User-Centred Cartography in Action: Co-Designing the TED-INCRA/UFPR Monitoring Dashboard with Design ThinkingAbstract
Geospatial systems frequently encounter usability challenges due to complex interfaces, vast amounts of spatial data, and a misalignment with user needs, which impact their effectiveness and user satisfaction. The present study proposes a methodology for mitigating this issue through the implementation of a Design-Thinking workflow, operationalised through three participatory workshops, collaborative Miro boards and iterative wireframe validation. The present study was conducted within the framework of an eight-project land-regularisation programme known as TED-INCRA/UFPR, which is jointly administered by Brazil’s National Institute for Colonisation and Agrarian Reform (INCRA) and the Federal University of Paraná. The following procedures were undertaken: (i) the elicitation of cartographic and system requirements was conducted through a structured Empathy-Definition cycle, (ii) the co-design of indicators and layouts occurred during Ideation and low-fidelity sketching, and (iii) the refinement of mid-fidelity wireframes took place in a collective Testing session. The artefacts thus obtained were then utilised directly in system development, resulting in the production of a Django/Vue indicators dashboard with a Leaflet/PostGIS. The findings of this study demonstrate that adapting Design Thinking to incorporate cartographic guidelines and open-source development practices results in the creation of a scalable, user-centred monitoring tool. This tool is characterised by its traceability from initial Miro sketches to production code, thus offering a transferable blueprint for the execution of other multidisciplinary geospatial projects.
Keywords:
Design Thinking; User-Centred GIS; Land Regularisation
Resumo
Os sistemas geoespaciais frequentemente enfrentam desafios de usabilidade devido a interfaces complexas, grandes quantidades de dados espaciais e um desalinhamento com as necessidades dos usuários, o que afeta sua eficácia e a satisfação dos usuários. O presente estudo propõe uma metodologia para mitigar essa questão por meio da implementação de um fluxo de trabalho de Design Thinking, operacionalizado por meio de três workshops participativos, quadros colaborativos Miro e validação iterativa de wireframes. O presente estudo foi realizado no âmbito de um programa de regularização fundiária de oito projetos conhecido como TED-INCRA/UFPR, administrado conjuntamente pelo Instituto Nacional de Colonização e Reforma Agrária (INCRA) e pela Universidade Federal do Paraná. Foram realizados os seguintes procedimentos: (i) a elicitação dos requisitos cartográficos e do sistema foi conduzida por meio de um ciclo estruturado de empatia-definição, (ii) o co-design de indicadores e layouts ocorreu durante a ideação e o esboço de baixa fidelidade, e (iii) o refinamento dos wireframes de média fidelidade ocorreu em uma sessão coletiva de testes. Os artefatos assim obtidos foram então utilizados diretamente no desenvolvimento do sistema, resultando na produção de um painel de indicadores Django/Vue com um mapa Leaflet/PostGIS. Os resultados deste estudo demonstram que a adaptação do Design Thinking para incorporar diretrizes cartográficas e práticas de desenvolvimento de código aberto resulta na criação de uma ferramenta de monitoramento escalável e centrada no usuário. Essa ferramenta é caracterizada pela sua rastreabilidade, desde os esboços iniciais na plataforma Miro até o código em produção, oferecendo assim um modelo transferível para a execução de outros projetos geoespaciais multidisciplinares.
Palavras-chave:
Design Thinking; SIG centrado no usuário; Regularização fundiária
Introduction
It is acknowledged that information systems can present usability and functionality issues that affect their effectiveness and user satisfaction, and geospatial systems are no exception to this. These challenges often involve complex interfaces, overwhelming spatial data, and a misalignment between system capabilities and user needs (Roth et al. 2017). Such issues compromise the principles of cartographic communication, which aim to ensure the efficient transmission of spatial information from the map creator to the user (Sluter 2008). If users have difficulty interpreting or interacting with geospatial systems, the system’s usability is reduced and its ability to fulfil its objectives is undermined. While the concept of cartographic communication (Koláčný 1969) has been seminal to the field of cartography, significant and unresolved challenges remain in adequately incorporating user needs into map design (Griffin et al. 2017; Keates 1989; MacEachren 1995; Robinson & Petchenik 1975; Sluter, Van Elzakker & Ivánová 2017). This scenario highlights the importance of a perpetual improvement approach that considers user needs and promotes effective system design.
