Computers, Society, and Nature

“Temporal GIS and Spatio-Temporal Modeling” by Yuan explores the development of temporal GIS and its applicability to support spatio-temporal modeling, highlighting the challenges associated with temporal modeling of spatial information and pointing to avenues for future research.
Before reading this article, I had not fully appreciated the complexity and difficulty of creating a temporal GIS. The importance of creating a database structure that effectively anticipates the types of spatio-temporal questions to be investigated was well emphasized. While this paper focused on exploring spatio-temporal physical phenomena, similar issues are relevant in the investigation of human or behavioral phenomena, such as spatial social network analyses, migration patterns of time, changes in urbanscapes etc.
The relationships of temporal GIS with other topics in GIScience are numerous. For example, ontologies of time and space need to be properly established to construct a good temporal GIS that facilitates data analysis, and enables interoperability between datasets. Moreover, concerns over geo-spatial metadata are compounded when you consider geo-spatial temporal data. Is temporal information captured in the metadata or is incorporated in the data structure (and is such a distinction (between data and metadata) even meaningful in this context). Issues of temporal scale become important: To what level of precision is temporal data recorded, and what are the implications of temporal aggregation in accurately conveying temporal dimension of a phenomenon?
The questions that arise when exploring the temporal component of spatial phenomenon emphasize the scientific dimension of GIS and highlight the importance of studying GIS as science as instead of as a tool.

Fan_G

When institutions adopt a new technology there are bound to be issues associate with that technology’s implementation.  This paper described two instances where different institutions began using GIS as a decision-making aid.  Despite using an identical technology, the two government organizations had very different approaches to how to integrate their new tool.

The North County’s organization-wide adoption and promotion of the new tool sought to ensure all employees were fluent in the use of ArcInfo which attributed to the software’s success in this county.  Furthermore, the North County’s employees had a history of working with geospatial data making the new software an easy transition.  In the South County however, the software was only used by a very small group of computer scientists / analysts who were unfamiliar with geospatial data.

I think when adopting any new process or technology there has to be significant attention paid to how well an organization is structured to handle change.  In the North, analysts were use to changing technology regarding how geospatial data would be handled.  In the South, a rigid system overly reliant on one group of computer specialists resulted in a missed opportunity to have a staff team better trained in the handling of geographic data.

As this paper was written almost twenty years ago I would be interested in knowing how other organizations have implemented the use of GIS in more recent years.  I assume, though I could be incorrect, that as younger, more computer savvy people enter the workforce that barriers to the implementation of certain technologies will decrease.

GoOutside

In “Organizational Context, Social Interpretation, and the Implementation and Consequences of Geographic Information Systems”, Sahay & Robey (1996) analyse the implementation of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technologies in two unidentified North American counties. The result of this implementation was closely to each county’s context, specifically the “structure” and the “capability”.

In the North County, the “unified structure facilitated the implementation of GIS as a distributed system because the departments shared a common mission” (266). In the South County, because of the decentralized agencies structure, the Office of Computer Services controlled the GIS and worked on a contractual basis for the users in other departments. Moreover, the users in the North County included many geographers who were used to working with spatial data. This was not the case for the Computer Services personnel in the South County. The structure and capability of the North County allowed its GIS implementation to flourish, and caused South County to falter.

Because people’s backgrounds affect how they use GIS — “People with data processing backgrounds emphasized technical standards, controls, formats, and product appearance in terms of menus and screen layouts. […] Users were more interested in the capabilities of the system to support their needs” (271) — and GIS implementations have different results depending on the context, it seems that standards are especially important. Is it possible that the different counties could yield such different data that they would be incompatible?

Given that this article was written 18 years ago, I wonder how GIS implementation has changed. With the average person becoming more tech-savvy and commercial GIS package being more use-friendly, are GIS implementations easier to carry out? Do the same factors still affect the implementation?

