Computers, Society, and Nature

Bonnell et al (2013) reports the modeling of the movement of the red colobus monkey in Uganda using the following factors: memory type (Euclidian or landmark based), memory retention and social rule. The use of GIScience in this project is novel and exciting: it shows the importance and the magnitude of the field. Most subjects have a spatial component, for which GIScience could be used.

However, I had a few questions about the research project and the ensuing article. Why were the monkeys only observed from 8AM to 1PM? Are they inactive in the afternoon? If there were a logical explanation for choosing this time slot, it would have been worthwhile to include it in the article. If not, it seems plausible that monkeys might act differently in the afternoon and that finding out if they do would be useful for the research. It would also have been interesting to add less predictable factors to the model, such as weather, natural disasters, human activity, etc.

Moreover, I’ve always felt it was impossible to prove or disprove theories on animals, as we will never know what they are thinking, and why. Would it be possible to use this kind on model on humans? I agree with Othello that by modeling human behaviour, it would be possible to get the subject’s opinion on the research’s findings.  It would be interesting to model the movements of students on a university campus, or in places where people act most like primates: bars.

Cheers, IMC

This article made me think. For one, it was a slow read – no details were spared in the complicated explanation of the science behind the research. As an Arts major, I was seriously intimidated and I’m still not sure I grasp the methodology behind the findings. Secondly (and more importantly), it made me consider applications of GIS outside of mapping. I know, I know, it’s like every single week my mind is being blown by how vast the field of GIScience is – but it’s the truth. Looking at the behavioural responses of primates (in the research, they are using simulated primates) to stimuli was pretty cool if I do say so myself. Looking at where they go, how they go, and who they go with to get resources was something I had never considered as being applicable to GIS. I’m still getting over the fact that psychology/memory is a factor in mapping now (I’m referencing to the ‘social rules’ and how they impact the travel patterns of a group). Its starting to make me think that there are pretty much endless applications of this tool (or science – I am still waiting to be persuaded). For instance, why can’t we use GIS to save those little polar bears I mentioned last week? We could look at behavioural patterns and add it to any spatial data that we already have. Then, look at the response to stimuli, such as the glaciers and sea ice being obliterated by global warming. Of course I’m over simplifying but you get the point. GIS is essentially engulfing every field that I thought was mutually exclusive from it and I’m not sure how I like it.

Until next time,

Nod

Bonnell et al. (2013) Emergent Group Level Navigation: An Agent-Based Evaluation of Movement Patterns in a Folivorous Primate

In an intriguing compilation of GIS, ecology, and primatology, Bonnell et al. (2013) seek to model the complex foraging behaviour of the red colobus monkey in order to uncover patterns of spatial memory. The agent-based modeling used in this study exemplifies one of the cutting edge applications of GIS technologies ­– predictive science.

This is my first academic encounter with spatial memory but the concept encompasses something that I have often thought about i.e. how people (and animals) navigate the world around them. In this article, social rules were the primary factor in determining step length – different societies behaved differently. It would be interesting to research how spatial memory in human societies differs between age groups, cultures, urban-rural settings, etc. as I suspect that they may differ greatly. It also makes me wonder how GIS technologies such as Google Maps have altered spatial memory in humans.

There were a few omissions made in this study, although I suspect these were due to the issue of complexity. Firstly, by limiting the foraging simulations to six months the researchers neglected the seasonal variability of resources. Developing this component of modeling could identify how animal movements and feeding habits change throughout the year. Secondly, it would be interesting to add the component of competition into the simulation to account for rival groups, interspecies relationships, and human activity. Thirdly, as colobus monkeys are a tree-dwelling species, it would be interesting to see if the addition of a z-axis would affect the results of the simulation (e.g. would movement more closely resemble Euclidean memory, would this affect group safety). Keep in mind that these recommendations come from someone without a background in computer modeling, primate behavioural studies, or ecology, so I am uncertain as to what extent any of the abovementioned components could be added to the simulation or if they would in fact enhance the study in any measurable way.

-BCBD

This is quite an interesting article, as the authors attempted to simulate a system involving the behaviour of primates and the struggle for both food and safety, both of which work against each other. The model was complex and involved many variables and considerations. I appreciated the complexity of the model as I recently constructed a model involving the Green Monkey in Barbados. As an invasive specie, the goal was to find a reasonable technique to stabilize the population explosion before the system and the resources on the island reached the carrying capacity. What I appreciated about this article is that the authors go a step further and manage to display their primate model spatially, something that would have greatly improved the accuracy and interest of my model.

