Computers, Society, and Nature

The emergence of new geovisualization technologies such as Google maps and Google earth are revolutionizing the way people interact with GIS. Contrary to software based programs, these web based applications allow for unprecedented access, at no cost, to powerful visualization technologies. In addition, previously text based web apps, such as Facebook and twitter are now incorporating spatial components. For example, a person is now able to tag their exact location, down to a particular building, when they update their status on Facebook. Web-based geovisualization technologies are growing in popularity because most of them are free, very easy to access (usually only an internet connection is required), and they allow for the standardization and greater sharing of spatial data. This last point is extremely important because it has opened up a wealth of research applications. For example, a researcher in Greenland might be tracking ice flows, while a researcher in northern Canada may be tracing the migration patterns of polar bears. Web based geovisualization technologies such as Google earth now allow both researchers to interpolate their data on the same map; opening avenues for further research, such as how season ice flows affect polar bear migration patterns.

On other point that must be brought up, and that was addressed well by Elwood, is the heterogeneity of the huge amounts of data being generated by these new geovisualization technologies. Thanks to these technologies, large and diverse data-sets are now available covering a wide variety of user-imputed geospatial data. However, an important challenge for the future will be how to standardize these data-sets, as much of the data is based on opinions rather than standard data-points. Most people have shifting meanings on how they perceive their local geographical points. Standardization will also be important as datasets become larger and larger, requiring more automation of analysis.

-Victor Manuel

Claus Rinner delves into the increasing importance of Web 2.0 applications in spatial analysis and decision making process. He highlights the fact that, with the advent of more advanced and easy to use web apps, local geographic knowledge is increasingly being included in decision making processes.  More specifically, the emergence of web based GIS apps, such as Google maps, yahoo maps etc. has made basic spatial analysis extremely easy for the average user. Densham highlights the fact that these tools have a relatively similar interface, making them both faster and easier to use.

I find the evolution of web based apps extremely interesting. As more and more people use these apps, tons of of geodata is produced. This in turn provides of a huge database of potential data for multitudes of spatial analysis and research projects. Apart from obvious ethical issues, I believe this type of data will revolutionize both the research and decision making process, in a wide variety of fields.

One particular aspect of the case study conducted by Dersham was how the use of web based mapping software could be used to enhance a discussion forum. Throughout the discussion, the mapping feature provided for more focused discussion on the particular geographic areas that the participants were interested in. It was interesting to see how through the analysis of the geospatial data, it was visually apparent that most of the discussion members wanted to focus on improving a specific are of their school campus. This holds many implications for various fields, such as sustainable development, where policies could be better tailored to be most effective, based on the analysis of user provided spatial data.

Overall, Web based concepts seem to be evolving quickly and becoming more and more integral to spatial analysis. As these technologies continue to develop, spatial decision making should become much more effective.

Victor Manuel

Densham gives a good account, albeit very dated (1991) of the basic characteristics of spatial decision support systems. Densham chooses to focus on the importance of these systems in decision making processes, arguing that they are more adaptable to the complex characteristics that must be factored in by decision makers.  He concludes that further development would allow decision makers to solve more complex spatial problems.

As I read through the article, the one recurring thought that kept coming to my mind was how much the field of GIS has evolved since the article was written. Spatial decision support systems have evolved tremendously with the influx of huge amounts of user based geodata. This in turn has led to more complex spatial analysis, with ever changing factors in space and time.One component I found well written was the distinction between GIS and SDSS. Densham highlights the shortcomings of GIS, mainly the lack of Geographical Information Analysis capabilities. He goes on to give a good description of SDSS, albeit one that was much more relevant during the time of writing. The age of the article becomes even more relevant when Densham goes on to the describe some of the problems facing the evolution of SDSS. Modern technology, such large increasing in computing power, have completely evolved SDSS into dynamic models that are affected by a multitude of changing characteristics.

Overall, the article gives great insight into the early days of SDSS. However, modern technology has rendered many of the issues brought up by Dersham rather obsolete.

-Victor Manuel

One of the most interesting debates within the discipline of GIS is whether it should be categorized as a “tool”, employed to solve problems in other disciplines; or whether it should be considered a “science” in its own. Although the article is relatively dated, Wright et.al bring up some interesting points about the debate. It is interesting to note that from its inception, up until the time period during which the large debate that was sparked on the GIS-L listserv in 1993, GIS was employed almost unanimously as a tool in order to advance a specific focus. However, this huge exchange of opinions by scholarly sources, along with the rapid development of technology, has greatly changed the field of GIS.

Miller does a great job of summarizing and analyzing the GIS-L debate of 1993, which at the time was an unprecedented interaction on an online forum between scholarly individuals and their colleagues around the world. It is fascinating to see, from the provided excerpts, how the argument developed over time. Before considering a solution to the argument, It is vial to define what “science” actually is. This, however, is problematic because science can be defined in so many ways, and sometimes incorrectly! Miller identifies science as “a logical and systematic approach to problems that seek generelizable answers”. But does a complex field such as GIS fit into this category? Miller hits the nail on the head when he concludes that GIS represents a continuum between tool and science. However, it is clear that out of all the ranges on the continuum, GIS must be considered a science because it encompasses the analysis of issues raised by the use of GIS.

– Victor Manuel

Historically, place based representation in Geographic Information Systems has been the norm.  However, in an ever increasingly complex and interconnected world, place-based methods are becoming more and more inadequate, especially with regards to Transportation GIS and urban GIS. Miller proposes that a people based method is required in order to better address  the complex spatial and temporal patterns in peoples lives. A space-time perspective views the  person in space and time as the center of social and economic phenomena.

Miller states that space-time activity (STA) data, which is collected through information technologies (IT) such as mobile phones, gps, etc is crucial to this method. One particular characteristic  that I found very interesting was the traditional methods of collection. STA data is usually collected in 4 ways: recall methods, stylized recall methods, diary methods, and prospective methods. However, each of these methods is flawed by the fact that they are entirely dependent on independent input from the test subjects. As is the case with a survey based approach, individual bias and error can severely affect the accuracy of the data. Miller does a good job of citing the substantial problems with these traditional approaches

It is also interesting to note how the evolution of IT technologies, or more specifically GPS and location based services, can enhance the collection of activity data.  This is very fascinating because it signifies the fact that a people based approach to data collection will increase and become significantly more reliable and accurate with time.One issue I do have with this approach is ethics surrounding the collection of data. Although STA can provide an important pattern of human activity, it may also infringe upon certain ethical issues, most chiefly privacy. Therefore, creating a method of collection STA that is not only accurate and unbiased, but chiefly anonymous, will be key to any development within the field in the future.

-Victor Manuel