-IMC

“Organizational Context, Social Interpretation, and the Implementation and Consequences of Geographic Information Systems” by Sahay & Robey (1996) provides a framework for understanding the process of GIS implementation in local governments. The comparative analysis identifies essential organizational characteristics needed for effective implementation, and reveals how the social construction of technology affects how it is subsequently integrated into an organization.
The implications of the study of GIS implementation for GIScience are multiple. Most notably, the implementation and diffusion of GIS in various organizations has enabled and sustained the development of GI technologies and GIScience. The emergence of sub-topics in GIScience such as geovisualization, location based services, ontologies and GIS clouds can be partially attributed to the the widespread use of GI systems. Moreover, the conceptual frameworks developed through the study of GIS implementation can be applied to evaluate the implementation of other GI technologies and innovations including, GIS cloud computing,  LBS, open data initiatives, metadata standards etc. The establishment of GIS has also facilitated interoperability between department of the same organization and enable inter-organizational spatial data sharing.
The study of GIS implementation invokes the debate that underpins this course: Is GIS a tool or a science? Does the study of GIS implementation, the study of the implementation of a tool, undermine GIscience? Or does the very study of GIS implementation secure its place as science?
I would argue that the dynamic nature of GIS implementation, and the fluid conceptualization of GIS, calls for the development of theories to better explicate the process, placing GIS implementation as topic within the field of GIScience. But that is up for discussion!

Fan_G

Sahay, S. & Robey, D. (1996) “Organizational Context, Social Interpretation, and the Implementation and Consequences of Geographic Information Systems”. Accounting, Management & Information Technology, 6(4): 255-282.

Sahay & Robey (1996) find that geographic information systems (GIS), as a social constructed technologies, are subject to diverse social interpretations. Moreover, they argue that GIS has a plurality of definitions, meanings, and applications due to the numerous groups that encounter the GIS technologies (255). To say that a GIS has been implemented is therefore much more than plugging in a computer and running an application.

The authors acknowledge that GISs are a unique case of relational information systems, corroborating the spatial is special argument. In the case study, Sahay & Robey discover that educational background affects the integration of GIS into the workplace. Formal education in geography—emphasizing a geospatial outlook on the world—created the fertile environment for GIS implementation to take hold. I would argue that early exposure to the “common language” of GIS users, “speaking in terms of latitude, longitude, geo-coding, and other geographical concepts” puts geographers at a distinct advantage (268). In contrast, the tech-savvy computer scientists of the South County were at a considerable disadvantage. One technician remarked that he had never worked with graphics before (272). This would definitely skew the conclusions of Sahay & Robey’s research. GIS privileges some groups above others.

This paper considers differences in GIS implementation at an organizational level, but it forgoes socioeconomic and cultural complexity. As this paper was written in 1996, I presume the global entrainment of GIS technologies would largely have been limited to the governments of developed countries. In a contemporary version of this paper I would like to see the transgression of the barrier between the developed world and the developing world. I suspect that economic and social factors will be more pronounced in developing countries and the risks of adoption will have greater repercussions.

-BCBD

Guptill, S. C. (1999) Metadata and data catalogues

Guptill (1999) provides a good overview of metadata and their application to GISystems. Guptill explains how data catalogues function via metadata and describes how domain specificity complicates the picture. Technical and technological applications of metadata are broken down to exemplify how metadata facilitate interoperability.

The concept of metadata standards is delivered and a number of landmark examples are introduced. Absent from this article, however, is the unraveling of the politics of metadata creation and standardization. FGDC, ISO, Dublin Core and others did not just happen across the perfect element set. Some were created independently and some were built off other’s templates. Additionally, metadata standards are generally skewed towards geomatic and technical elements across the board. The focus of this article on the technical and technological aspects of metadata speaks to lack of qualitative metadata.   Guptill does not showcase the negotiation process of creating a standard, different groups with varying interests come together to produce a standard – especially at higher levels of governance.

One of the chief ramifications of metadata on GIScience and beyond is interoperability. Crosswalks and other forms of (meta)data mediation will be critical to support these ever-expanding structures. This article presents an optimistic view on the future of metadata, predicting its future use as the bridge between domain specificity. Guptill notes that for such a system to work, description and vocabulary need to be formalized (684). There is no mention of how concretizing descriptions and vocabulary into a formalized language would constrain our understanding of the world and inevitably exclude perspectives.