In addressing these challenges, it is therefore essential to adopt user-centred methodologies, which prioritise understanding and meeting user needs throughout the design and development process. The methods employed within this field include requirements engineering, User-centred Design (UCD), and design thinking. Van Elzakker (2004) emphasises the importance of understanding users’ tasks, problems, and contexts to enhance system usability. Requirements engineering originated in software engineering as a tool to improve system quality and has been adapted for use in geoinformation solutions over the years (Balley et al. 2014; Nubiato & Delazari 2021; Sluter, Van Elzakker & Ivánová 2017; Touzani et al. 2015). It is a well-established approach for systematically defining and managing the system’s required functionality.
Like other approaches to system development, it has been influenced and improved by the Agile Manifesto and the rise of agile methods. Subsequent to this, software development has transitioned from plan-driven to value-driven process models. Consequently, product development employing Agile methods is predominantly driven by human values, including collaboration, adaptability, and delivering value to end-users (Schön, Thomaschewski & Escalona 2017). Subsequently, agile solutions have been applied to GIS. As demonstrated in the “Integrated User-Centred Agile Software Development Framework for Web GIS Applications,” the integration of agile principles can enhance the design and usability of web-based geospatial systems (Antoun 2018). Hybrid development approaches, including human-centred Design, are used to develop products with a good User Experience (UX). UX principles aim to create intuitive interfaces, improve navigation, and increase user satisfaction in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) (Cybulski & Horbiński 2020). Within the UCD framework, Design Thinking offers a structured yet flexible approach that fosters innovation and collaboration, making it a potential method for addressing multidisciplinary challenges in geospatial projects. However, there are still a limited number of documented examples and roadmaps guiding the application of Design Thinking in geospatial systems, as well as the evaluation of this method’s application (Das et al. 2022; Goodspeed et al. 2016; Herman et al. 2024; Roth et al. 2024).
Research Objective and the TED-INCRA/UFPR Case Study
This study examines the application of Design Thinking to enhance the requirements gathering and development processes of cartographic projects. Specifically, it explores how to integrate Design Thinking with Agile methodologies to improve the design and development of geospatial projects.
The research draws upon the TED-INCRA/UFPR project as its case study (Lageamb/TED-Incra/UFPR 2024). In Brazil, a TED-Termo de Execução Descentralizada (Decentralised Execution Term)-enables the transfer of resources and responsibilities between federal bodies. Under TED No. 27/2021, the National Institute for Colonisation and Agrarian Reform (INCRA)-whose mission is to implement agrarian policy, manage federal public lands, maintain the national rural property registry and thereby contribute to sustainable development-delegated some of its activities to the Federal University of Paraná (UFPR). These activities include georeferencing, environmental regularisation and occupational supervision within Agrarian Reform Settlement Projects across Paraná. In the Brazilian context, a settlement refers to a tract of land subdivided by INCRA into multiple agricultural plots. Each plot is allotted to a landless family, who are required to reside on and cultivate the parcel using predominantly family labour (Damasceno et al. 2017). Settlements may derive from expropriated large estates or federal public lands, and they form the territorial nucleus for agrarian-reform policy implementation.
The resulting programme, formally titled the Land Regularisation Programme for Occupations in Rural Areas of the Union and INCRA in Paraná, now comprises eight interrelated projects. Developed through a partnership between UFPR and INCRA, the programme integrates document-management actions (P1 DM), georeferencing of settlement lots (P3 GEO), environmental monitoring (P4 ENV) and occupational supervision (P2 OS), alongside repository development (P6 DB), community outreach (P7 EXT) and overall project governance (P8 MGMT). Applied research, technological extension and service provision underpin these activities, which collectively address the complex land-regularisation challenges present in Paraná’s settlement areas and other federal rural lands. Following its establishment in 2021, the initiative was transformed into a programme comprising eight projects. This transformation occurred as part of a broader restructuring undertaken in 2023. Due to the complexity of managing vast amounts of geospatial data, the system must be constantly updated, open, accessible to society, and enable centralised management and data access. As illustrated in Figure 1, the eight projects involved in TED-INCRA/UFPR are subject to geospatial indicator monitoring through a dedicated dashboard. The development process of this system will serve as the focal use case for this article.
