
- Completeness means that every POI should have an adequate amount of information. This could also be improved by using templates.
- Logical consistency means that the contributions need to be checked for validity and quality. Moderators can check this information themselves in the portal or users can up-vote and down-vote regarding the quality of a POI. When the quality is not sufficient enough, the app could provide the users with tasks to improve the quality of the information of certain POIs.
- Temporal quality refers to how up-to-date the contributions are. By giving the contributions a time-stamp, moderators or active users can update the information about some POIs when they think it is outdated.
- Malicious or mischievous content can be reduced by using user profiles and regular check-ups of POIs by moderators, as well as a voting system.
- Specification with User Participation and Documenting. The data quality of Geo-spatial Metadata is concerned with the quality of attributes, which can be achieved by using templates for users to fill in. However, there should be a balance between the amount of information that is mandatory to fill in and the amount of freedom the user is provided with.
- Linus’s Law says that the more people review a problem, the better the solution will be. We suggest that the app has to give the user the option to review the POIs in their neighborhood. This is the area they know the best and will most likely result in the highest quality of information.
- Hierarchical Structures for Quality Assurance refers to using moderators and other hierarchical structures. We suggest that the app should use moderators, a reputation system and ranks. This will be covered in the Gamification section.
- Map lovers and experts who are happy to provide accurate information in cases when maps are wrong or are missing information. These could be retired professional mappers; when they see something wrong on a map, they might be willing to let the authorities know.
- Casual mappers who can be part of a biking/hiking community and map whilst doing those activities. Casual mappers are most of the time only willing to spend a relatively low effort for mapping and would rather upload new data than looking for errors.
- Media mappers who respond to specific campaigns such as mapping parties and post-disaster events.
- Passive mappers who automatically provide information via their mobile phones often without even knowing it. This regards information such as where traffic jams occur.
- Open mappers who actively contribute to platforms such as OSM. This is by far the largest group, and their number is constantly growing. They are motivated by contributing and using good public data.
- Paid mappers who are driven by getting paid for doing an activity, e.g., Mechanical Turk from Amazon (a platform that pays users a small amount of money for small tasks).
10. Motivational Factors Specific to Geo-Crowdsourcing
11. Recommendations for a Future-Proof ICH App: The Case of StoryBee
11.1. Attracting and Recruiting
11.2. Motivation and Retention
- Which geo-located technological features can help us capture intangible cultural heritage?
- How can people be best motivated to use these features and contribute content?
Conflicts of Interest
|ICH||Intangible Cultural Heritage|
|CSICH||Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage|
|FGDC||Federal Geographic Data Committee|
|GPS||Global Positioning System|
|POI||Point of interest|
|POIs||Points of interest|
|UGC||User Generated Content|
|UNESCO||United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization|
|VGI||Volunteered Geographic Information|
- UNESCO. Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Kalay, Y.; Kvan, T.; Affleck, J. New heritage. In New Media and Cultural Heritage; Routledge: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Jarvenpaa, S.L.; Lang, K.R. Managing the paradoxes of mobile technology. Inf. Syst. Manag. 2005, 22, 7–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kjeldskov, J.; Graham, C. A review of mobile HCI research methods. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction, Udine, Italy, 8–11 September 2003; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2003; pp. 317–335. [Google Scholar]
- Calder, N. Apps: Appropriate, Applicable, and Appealing. In Digital Games and Mathematics Learning; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 233–250. [Google Scholar]