Metadata and standards are inherently political.

-BCBD

“Metadata and data catalogues” by S.C Guptill provides a comprehensive and clear overview of metadata. However, the level of this text is introductory. Issues associated with the definition metadata, its uses/ applications and the politics associated with the establishments of metadata standards are merely glossed over. Indeed, metadata is ubiquitous and its definition largely depends on what you consider data to be: one person’s metadata may be another person’s data. As opposed to viewing metadata and data as two discrete concepts, I propose they be viewed along a continuum, where the distinguishing line is often blurred. In a similar way, the application of metadata are only superficially described, limiting the discussion to catalogues and clearinghouses. Metadata is in fact necessary or associated to many aspect of GIScience including ontologies (what meaning are captured by the different metadata fields and how does that affect the creation of crosswalks, for example), Location based services,  which rely on metadata for App creation; geovisualization (metadata is needed to properly display or represent data (e.g  geographic projections, scales etc) and can also be displaced visually, allowing us to glean information and giving rise to new research questions), and the retrieval of Big Data and information of the Geoweb, to name but a few.

The political issues associated with who sets standards, who decides what is included in the standards and the power dynamics at play are also worth considering in greater detail.

Nevertheless, this article was a good read, offering a comprehensive review of metadata.

Fan_G

In his article “A critical evaluation of Location Based Services (LBS) and their potential” discusses the opportunities and challenges associated with LBS.

The article provided a detailed overview of the technical implications of LBS, but I felt that the discussion was a bit thin when it came to describing the social, political, cultural and economic implications of LBS. This is likely a reflection of the paucity of research rather than a deliberate oversight. Nevertheless such issues deserve greater consideration within the field of GIScience research as they echo some of the themes present  in other GIScience topics (e.g. VGI, PPGIS, Ontology, Metadata). Concerns of privacy, interoperability, passive or active release of personal geographic information, as well as understanding of place and space are only some of the issues that deserve greater attention.

LBS have the potential to alter how we engage with the the environment and people. They can be leveraged to increase the efficiency of our day to day life, but they also forever alter how we perceive, understand and navigate through our surroundings.While the ‘cool’ factor of this technology encourages wide spread adoption and approval of LBS, I think social discussion about its implications is warranted.

Fan_G

I found this article, “A critical evaluation of location-based services and their potential” by Raper et al., to be an important one to read. I felt that they did a good job of covering all the important aspects required to form a base knowledge of L.B.S.’s. Since the article was the first article of the Journal of Location-based Services, their goal was to provide a survey of the key issues and background aspects of L.B.S.’s. After reading multiple other articles on this topic, it is clear they delivered a strong summary, especially the technological background. They could have improved, however, upon the implications to businesses and the relationship between them, consumers and Location-based services.

An important aspect that was lightly touched upon in this article was the potential privacy implications that arise with the development of tracking capabilities in L.B.S.’s. As was noted on page 16, an important purpose of tracking analysis is the extrapolation of past travel behavior as well as the prediction of future travel behavior. Further research should be conducted into the ways in which people’s location data is stored and what it can be used for after this data has been used for its original purpose. Instead of (or perhaps in addition to) the traditional maxim ‘you are what you buy’, a new one is being developed: ‘you are where you’ve been’. While I don’t agree that it is such a terrible prospect, caution should be taken to try and limit corporate/government intrusion into the lives of an unsuspecting public.

-Benny

I found this article, “Metadata and data catalogues” by Guptill, to be an interesting, if a bit tedious, read. Section 2.6, especially, was a little dry and technical, but overall the author made the text engaging. One idea that seemed interesting was where the author discussed the practical limits which faced metadata collection. At the time of writing, this limit was “often reached by the effort required to collect the information” (pg. 680). If there were technological advancements, perhaps in the field of spatial cyber-infrastructure, this limit could be surpassed and metadata collection might improve. It is also possible that if metadata was able to be associated with each piece of data or attribute, the end user of the metadata could be inundated with un-necessary noise and the process could be hindered. I would imagine a balance would need to be struck somewhere along the way.