This type of model is fascinating, as so much of the general public would be interested to know how something like this works. This is something that you could see on the Discovery Channel, or National Geographic and would easily attract viewers. People are interested in science and animals and they love to see scientists study them. Thus is a great way to introduce such technology to the general public, and perhaps influence people to take an interest in GIScience.

As mentioned in the article, there is so much potential with GIScience and its ever expanding capabilities. Using GIScience and coupling it with a model similar to what was constructed in the article, a better understanding of animal behavior and movement could be established in the scientific community. It could potentially be used to allow humans to better understand and avoid human-animal interaction, eliminating many problems. GIScience is proving more and more to be an incredibly valuable discipline, and the possibilities of application appear limitless.
Buzz

Reading  “Doing Public Participation on the Geospatial Web” made me wonder who is posting on the Internet and what we know about them. In the case of the Okanagan Fire map, some participants weren’t sharing their experiences online because they felt they didn’t have the authority to do so. This challenges the common idea that the anonymity of online forums allows people to lose their inhibitions. It is in fact the “reach and durability” of the platform that stopped them from contributing. Does this imply that the contributors have actual knowledge or expertise? It would certainly be interesting to see if those who speak up in real life are also those who feel entitled to write their opinions online, and vice versa, and then compare their qualifications.

Moreover, more weight or importance was awarded to posts with “likes” or “thumbs ups”. Who is behind these popular views, and are they trustworthy? A quick look at the comments section of any online publication might make the reader reconsider the merits of democracy. I, for one, would not want to be led by any “top posters”.

Finally, the following argument on anonymity and accuracy gave me pause: “[a]nonymity also complicated questions of data accuracy since scientists examining results on nlnature wanted the identity of contributor x as a way to verify who was (in)correctly identifying species” (26). Are the scientists identifying the correct and incorrect entries, and then want to know the identity of the posters for statistical purposes? Or are the poster’s qualifications affecting the findings’ accuracy?

[One last note, vis-à-vis the spelling of the expression as viz-a-viz: am I missing a pun or is this an English interpretation of French?]

Cheers!

-IMC

“Doing Public Participation on the Geospatial Web” explores how the Geoweb has altered public participation. In particular, the layouts and algorithms of Geoweb applications have the power to structure and influence public engagement. Do these forms of engagement support democratic ideals, or do they lull us into complacency as freedoms erode? Filter bubbles applied to many online queries limit our exposure to different opinions and perspectives, reinforcing our own beliefs, and removing us from the broader discussion. In my opinion, the creation of these online ghettos of thought facilitates citizen two citizen dialogue among like minded people but has the potential to undercut the interaction of people with differing or opposing points of you from meaningfully engaging with one another. What’s more, anonymity removes accountability for what is shared on online fora and can hamper respectful dialogue among online contributors. The elitist attitudes that this can consolidate deeply undermine the inclusive nature of democracy.
Nevertheless, the Geobweb allows its user to stay ‘plugged in’. It provides a medium of expression for those that may not be comfortable in face-to-face discussions; the anonymity it provides can empower individuals who would otherwise stay disengaged.
Similar to high school civics classes, I think we need to teach and explain the implications of online engagement, outlining its obligations, rights and responsibilities. We need to upgrade to civics 2.0.
The influence of the Geoweb on public participation is complicated. It presents challenges and opportunities for democracy, but more research is needed to fully characterize it.
Fan_G

Doing Participation on the Geospatial Web

It is widely understood that the geospatial capabilities of Web 2.0 have reinvented the way people interact with the physical world. With user-generated input, Web 2.0 has transformed the way people choose where to shop, eat, and socialize through apps such as Yelp, Urbanspoon, and FourSquare. The authors of this article are curious about how the proliferation of place-based digital platforms will affect the domain of public participation, including civic engagement, public involvement, and volunteered geographic information i.e. the participatory Geoweb (PGeoweb).

The PGeoweb can improve public participation in many ways. These include increasing the number of participants, enhancing communication and record keeping, and connect individuals and groups in alignments that could not otherwise be forged. Central to these advancements in public participation vis-à-vis the PGeoweb is the role of anonymity. The authors mention the activity of women on social media during the Arab Spring as a primary example of how the anonymity of Web 2.0 technologies can be incorporated into public participation. Following this example, the PGeoweb could provide a layer of personal security so as to reveal and project the opinions of marginalized people. In some circumstances, virtual involvement may be the “superior participatory medium” (27).