Recent research agendas repeatedly stress a persistent theory-to-practice gap in Cartography and GIScience. Scholars note that, despite technical advances, the discipline still struggles to translate research into policy and day-to-day workflows, in part because academic incentives often prioritise peer-reviewed papers over applied outputs (Çöltekin et al. 2017; Nelson et al. 2025). Practical deliverables, such as decision-support dashboards, often remain project-specific and non-transferable, and the limited dissemination of “bestpractice” examples further impedes uptake (Çöltekin et al. 2017). At the same time, userexperience insights are slow to permeate routine cartographic design, underscoring the need for systematic user involvement (Roth et al. 2017). Addressing this disconnect is critical for the field to achieve real-world impact, and case studies that document user-centred, designthinking workflows-like the TEDINCRA/UFPR dashboard presented here-provide actionable guidance that helps convert theoretical principles into operational geospatial tools (Fish et al. 2025; Robinson et al. 2017)
Methodology
The methodological approach adopted in the development of the TED-INCRA/UFPR Monitoring Dashboard combined principles of Design Thinking, participatory design, and agile software development to address the project’s multidisciplinary and data-intensive nature. Rather than applying a linear sequence of activities, the process was structured into iterative phases that involved engagement with users, co-design workshops, progressive prototyping, validation, and continuous refinement, culminating in deployment. The framework was inspired by the five stages of Design Thinking proposed by Doorley et al. (2018) -Empathy, Definition, Ideation, Prototyping, and Testing-but adapted to the specific demands of geospatial systems and collaborative data governance. These stages were integrated into a series of methodological steps that addressed real-world constraints and institutional workflows.
To operationalise the Design Thinking methodology in the development of the TED-INCRA/UFPR Monitoring Dashboard, the project was structured into a sequence of participatory and technical phases. Figure 2 illustrates this process. All activities were conducted with prior ethical approval from the Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Paraná (approval number: CAAE: 73395423.9.0000.0102 Decision Number: 6.564.353).
This diagram represents the concrete workflow adopted by the project team. The Empathy and Definition stages were addressed through requirement-gathering activities in Workshop 1. Ideation took place in Workshop 2, where participants collaboratively proposed indicators and visual structures. Testing took place during Workshop 3, where the wireframes were collectively evaluated. The Prototyping phase, in this context, extended beyond initial sketches, continuing into wireframe refinement and interaction with developers. The diagram also shows the Developer Handoff, Implementation, and a feedback loop between public access, approval panels, and successive iterations-highlighting how the project integrated agile development principles within a user-centred framework. This process ensured that the resulting system was not only technically robust but also usable, meaningful, and well-integrated into the operational routines of public monitoring and land governance.
Empathy and Requirement Gathering (Workshop 1)
The first workshop was held over three consecutive days, from November 7 to 9, 2023. It marked the project’s initial engagement with stakeholders through a structured and participatory process that aligned with the first two phases of the Design Thinking cycle: Empathy and Definition. The aim was to identify user needs and define technical and functional requirements collaboratively.
The creativity stage focused on identifying the essential requirements for the TED-INCRA/UFPR Dashboard. This process involved participatory design thinking methodologies, specifically brainstorming sessions, to capture diverse perspectives and ensure user-centricity in the project. Three participatory sessions, each lasting four hours, were organised, involving six stakeholders representing different TED-INCRA/UFPR activities, as well as a developer and a cartographer. Participants were carefully selected to ensure representativeness and maintain the project’s multidisciplinary nature. An impartial facilitator led each session to create an inclusive environment that encouraged the expression of multiple perspectives. The team analysed processes and identified the core requirements for the solution. The discussions aimed to improve the understanding of user-centred needs (Brown 2008) and enhance the effectiveness of the project development process.
Elements from Çöltekin & Goodman (2022) and Sluter (2008) served as the basis for a script of guiding questions that structured the workshops. This script integrates best practices and expert knowledge to ensure comprehensive coverage of topics, in line with the interdisciplinary nature of cartographic projects. The resulting roadmap provided a replicable framework for interpreting data and gathering requirements in similar projects. Grounded in expert input and literature, the framework presented in Figure 3 supports the information acquisition process and visualisation within an interdisciplinary context.