Another theme I thought was important in this paper was that of standardization and interoperability. Since there seemed to be many different structures for metadata, as well as efforts to consolidate these disparate activities, having similar ontological approaches would probably be an important step in ensuring successful interoperability. If one metadata format defined their dataset information, for example, differently than another format did, it would be difficult to “create crosswalks”, as the author says (pg. 684), between metadata standards. Perhaps there have been efforts in subsequent years to standardize ontologies.

As an aside, reading this article reminded me of this xkcd comic: http://xkcd.com/927/

-Benny

Raper et al. (2007) A critical evaluation of location based services and their potential

Raper et al. (2007) give an excellent overview of the technologies used by LBS. Most if not all of the sensor technologies underpinning the GIScience topics we have discussed in GEOG 506 were covered in this article. Raper et al. (2007) recognize that there are two domains in LBS: (1) user-related, and (2) technological – however, it is clear the latter is the major focus of LBS research.

Raper et al. (2007) list numerous examples of how users interact with LBS e.g user-friendliness, user-input, and user acceptance, however, the alteration of human behaviour seems to be major literature gap in the domain of LBS. This includes but can extend beyond the realm of legality and ethics. The effects of LBS on society may not be observable on an individual level, but I suspect there will be significant generational changes. Younger generations are expert micro-planners; we have become maximizers of our time. Instead of allotting say, 25 minutes to get to school, we can trim that down 17 minutes and 30 seconds (on average) taking into consideration daily weather, traffic conditions, different routes, and transportation schedules. In the future, this could be combined with unique user data to include average walking speed or stage of morning routine (based on regular weekday behaviours) in order to provide down-to-the-second departure time. Real-time LBS-equipped transportation will certainly have a massive impact on commuter behaviour in cities.

I hope the Journal of Location Based Services will become an accepted platform for these discussions too. It is crucial that the developers of LBS technologies are exposed to the ways their creations take on new function, meaning, and forms—both positive and negative— following their adoption by consumers.

It is my unfortunate duty to diagnose this article with acronymia – a scholarly disease that plagues esoteric fields such as GIScience and its numerous subfields. Prognosis includes: loss of readability, confusion, misunderstanding, and death. Acronymia is a disease with global distribution on the verge of becoming an epidemic. The primary vector of this disease is the journal article, although textbooks, tweets, and conference proceedings are known transmitters. There is no known cure for acronymia.

-BCBD

In “Is VGI participation? From vernal pools to video games” (2008), Tulloch attempts to unearth the relationship between Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) and Public Participatory Geographic Information Systems (PPGIS). Although he finds that they share some overlap (twenty to eighty percent?), they contrast in that “VGI is more about applications and information while PPGIS seems more concerned with process and outcomes” (170).

An interesting idea that comes out of this article is that VGI should be considered in policy/decision making: “while VGI might often fail to provide officially certified data that can support legally defensible policy decisions, ignored VGI sources could easily undermine an otherwise well-planned project” (168). This reminds me of a story about tweets being used to guide news stories, but not supplying enough background proof to be an actual source. Will tweets and VGI one day become admissible evidence in courtrooms? How is technology affecting formal practices?

The article also raises the question of “who is participating?” and if they really represent the “public”. However, I would argue that those who participate in person are not necessarily speaking for the general public. In most situations, only a small fraction of society will feel the urge to speak up, but perhaps VGI could have a positive effect on the proportion of people participating. I look forward to finding out how VGI and PPGIS have been used in marginalized communities.

-IMC

Tulloch (2008) Is VGI participation? From vernal pools to video games.

Tulloch (2008) sets out on the daunting quest to determine whether or not volunteered geographic information (VGI) is a form of participation, or more specifically, public participatory GIS (PPGIS).

Tulloch notes that VGI has yet to develop into a “robust literature of its own” (2008: 164). This led me to reflect upon a guest lecture by D. R. Fraser Taylor I attended a few weeks ago on the topic of cybercartography. There seem to be many parallels between VGI and cybercartography e.g. the discourse of power, emphasis on local knowledge and participation, and an appeal to non-expert use. Fraser and his research team compile ‘atlases’ which act as depositories for volunteered local knowledge with explicit geographic content. Ultimately, these ‘atlases’ may reinforce a locally defined counter-narrative. Are Fraser’s atlases simply an application of VGI? How does cybercartography fit into the discourse of VGI? Are they different and competing frameworks or do they evidence the phenomenon of semantic inflation?