- Ahmad, Y. The scope and definitions of heritage: From tangible to intangible. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2006, 12, 292–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vecco, M. A definition of cultural heritage: From the tangible to the intangible. J. Cult. Herit. 2010, 11, 321–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lorusso, S.; Cogo, G.; Natali, A. The Protection and Valorization of Cultural and Environmental Heritage in the Development Process of the Territory. Conserv. Sci. Cult. Herit. 2016, 16, 59–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shirvani Dastgerdi, A.; De Luca, G. Specifying the Significance of Historic Sites in Heritage Planning. Conserv. Sci. Cult. Herit. 2019, 18, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blake, J. On defining the cultural heritage. Int. Comp. Law Q. 2000, 49, 61–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lenzerini, F. Intangible cultural heritage: The living culture of peoples. Eur. J. Int. Law 2011, 22, 101–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Smith, L.; Akagawa, N. Intangible Heritage; Routledge: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Taylor, K. Cultural heritage management: A possible role for charters and principles in Asia. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 2004, 10, 417–433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Czermak, K.; Delanghe, P.; Weng, W. Preserving intangible cultural heritage in Indonesia. In Proceedings of the Conference on Language Development, Language Revitalization and Multilingual Education in Minority Communities in Asia, Bangkok, Thailand, 6–8 November 2003; pp. 1–8. [Google Scholar]
- Dimitropoulos, K.; Manitsaris, S.; Tsalakanidou, F.; Nikolopoulos, S.; Denby, B.; Al Kork, S.; Crevier-Buchman, L.; Pillot-Loiseau, C.; Adda-Decker, M.; Dupont, S.; et al. Capturing the intangible an introduction to the i-Treasures project. In Proceedings of the 2014 International conference on computer vision theory and applications (VISAPP), IEEE, Lisbon, Portugal, 5–8 January 2014; Volume 2, pp. 773–781. [Google Scholar]
- Mountcastle, A. Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage and the Inevitability of Loss: A Tibetan Example. Stud. Ethnol. Croat. 2010, 22, 339–359. [Google Scholar]
- Shirvani Dastgerdi, A.; Sargolini, M.; Broussard Allred, S.; Chatrchyan, A.; De Luca, G. Climate Change and Sustaining Heritage Resources: A Framework for Boosting Cultural and Natural Heritage Conservation in Central Italy. Climate 2020, 8, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Alivizatou-Barakou, M.; Kitsikidis, A.; Tsalakanidou, F.; Dimitropoulos, K.; Giannis, C.; Nikolopoulos, S.; Al Kork, S.; Denby, B.; Buchman, L.; Adda-Decker, M.; et al. Intangible cultural heritage and new technologies: Challenges and opportunities for cultural preservation and development. In Mixed Reality and Gamification for Cultural Heritage; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 129–158. [Google Scholar]
- Cominelli, F.; Greffe, X. Intangible cultural heritage: Safeguarding for creativity. City Cult. Soc. 2012, 3, 245–250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blake, J. UNESCO’s 2003 Convention on Intangible Cultural Heritage: The implications of community involvement in ‘safeguarding’. In Intangible Heritage; Routledge: London, UK, 2008; pp. 59–87. [Google Scholar]
- Gurel, D.; Çetin, T. An Investigation of Secondary School 7th Grade Students’ Awareness for Intangible Cultural Heritage. Online Submiss. 2017, 8, 75–84. [Google Scholar]
- UNESCO. Identifying and Inventorying Intangible Cultural Heritage; UNESCO: Paris, France, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Niec, H. Legislative Models of Protection of Cultural Property. Hastings LJ 1975, 27, 1089. [Google Scholar]
- Kurin, R. Safeguarding Intangible Cultural Heritage in the 2003 UNESCO Convention: A critical appraisal. Mus. Int. 2004, 56, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aikawa, N. An historical overview of the preparation of the UNESCO International Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage. Mus. Int. 2004, 56, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, M.F. Heritage trouble: Recent work on the protection of intangible cultural property. Int. J. Cult. Prop. 2005, 12, 40–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Dutfield, G. Protecting Traditional Knowledge and Folklore; International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development: Geneva, Switzerland, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Bonn, M.; Kendall, L.; McDonough, J. Preserving intangible heritage: Defining a research agenda. Proc. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 2016, 53, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spiekermann, S. The challenges of privacy by design. Commun. ACM 2012, 55, 38–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Spiekermann, S.; Cranor, L.F. Engineering privacy. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 2008, 35, 67–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bélanger, F.; Crossler, R.E. Privacy in the digital age: A review of information privacy research in information systems. MIS Q. 2011, 35, 1017–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- DeVries, W.T. Protecting privacy in the digital age. Berkeley Tech. LJ 2003, 18, 283. [Google Scholar]
- Safari, B.A. Intangible privacy rights: How Europe’s gdpr will set a new global standard for personal data protection. Seton Hall Law Rev. 2016, 47, 809. [Google Scholar]
- Kono, T. Intangible Cultural Heritage and Intellectual Property: Communities, Cultural Diversity and Sustainable Development, Intersentia. 2009. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1974127 (accessed on 1 January 2009).