Ideation and Initial Prototyping (Workshop 2)
The second workshop-an extension event titled Requirements Analysis Workshop for the Monitoring Panel-was held on 5 July 2024 and marked the shift from requirement gathering to ideation and early prototyping. Following a concise overview of Requirements Engineering concepts for geospatial solutions (user stories and low-fidelity prototyping), participants were divided into project-specific teams. Their task was to sketch how their indicators should appear on the TED-INCRA/UFPR dashboard, validating data types and sources, assessing the feasibility of showing planned versus executed activities, pinpointing information locations and access, and confirming suitable chart formats for each indicator category.
Interactive discussions, collaborative sketching, preliminary visualisation reviews and work-plan analyses underpinned the session. Each team produced hand-drawn mock-ups and conceptual diagrams that captured visual logic, data filters, and data provenance. These artefacts were photographed and consolidated on a Miro board, whose layers recorded indicators, scanned sketches, and a first digital wireframe. By turning abstract requirements into tangible interface components, the workshop provided a critical design bridge, ensuring that dashboard development remained aligned with the multidisciplinary expertise of those producing, managing, and using the programme’s data, which can be seen in https://anonymous.4open.science/r/article_User-Centred_Cartography_in_Action_AIGEO-F92E/.
INCRA Team Validation (Workshop 3)
The third and final workshop, held at INCRA on August 14 , 2024, represented the Testing phase of the Design-Thinking cycle and differed from earlier sessions by uniting stakeholders from every TED-INCRA/UFPR project in a single validation exercise. After a brief overview of software engineering principles for geospatial systems, inspectors, developers, and coordinators jointly reviewed the mid-fidelity wireframes to assess whether the proposed dashboards met user expectations, institutional requirements, and technical constraints.
Working on shared Miro boards, participants annotated the layouts in real time, and their comments were later grouped by urgency and implementation effort to guide refinement. This collective scrutiny clarified ambiguities, confirmed the feasibility of interface components and reinforced priorities such as modular navigation and explicit TED-specific labelling. The resulting adjustments produced a final set of wireframes approved for development, effectively closing the participatory design phase and supplying a consensus-based blueprint for the build stage.
Wireframe Refinement and Development Integration
The transition from design to implementation was guided by an iterative and collaborative process that involved wireframe refinement, interface definition, data structuring, and planning of system architecture. This phase followed the Prototyping stage of the Design Thinking cycle, ensuring that the visual and functional components defined in earlier workshops were fully translated into a robust and scalable system.
The development of the TED-INCRA/UFPR Monitoring Dashboard began with the systematisation of data sources and indicator definitions. Each project team worked to identify datasets relevant to their operational areas, which were then consolidated into a shared indicator repository. This preparatory step ensured that the visualisation logic could be consistently applied across thematic modules and aligned with the requirements validated in the prior stages.
Once indicators and data structures were formalised, a final round of design review (April and May 2025) was conducted to refine the dashboard wireframes. These refinements focused on improving usability, standardising visual components, and enabling cross-project comparability. Key improvements implemented during the refinement phase addressed usability, coherence, and accessibility. A consistent top-level navigation menu was introduced to facilitate seamless transitions across project modules. Interactive components-such as dropdown filters by project, time period, and territory, as well as contextual links to documentation-enhanced user engagement and exploration. Visual coherence was achieved through standardised colour schemes and layout structures across the entire interface. In addition, accessibility measures were integrated, including adequate colour contrast and scalable font sizes to support inclusive usage. Finally, the dashboard layout was optimised for responsiveness, ensuring proper functionality across various screen sizes and devices.
Specifications for each wireframe component-including interaction patterns and visual styling-were compiled in a detailed design brief for the development team, ensuring clear alignment between the interface vision and implementation tasks.
Map Interface and Geospatial Integration
A central component of the dashboard is its interactive map, developed using the open-source Leaflet.js library. This map is fully integrated with the same PostgreSQL/PostGIS database used by the indicator visualisations, enabling dynamic, spatially referenced monitoring of TED-INCRA/UFPR project activities.
The map was organised into thematic geospatial layers corresponding to the project areas:
Project 1 (Document Management (DM)): Bounding boxes were generated from scanned, georeferenced, and vectorised cadastral maps.