It seems that a central component of VGI is the open invitation for participation and the creation of datasets from the ground up. Although the proliferation of VGI may lead to successful development projects, what measure determines if subjects may be better off without VGI & PPGIS? What things, if any, should remain apart from the public sphere? This reminds me of a recent blog post I read on the botany and secrecy: http://io9.com/the-secret-that-botanists-are-keeping-from-the-public-1655489563. The post describes how botanists withhold the location of endangered and threatened species as a protection strategy.

The features of the Tulloch article that resonate with me are the immense social and political dimensions of VGI and PPGIS. In the context of GIScience—and science as a whole—this challenges the notion that positivism and science go hand-in-hand.

-BCBD

The article by Tulloch outlines some of the issues associated with the intersection of PPGIS and VGI using two case studies.  I found this article to be an interesting starting point but I wish there had been more of a general overview of some of the concepts inherent in VGI.  I look forward to tomorrow’s lecture.

Some of the issues the author discussed I thought were most pertinent were the issues of “volunteered” geographic data and the issues of participation.  I have used quotation marks on volunteered because of the issue raised by Tulloch regarding individuals who have GPS units constantly transmitting geographic data unbeknownst to them or perhaps against their will.  While I found the term “geoslavery” inappropriate I understand that to many this type of data collection is a serious breach of privacy.

On the issue of participation (a common theme for many of our class discussions) I find the issues present within VGI and PPGIS to be compelling.  I suppose one of the largest issues is whether all voices are being heard.  Worse, what if the shift towards a greater reliance on VGI  makes some forms of knowledge ineligible for collection and thus, validation, scrutiny, and incorporation.

Relating to other presentation topics one can see the issues associated with Ontologies, Big Data, and Metadata being quite pertinent.

GoOutside

“Is VGI participation? From vernal pools to video games” by Tulloch evaluates the relationship between volunteered geographic information (VGI) and public participatory GIS (PPGIS). On the one hand, PPGIS embeds issues of power and is driven by political or social motivations, on the other, volunteered geographic information is driven by individuals or a collective group of people.
While the semantic distinction between PPGIS and VGI may be of importance to academics, the everyday users and producers of geographic information are indifferent to the difference. What does deserve greater consideration and should be of interest to the general public, are the issues of power and control associated with both PPGIS and VGI. Tulloch argues that PPGIS shifts power to the grassroots, creating a collective sense of empowerment, while VGI contributors derive power on an individual or personal level by being the ones who control data collection and dissemination. However, this belies who is actually in control of information creation and diffusion. In the case of PPGIS, the public may only encompasses a specific and selected segment of the population, creating a power hierarchy where those involved in the selection process are propelled to the top, those contributing are place squarely in the middle, and those excluded from the process are relegated to the sidelines. Similarly, active contributors of VGI represent only a fraction of the population (typically middle-aged white men in Western countries). While this is not a problem in and of itself, it becomes a concern when volunteered information (geographic or otherwise) is taken to represent the ideas and thoughts of the general public. Moreover, the very fact that one has the time to actively collect and share geographic information betrays one’s privileged rank in society. What is more disconcerting, (and briefly mentioned in the article), is that you may not be aware that you are volunteering geographic information. This passive VGI that is collected, analyzed and then sold, reveals that you, the contributor, are not in control; someone else, something else -Big Brother for lack of a better term- extracts and evaluates your information whether you are actively or knowingly involved in the process.
PPGIS and VGI have the potential to engage the public in a dynamic way; however, the power struggles inherent in both PPGIS and VGI need to be more fully explored and discussed. Establishing VGI as an independent discipline, or a sub-topic within PPGIS is, as far as I am concerned, an unnecessary debate on semantics.

Note: Issues of data quality (accuracy and precision), data aggregation and mashing, as well as concerns of meta data are only some of the concerns of relevance to GI scientists.

Fan_G