- Paterson, R.K.; Karjala, D.S. Looking beyond intellectual property in resolving protection of the intangible cultural heritage of indigenous peoples. Cardozo J. Int. Comp. Law 2003, 11, 633. [Google Scholar]
- Pavlidis, M.; Mouratidis, H.; Gonzalez-Perez, C.; Kalloniatis, C. Addressing privacy and trust issues in cultural heritage modelling. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Risks and Security of Internet and Systems, Mytilene, Greece, 20–22 July 2015; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 3–16. [Google Scholar]
- Meeker, L. Sounding out Heritage: Cultural Politics and the Social Practice of Quan Ho Folk Song in Northern Vietnam; University of Hawaii Press: Honolulu, HI, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Lixinski, L. Intangible Cultural Heritage in International Law; OUP: Oxford, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Bradley, R. Digital authenticity and integrity: Digital cultural heritage documents as research resources. Portal Libr. Acad. 2005, 5, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garfinkel, S.L. Wikipedia and the Meaning of Truth. Technol. Rev. 2008, 111, 84–86. [Google Scholar]
- Meek, S.; Jackson, M.J.; Leibovici, D.G. A flexible framework for assessing the quality of crowdsourced data. In Proceedings of the AGILE’2014 International Conference on Geographic Information Science, Castellón, Spain, 3–6 June 2014; ISBN 978-90-816960-4-3. [Google Scholar]
- Zhao, Y.; Campisi, P.; Kundur, D. Dual domain watermarking for authentication and compression of cultural heritage images. IEEE Trans. Image Process. 2004, 13, 430–448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coburn, E.; Lanzi, E.; O’Keefe, E.; Stein, R.; Whiteside, A. The Cataloging Cultural Objects experience: Codifying practice for the cultural heritage community. IFLA J. 2010, 36, 16–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Xiao-Chun, L. On Locality and Public Ownership of Intangible Cultural Heritage. J. Guangxi Univ. Natl. Philos. Soc. Sci. Ed. 2008, 3, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Lixinski, L. A tale of two heritages: Claims of ownership over intangible cultural heritage and the myth of ‘authenticity’. Transnatl. Disput. Manag. 2014, 11, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
- Yang, H. The pros and cons about the digital recording of intangible cultural heritage and some strategies. Int. Arch. Photogramm. Remote Sens. Spat. Inf. Sci. 2015, 40, 461–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Giglitto, D. Using Wikis for Intangible Cultural Heritage in Scotland: Suitability and Empowerment. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK, 2017. [Google Scholar]
- Miller, T.; Birch, M.; Mauthner, M.; Jessop, J. Ethics in Qualitative Research; Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Morey, T.; Forbath, T.; Schoop, A. Customer data: Designing for transparency and trust. Harv. Bus. Rev. 2015, 93, 96–105. [Google Scholar]
- Papangelis, K.; Chamberlain, A.; Liang, H.N. New directions for preserving intangible cultural heritage through the use of mobile technologies. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services Adjunct—MobileHCI 16, Florence, Italy, 6–9 September 2016; ACM Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garau, C.; Ilardi, E. The “Non-Places” meet the “Places:” Virtual tours on smartphones for the enhancement of cultural heritage. J. Urban Technol. 2014, 21, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pozzebon, A.; Calamai, S. Smart devices for intangible cultural heritage fruition. In Proceedings of the 2015 Digital Heritage, IEEE, Granada, Spain, 28 September–2 October 2015; Volume 1, pp. 333–336. [Google Scholar]