Projects 2, 3, and 4 (Occupational Supervision (OS), Geodetic Surveying (GEO) and Environmental Monitoring (ENV)): Territorial units (Settlements - PAs) were spatially encoded and colour-coded based on activity status-planned, in progress, or completed. This classification allowed the simultaneous visualisation of overlapping project efforts within a given PA.
Project 5 (Land Registry Search (REG)): Spatialisation was performed at the comarca level (judicial district), with status indicators reflecting the evolution of documentation efforts.
Settlements not covered by TED: These were included as a separate grey layer, providing a broader institutional context.
This geospatial integration enables users to track project coverage and progress directly on an interactive, lightweight, and responsive map that complements the dashboard’s tabular and graphical views. A unified data-integration strategy underlies the entire system: each map layer and dashboard widget is linked to a verified, project-specific data source; every module displays an automated timestamp indicating when the underlying data were last refreshed; and validation procedures are applied during data preparation to safeguard consistency and integrity across all views.
Technological Architecture and Implementation
The TED-INCRA Dashboard was implemented as a web application based on a modular and scalable architecture (Figure 4), prioritising open-source technologies and interoperability. The core technologies included:
-
Backend: Python 3.12 and Django 5.1, with database operations via PostgreSQL/PostGIS.
-
Frontend: Vue.js 3.5 with UI components built using PrimeVue (4.1) and layout handling via PrimeFlex (3.3).
-
Charting: Graphs and indicators were implemented using Chart.js 4.4.
-
Mapping: The Leaflet.js framework powered the interactive geospatial layer, enabling integration with indicator logic via RESTful API endpoints.
Initially, the system was encapsulated into a single deployment unit (a monolithic container), simplifying the deployment process. Communication between the front-end and back-end layers relied on standard web protocols (HTTPS, HTML, CSS, and JSON), and interactions, such as loading map layers or generating charts, were handled through asynchronous requests and responses.
The final architecture was designed to support cloud-native deployment, containerisation, and DevOps pipelines. The deployment of each service was encapsulated and executed using Docker containers. Google Kubernetes Engine facilitated orchestration. The implementation of continuous integration and deployment (CI/CD) utilised GitLab pipelines, thereby enabling automated testing and delivery workflows. Two parallel environments were maintained: an Approval (staging) environment for internal testing and experimentation, and a Production environment hosting the stable public version, accessible at https://paineltedincra.lageamb.ufpr.br. The combination of scalable infrastructure, visual clarity, and geospatial integration rendered the dashboard a useful tool for monitoring progress, promoting transparency, and facilitating decision-making across the TED-INCRA/UFPR programme.
Results
First Workshop Round - System Requirements
As a consequence of the workshops, three sets of requirements were obtained. The data were then subjected to analysis and amalgamation to produce a unified list that would meet the satisfaction of the participants. The result of this process was the creation of a requirements list, which is presented in Table 1.
Second Workshop Round - Wireframe version 1
The ideation and initial prototyping workshop provided comprehensive insights across all thematic modules of the TED-INCRA dashboard. In the context of the Document Management module, participants placed significant emphasis on the need to monitor workflows, approval statuses, and document timelines. They also highlighted the importance of visualising distribution and access protocols for key repositories. In the Occupational Supervision module, critical indicators for field activity monitoring were identified, including geospatial visualisation of coverage, comparative displays of planned versus executed actions, and mechanisms for tracking non-compliance.
The Geodetic Surveying module emphasised the significance of incorporating technical spatial metrics and the monitoring of geodetic reference points. In the Map module, the centrality of the map interface was reaffirmed, requiring thematic layers, interactive filters, and clear symbology and legend standards to support cross-module data integration. Within the Environmental module, participants were tasked with defining essential indicators and temporal analysis tools. The Land Registry Search module focused on advanced filtering options, visualisations of property relationships and historical data tracking. During the session, a proposal was made for the implementation of an extension module (Project 7), informed by the recognition of semi-annual reporting structures. Consequently, this initiative led to the development of novel indicators, the proposal of a dedicated dashboard tab, and the formulation of strategies to monitor outreach and impact activities. Several cross-cutting visualisation preferences were identified. Participants consistently favoured comparative visualisations of planned versus executed activities, temporal trend analysis, geospatial displays and hierarchical drop-down menus (https://anonymous.4open.science/r/article_User-Centred_Cartography_in_Action_AIGEO-F92E/).
