Harvey J. Miller’s article on the role of people in GIS raises an interesting question on fundamental analysis underlaying urban GIS use. Traditionally, GIS uses a ‘place-based’ analysis however that fails to capture many of the essential elements that should be analyzed within the urban context. After all, transportation and urbanism are essential the expansion of people, so they should be more easily analysed using a people-based model. This difference can be hard to wrap your head around but picture these two scenarios of a student’s day at McGill, analysed using place-based (1) and activity theory (2):
1) all the different McGill buildings are places, about every hour a certain amount of students enter and exit each building, where the activities change in each class room within the building.
2) examining each individual as their physical environment changes, the trips they take from one class to another, and what they have learned where. How long they spent in each class versus how time they spent in the libraries studying for those classes, etc…
The advantage, in this case, to using activity theory is that you are able to establish pattern and purpose in the individuals action. In a world where people are constantly moving around while others are trying to figure out what exactly it is that they are searching for, this type of analysis can prove to be extremely useful.
To feed some fire to the debate on GIS as a tool or science, it is clear that Miller operates using GIS as a science since he questions the underlying concepts upon which place-based analysis is conducted (with regards to urban environments). Activity theory shows us what people – extremely mobile in this day and age – do with their limited amount of time that they are given. Place-based analysis does not capture the flux of people in a way that is capable of demonstrating the way peoples thoughts affect their actions. That is in essence, what everyone wants to know…
Pointy McPolygon