- Economou, M.; Meintani, E. Promising beginning? evaluating museum mobile phone apps. In Proceedings of the Rethinking Technology in Museums 2011: Emerging Experiences, Limerick, Ireland, 26–27 May 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Garau, C. From territory to smartphone: Smart fruition of cultural heritage for dynamic tourism development. Plan. Pract. Res. 2014, 29, 238–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Di Giovine, M. The Heritage Reader. Curator Mus. J. 2011, 54, 363–369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dhonju, H.K.; Xiao, W.; Shakya, B.; Mills, J.P.; Sarhosis, V. Documentation of heritage structures through geo-crowdsourcing and web-mapping. In Proceedings of the International Archives of the Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, Wuhan, China, 18–22 September 2017; Copernicus Publications: Gottingen, Germany, 2017; Volume 42, pp. 17–21. [Google Scholar]
- Nordmark, S.; Milrad, M. Mobile digital storytelling for promoting creative collaborative learning. In Proceedings of the 2012 IEEE Seventh International Conference on Wireless, Mobile and Ubiquitous Technology in Education, Takamatsu, Japan, 27–30 March 2012; pp. 9–16. [Google Scholar]
- Atlas World Heritage Thematic Study on Common Challenges. Available online: http://www.firenzepatrimoniomondiale.it/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/THEMATIC-STUDY-ON-COMMON-CHALLENGES.pdf (accessed on 26 February 2020).
- Rice, M.T.; Paez, F.I.; Mulhollen, A.P.; Shore, B.M.; Caldwell, D.R. Crowdsourced Geospatial Data: A Report on the Emerging Phenomena of Crowdsourced and User-Generated Geospatial Data; Technical Report; George Mason University: Fairfax, VA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Foody, G.; Fritz, S.; Fonte, C.C.; Bastin, L.; Olteanu-Raimond, A.M.; Mooney, P.; See, L.; Antoniou, V.; Liu, H.Y.; Minghini, M.; et al. Mapping and the Citizen Sensor; Ubiquity Press: London, UK, 2017; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Heipke, C. Crowdsourcing geospatial data. ISPRS J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2010, 65, 550–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Haltofová, B. Critical success factors of geocrowdsourcing use in e-government: A case study from the Czech Republic. Urban Res. Pract. 2019, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Budhathoki, N.R.; Haythornthwaite, C. Motivation for open collaboration: Crowd and community models and the case of OpenStreetMap. Am. Behav. Sci. 2013, 57, 548–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zeng, Z.; Tang, J.; Wang, T. Motivation mechanism of gamification in crowdsourcing projects. Int. J. Crowd Sci. 2017, 1, 71–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tiwari, R.; Agrawal, A.; Shekhar, S. Contributions of volunteered geographic world: Motivation behind contribution. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Role of Volunteered Geographic Information in Advancing Science, International Conference on Geographic Information Science, Zurich, Switzerland, 14–17 September 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Composto, S.; Ingensand, J.; Nappez, M.; Ertz, O.; Rappo, D.; Bovard, R.; Widmer, I.; Joost, S. How to recruit and motivate users to utilize VGI-systems. In Proceedings of the 19th AGILE Conference on Geographic Information Science, Helsinki, Finland, 14–17 June 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Feng, Y.; Ye, H.J.; Yu, Y.; Yang, C.; Cui, T. Gamification artifacts and crowdsourcing participation: Examining the mediating role of intrinsic motivations. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2018, 81, 124–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brito, J.; Vieira, V.; Duran, A. Towards a framework for gamification design on crowdsourcing systems: The GAME approach. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Information Technology-New Generations, IEEE, Las Vegas, NV, USA, 13–15 April 2015; pp. 445–450. [Google Scholar]
- Hossain, M. Crowdsourcing: Activities, incentives and users’ motivations to participate. In Proceedings of the IEEE 2012 International Conference on Innovation Management and Technology Research, Malacca, Malaysia, 21–22 May 2012; pp. 501–506. [Google Scholar]