Third Workshop Round - Wireframe version 2
The final validation workshop yielded several insights that reshaped the dashboard before development commenced. Participants stressed that every visual element must clearly reference TED-INCRA data-not INCRA’s wider portfolio-prompting the inclusion of contextual cards and explicit labels throughout. Terminological complexity also surfaced as a barrier, leading to the decision to embed a comprehensive, in-page glossary. Users called for richer filtering tools: beyond the Settlement Project (PA), filters now cover comarca, municipality, and an urban-rural distinction, while temporal selectors enable year- and semester-level analysis. Percentage-based progress indicators, already favoured in earlier iterations, were confirmed as the preferred visual metric.
Feedback further endorsed the modular navigation scheme but requested clearer graph titles, links to supporting publications and refined technical terminology (e.g., adequação, demarcação, recibos de retificação). In response, the team integrated the glossary, expanded filter options, added new disaggregated graphs, clarified data-source specifications and introduced quantitative displays of geodetic vertex types. Collectively, these refinements enhanced data clarity, navigability and user comprehension, providing a robust, stakeholder-approved blueprint for the subsequent development phase. The wireframe constructed from this feedback is shown in https://anonymous.4open.science/r/article_User-Centred_Cartography_in_Action_AIGEO-F92E/.
Implementation
The development phase culminated in the public release of the TED-INCRA Monitoring Dashboard (https://paineltedincra.lageamb.ufpr.br; https://paineltedincra.lageamb.ufpr.br/dashboard). Guided by insights from three participatory workshops, the team translated mid-fidelity wireframes into a fully functional, user-centred system organised in eight thematic modules that mirror the program’s projects. The modular architecture retained from validation presents each project in its tab beneath a shared top-level menu, while rich filters permit exploration by settlement (PA), municipality, comarca, and time period. An on-page glossary, sourced from the TED-INCRA work plan, resolves specialist terminology, and prominent update cards reassure users of data currency.
Visualisation choices were tuned to stakeholder preferences: percentage progress bars, planned versus executed bar charts, and semester time-series graphs deliver performance at a glance. Consistent colour palettes, explicit graph titles, and a Leaflet map that amalgamates spatial indicators from Projects 1-5 further support clarity and rapid navigation. The underlying Django/Vue application is cloud deployable and integrates automated data refresh, ensuring scalability and transparency. Two additional modules, already sketched in the wireframes, are being finalised and will be added in upcoming releases. However, the current build already offers a robust and adaptable monitoring tool that aligns with INCRA’s land management mandate and UFPR’s research objectives, demonstrating the value of iterative, design-thinking-led development.
Conclusion
This case study confirms that a university-public sector partnership, grounded in Design Thinking and Agile delivery, can translate academic user-centric principles into an operational geospatial system. The step-by-step workflow (Figure 2) provided explicit traceability: requirements captured in Workshop 1 were visualised on a multi-layer Miro board in Workshop 2; validated and prioritised changes from Workshop 3 were embedded in the sprint backlog; and each modification is visible in the final Django/Vue implementation (Figure 4).
Rather than focusing solely on technical system implementation, the process treated the map as an integrated cartographic system rather than an isolated visual artefact. Core cartographic concerns were foregrounded throughout the workflow, including the definition of mapped phenomena, the selection of spatial units and scales, the choice of symbology and classification schemes for communicating project status, and the role of metadata, filters, and terminology in supporting interpretation. These user-validated cartographic decisions structured not only individual map views but the overall dashboard layout, layer organisation, and interaction mechanisms, ensuring that the resulting system supports INCRA’s land-management mandates while remaining intelligible to non-technical users.Beyond the immediate deliverable, the study contributes a replicable methodological package: (i) a mixed-methods workshop script for eliciting geospatial requirements, (ii) a Miro-based prototyping approach that maintains design provenance, and (iii) a lightweight, open-source architecture that couples Leaflet.js with a PostgreSQL/PostGIS backend and GitLab CI/CD. Together, these elements demonstrate how Design Thinking can be institutionalised within public-data infrastructures, narrowing the persistent research-to-practice divide and offering a roadmap for future cartographic projects that demand both methodological rigour and tangible stakeholder value.
Acknowledgements
We acknowledge CAPES for the financial support provided for the development of this research.
