Table 2 Quality evaluation

0=does not meet standard

Incomplete

Unable to discuss around the topic; lack of discussion on previous studies

GIS was not applied

Incomplete

Not articulated

1=nearly meets standard

Roughly articulated

Able to engage in discussion within the research field; able to connect with previous work

Applied GIS databases

Basic results; can summarize research findings

Able to articulate but not necessarily practical or persuasive

2=meets standard

Clearly articulated

Clearly explained the current research field; related to previous research; clear expression

In addition to databases, can apply one function of GIS

Complete; able to express results in text and data/charts

Relatively fully articulated

3=exceeds standard

Scientifically and clearly proposed objectives

Able to comprehensively introduce the research field; focusing on the topic; closely linked to previous research; able to propose new personal perspectives

Able to use two or more functions of GIS

Clear expression; able to combine graphics and text for explanation; expand around the topic; able to answer questions raised; able to connect with previous research

Persuasive from theory or practice; unique insights and contributions