- À Campo, S.; Khan, V.J.; Papangelis, K.; Markopoulos, P. Community heuristics for user interface evaluation of crowdsourcing platforms. Future Gener. Comput. Syst. 2019, 95, 775–789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reestorff, C.M.; Fabian, L.; Fritsch, J.; Stage, C.; Stephensen, J.L. Conjunctions: Introducing cultural participation as a transdisciplinary project. Conjug. Transdiscipl. J. Cult. Particip. 2014, 1, 1–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
|Type||Factor||Relation to CDG|
|Intrinsic||Unique ethos||People think that maps should be openly available and free for everyone who wants to use it|
|Learning||Using the application, people gain new knowledge about mapping, the technologies being used and places|
|Personal enrichment||People find satisfaction in contributing to the project|
|Self-actualization||People appreciate their talents, knowledge about local areas and skills in mapping more after they have contributed something good.|
|Self-expression||It enables people to express their knowledge of local areas and mapping|
|Self-image||It gives people the opportunity to gain more confidence in themselves through contributing|
|Fun||People enjoy the process of contributing and actually seeing their contribution getting used online|
|Recreation||Mapping outdoors is a form of recreation that people can enjoy|
|Instrumentality||It gives people the opportunity to correct wrong or incomplete information on a map.|
|Self-efficacy||People feel effective because they contribute to the project|
|Meeting own needs||The ability to fill in missing information that is needed for other applications|
|Freedom of expression||Ability to provide whatever information people want and when they want.|
|Altruism||Contribute to a project because it is a social cause.|
|Extrinsic||Career||Contributing to a project can actually be mentioned on people’s CVs and can develop skills that can be used on the market for other jobs and opportunities|
|Strengthening social relations||Creating social bonds with other participants through mapping parties and other get-together|
|Project goal||The goal of the project corresponds to the goals of the contributor|
|Community||Feeling you belong to an interactive community|
|Identity||Becoming part of (another) (sub)-group, e.g., promoting to a group with a higher level of expertise in mapping and knowledge|
|Reputation||Getting recognized for your efforts by the system or community|
|Monetary Return||Making money by involving yourself in the project|
|Reciprocity||The idea that if you contribute, others will do the same|
|System Trust||If the system is trustworthy, it is worth to contribute to|
|Networking||Contributing can form networks with people in the community, or other people that are related to the project, both locally and internationally|
|Socio-political||Contributing is in line with people’s socio-political motivations|
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hannewijk, B.; Vinella, F.L.; Khan, V.-J.; Lykourentzou, I.; Papangelis, K.; Masthoff, J. Capturing the City’s Heritage On-the-Go: Design Requirements for Mobile Crowdsourced Cultural Heritage. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2429. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062429
Hannewijk B, Vinella FL, Khan V-J, Lykourentzou I, Papangelis K, Masthoff J. Capturing the City’s Heritage On-the-Go: Design Requirements for Mobile Crowdsourced Cultural Heritage. Sustainability. 2020; 12(6):2429. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062429Chicago/Turabian Style
Hannewijk, Bas, Federica Lucia Vinella, Vassilis-Javed Khan, Ioanna Lykourentzou, Konstantinos Papangelis, and Judith Masthoff. 2020. "Capturing the City’s Heritage On-the-Go: Design Requirements for Mobile Crowdsourced Cultural Heritage" Sustainability 12, no. 6: 2429. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12062429