References
- Antoun, J. A. 2018, ‘Cartographic Design and Interaction: An Integrated User-Centered Agile Software Development Framework for Web GIS Applications’, Master’s Thesis, University of Southern California. 2018.
-
Balley, S., Baella, B., Christophe, S., Pla, M., Regnauld, N. & Stoter, J., ‘Map Specifications and User Requirements’, in D. Burghardt, C. Duchêne & W. Mackaness (eds), 2014 Abstracting Geographic Information in a Data Rich World, Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography, Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp. 17-52, viewed 28 July 2025, 17-52, viewed 28 July 2025, http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-00203-3_2.
» http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-3-319-00203-3_2. - Brown, T. 2008, ‘Design thinking’, Harvard business review, vol. 86, no. 6, p. 84.
- Çöltekin, A., Bleisch ,S., Andrienko ,G. & Dykes, J. 2017, ‘Persistent challenges in geovisualization - a community perspective’, International Journal of Cartography, vol. 3, no. sup1, pp. 115-39.
-
Çöltekin, A. & Goodman, A. 2022, Guiding visualization practice with questions: 10qviz. org, viewed 25 July 2025,< org, viewed 25 July 2025,http://coltekin.net/arzu/publications/coltekin_goodman_shortpaper_IEEE_visguides.pdf >.
» http://coltekin.net/arzu/publications/coltekin_goodman_shortpaper_IEEE_visguides.pdf - Cybulski, P. & Horbiński, T. 2020, ‘User Experience in Using Graphical User Interfaces of Web Maps’, ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, vol. 9, no. 7, p. 412.
-
Damasceno, R., Chiavari, J. & Lopes, C. 2017, Evolution of land rights in rural Brazil, Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), Rio de Janeiro, viewed 25 July 2025, < 2017, Evolution of land rights in rural Brazil, Climate Policy Initiative (CPI), Rio de Janeiro, viewed 25 July 2025, https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Evolution_of_Land_Rights_In_Rural_Brazil_CPI_FinalEN.pdf >.
» https://www.climatepolicyinitiative.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Evolution_of_Land_Rights_In_Rural_Brazil_CPI_FinalEN.pdf -
Das, S., Ganguly, K., Mitran, T. & Chakraborty, S.D. 2022, ‘Applications of Geospatial and Information Technologies Toward Achieving Sustainable Development Goals’, in V.P. Singh, S. Yadav, K.K. Yadav, G.A. Corzo Perez, F. Muñoz-Arriola & R.N. Yadava (eds), Application of Remote Sensing and GIS in Natural Resources and Built Infrastructure Management, Springer International Publishing, Cham , pp. 1-27, viewed 14 November 2024, DOI:10.1007/978-3-031-14096-9_1
» https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-14096-9_1 -
Doorley, S., Holcomb, S., Klebahn, P., Segovia, K. & Utley, J. 2018, Design Thinking Bootleg, viewed 25 July 2025, < 2018, Design Thinking Bootleg, viewed 25 July 2025, https://dschool.stanford.edu/tools/design-thinking-bootleg >.
» https://dschool.stanford.edu/tools/design-thinking-bootleg - Fish, C.S., Roth, R.E., Raposo, P., Guidero, E.M. & Sui, Z. 2025, ‘Why conduct cartographic research: a comparison of cartographic research contributions in four International Cartographic Association (ICA) affiliated journals’, International Journal of Cartography , vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 190-215.
- Goodspeed, R., Riseng, C., Wehrly, K., Yin, W., Mason, L. & Schoenfeldt, B. 2016, ‘Applying design thinking methods to ecosystem management tools: Creating the Great Lakes Aquatic Habitat Explorer’, Marine Policy, vol. 69, pp. 134-45.
- Griffin, A.L., White, T., Fish, C., Tomio, B., Huang, H., Sluter, C.R., Bravo, J.V.M., Fabrikant, S.I., Bleisch, S., Yamada, M. & Picanço, P. 2017, ‘Designing across map use contexts: a research agenda’, International Journal of Cartography , vol. 3, no. sup1, pp. 90-114.
- Herman, K., Ramlatchan, M. & Herman, R. 2024, ‘In Consideration of Context: The Potential of Geographic Information Systems (GIS)’, TechTrends, vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 161-73.
