Posts Tagged ‘VGI’

VGI vs PPGIS …. or just VGI

Tuesday, November 11th, 2014

I have to say, I do agree with some aspects of this article, “Is VGI participation? From vernal pools to video games”, but in majority, I disagree with it. In my understanding, PPGIS is a way for the public to be engaged in decision making by allowing them to incorporate local knowledge, integration and contextualization of complex spatial information and therefore active interactions of participant as well as empowerment of involved individuals and communities is possible, from Professor Sieber’s article: “Public Participation Geographic Information Systems: A Literature Review and Framework”. As for the VGI, its definition is known as: “the widespread engagement of large numbers of private citizens, often with little in the way of formal qualifications, in the creation of geographic information…I term this volunteered geographic information (VGI), a special case of the more general Web phenomenon of user-generated content…” from Goodchild’s article “Citizens as Sensors: The World of Volunteered Geography”. We should pay more attention to the part “more general Web phenomenon of user-generated content”. Therefore, it seems like all the convergence displayed in Tulloch’s article is because VGI encompass PPGIS and that VGI has slightly larger area to cover than PPGIS.

In addition, as mentioned above, PPGIS has a specific purpose and goal and often involve rather specific local population than general public, whereas VGI is more extensive. Furthermore, Tulloch also mentioned that: “One of the fundamental distinctions may turn out to be that VGI is more about applications and information while PPGIS seems more concerned with process and outcomes”, and doesn’t process and outcomes generated through applications and based on information? Perhaps I am oversimplifying this, but then again, it seems quite obvious in my perspective.


Marginalized communities and qualitative data

Friday, February 10th, 2012

Throughout reading Elwood’s article, marginalized communities came to mind, mostly because of the certain level of rigidity in her review of emerging geoviz technologies. I found it particularly interesting of the comparison that was made between ‘public’ and ‘expert’ technologies, where the status-quo of GIS comprises of the ‘expert’ (standardization of data) realm is threatened by the ‘public’ (wiki, geo-tagging, Web 2.0, VGI) realm. I agree with Andrew “GIS” Funa’s point on standardization. What is our inherent need to do this with all of our data? And what happens when standardization cannot be applied? More specifically, how relevant is an expert technology to marginalized communities if no one is willing to apply that technology?

There is a mention of ‘excitement’ and high hopes, which authors have for new geoviz technologies to represent urban environments; however the article does not expand any further. The article does, however, note the term ‘naive geography’ and its “qualitative forms of spatial reasoning” (259). Presuming one can safely state that representing marginalized populations is a qualitative problem, ‘expert’ technologies tend to not focus on these issues. According to Elwood, qualitative problems are more difficult than quantitative problems, “where exact measurements or consistent mathematical techniques are more easily handled” (259). So what do we do about unstructured, shifting, context-dependent human thought? So should we not try to digitally represent these data because it may be too difficult to decipher? To draw linkages and discover patterns? Will qualitative data always be at a loss because it will not fit an exact algorithm? I think we should take the spark of hope that MacEachren and Kraak gave us and strive beyond some of the limitations outlined by Elwood.

-henry miller