- Keates, J.S. 1989, Cartographic Design Production, Addison-Wesley, Harlow.
- Koláčný, A. 1969, ‘Cartographic Information - a Fundamental Concept and Term in Modern Cartography’, The Cartographic Journal, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 47-9.
-
Lageamb/TED-Incra/UFPR, 2024, viewed 25 July 2025, <Lageamb/TED-Incra/UFPR, 2024, viewed 25 July 2025, https://lageamb.ufpr.br/ted-incra/ >.
» https://lageamb.ufpr.br/ted-incra/ - MacEachren, A.M. 1995, How Maps Work: Representation, Visualization, and Design, 1st edition., The Guilford Press, New York.
- Nelson, T., Frazier, A. E., Kedron, P., Dodge, S., Zhao, B., Goodchild, M., Murray, A., Battersby, S., Bennett, L., Blanford, J. I., Cabrera-Arnau, C., Claramunt, C., Franklin, R., Holler, J., Koylu, C., Lee, A., Manson, S., McKenzie, G., Miller, H., Oshan, T., Rey, S., Rowe, F., Şalap-Ayça, S., Shook, E., Spielman, S., Xu, W. & Wilson, J. 2025, ‘A research agenda for GIScience in a time of disruptions’, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 1-24.
- Nubiato, E.L. & Delazari, L.S. 2021, ‘O Cenário de Editais de Licitação Pública de Sistema de Informação Territorial para Administrações Municipais: Diagnóstico e Proposta de Requisitos Utilizando Técnicas de Engenharia de Requisitos’, Revista Brasileira de Cartografia, vol. 73, no. 2, pp. 375-89.
- Robinson, A.C., Demšar, U., Moore, A.B., Buckley, A., Jiang, B., Field, K., Kraak, M.-J., Camboim, S.P. & Sluter, C.R. 2017, ‘Geospatial big data and cartography: research challenges and opportunities for making maps that matter’, International Journal of Cartography , vol. 3, no. sup1, pp. 32-60.
- Robinson, A.H. & Petchenik, B.B. 1975, ‘The Map as a Communication System’, The Cartographic Journal , vol. 12, no. 1, pp. 7-15.
- Roth, R.E., Çöltekin, A., Delazari, L., Denney, B., Mendonça, A., Ricker, B.A., Shen, J., Stachoň, Z. & Wu, M. 2024, ‘Making maps & visualizations for mobile devices: A research agenda for mobile-first and responsive cartographic design’, Journal of Location Based Services, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 408-78.
- Roth, R.E., Çöltekin, A., Delazari, L., Filho, H.F., Griffin, A., Hall, A., Korpi, J., Lokka, I., Mendonça, A., Ooms, K. & van Elzakker, C.P.J.M. 2017, ‘User studies in cartography: opportunities for empirical research on interactive maps and visualizations’, International Journal of Cartography , vol. 3, no. sup1, pp. 61-89.
-
Schön, E.-M., Thomaschewski, J. & Escalona, M. J. 2017, ‘Agile Requirements Engineering: A Systematic Literature Review’, Computer Standards & Interfaces, v. 49, p. 79-91, DOI: 10.1016/j.csi.2016.08.011
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csi.2016.08.011 - Sluter, C.R. 2008, ‘Uma abordagem sistêmica para o desenvolvimento de projeto cartográfico com parte do processo de comunicação’, Portal de Cartografia das Geociências, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 01-20.
- Sluter, C.R., Van Elzakker, C.P.J.M. & Ivánová, I. 2017, ‘Requirements Elicitation for Geo-information Solutions’, The Cartographic Journal , vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 77-90.
-
Touzani, M., Laurent, A., Rouge, T.L. & Quinqueton, J. 2015, Towards Geographic Requirements Engineering, viewed 25 July 2025, < 2015, Towards Geographic Requirements Engineering, viewed 25 July 2025, https://hal-lirmm.ccsd.cnrs.fr/lirmm-01230140 >.
» https://hal-lirmm.ccsd.cnrs.fr/lirmm-01230140 -
Van Elzakker, C. P. 2004, The use of maps in the exploration of geographic data, https://research.utwente.nl/files/313522309/vanelzakker.pdf
» https://research.utwente.nl/files/313522309/vanelzakker.pdf