Throughout the article, anonymity is largely portrayed as a positive development. The most oppositional comment made about anonymity is that it hinders the establishment of trust within a digital community. I believe that trust may be just the tip of the iceberg with respect to anonymity. How can one be accountable for one’s virtual actions? Anonymity also removes the human dimension from discourse. By reducing opposing views to profile names, I worry that people may be driven apart by online participation, particularly in cases of political tension. Hate becomes a mechanical procedure when there isn’t a human face looking back at you. While the PGeoweb has a lot to offer public participation, there are many more factors to consider before we celebrate.

– BCBD

With the evolution of the Geoweb, or rather Web 2.0, different forms of participation from citizens have arisen, some vastly different from traditional methods. The definition of participation was vague to begin with, but with the advancements of the geoweb, this definition has become even more abstract. It allows for a much larger audience to be heard, but is this really the step that we want to take? I can see the argument from both sides. On one hand, giving so many people access to some form of media, or dataset, which allows them to participate and share their own data on the web results in more data that has ever been available. You would think that this should be a good thing, and that anything suspicious, or simply incorrect wouldn’t survive the criticism of the rest of the geoweb, however in most cases, this simply does not happen. Many non-experts allow such information to propagate under the false pretenses that they are in fact experts. This is where such access can be dangerous. If anybody has the ability to simply “participate”, they can influence others into seeing their view, story or data set in a sculpted viewpoint. Inadvertent or not, the geoweb allows anybody with the access to internet, and a medium such as social media to have a large effect on what kind of data propagates through the geoweb.
This kind of participation is unavoidable in the era that we live in, however traditional methods of participation should not be neglected as one would think that they would be more credible than any random self proclaimed “Joe” contributing via Facebook.
Buzz

This paper dealt with the nature of the Participatory Geoweb (PGeoweb) and its consequences on public participation. What I found thought-provoking in this article is how the authors examined the ways in which the PGeoweb can affect citizen-government interactions. It is noted that there was a “heterogenization of the role of the state as a convener”. This change of roles is interesting since traditionally the state holds the balance of power over its citizens. With the PGeoweb, having the ability for citizens to act as convener would shift some this balance of power away from the state. The authors do warn, however, of the government “checking the boxes” and not having two-way dialogue during participation. If that could be fixed, a more efficient ‘participation’ between citizen and state would be permitted.

In a similar vein to that above, the blurring of the lines between expert and non-expert is an important idea to elaborate upon. This change in traditional roles could be beneficial for less advantaged groups if the ability for them to have a more active role in participation is enabled. For example, local populations can utilize the PGeoweb for projects (ex. mapping territory or resources) from within the community, without the influence of other actors who might have conflicting interests (ex. mining companies). While the differences between experts and non-experts becomes muddled, the information provided must remain credible in order for the non-experts’ information to remain a growing part of the scientific community.

-Benny

This article discusses the influence of participation in online GIS (PGeoweb specifically) and how it can influence policy. My interest in the article stemmed from the author’s mention of how PGeoweb potential could be ‘oversold’ in regards to social change. The author seemed to phrase the argument in a way that made it seem as if people were under the impression that in order to ‘participate’ (a term not concretely defined in the article, which is ok – I find semantic arguments boring and pointless in papers) they simply had to add to the gathered information on the given platform. In other words, if they were helping add information to the Geoweb, they were doing their part in affecting social change. This is of course is false pretence, as the author so aptly points out. This got me thinking about those pesky little online petitions that are floating around my Facebook newsfeed. Of course I’m going to sense immediate gratification if I sign this petition to save those cute little polar bears – but is it really helping? In my interpretation of the article, the author was saying how distancing ourselves from the problem (i.e. through online participation) it was effectively downsizing our impact on social change. In other words, if I actually went to a forum or volunteered my time for those polar bears, wouldn’t that be more effective than me signing an online petition or adding a photo to an already immense database of information? Similarly, the author points out how some of the aesthetics of the Geoweb have an authoritative appearance which “could imply more importance to an individual’s contribution than is accurate”. This again, leads individuals into thinking they’ve done their part in social change when in fact they’ve really done nothing. It’s essentially the same gratification we get from harvesting crops in Farmville.

Oh the woes of the internet.

Until next time,

Nod

The emergence of the internet, as described in the Goodchild (2005) article, has been huge for GIS, if not only because we now have a handy description of what we do: “you know Google Maps? I do something like that”.

Online mapping applications, such as Google Maps, have democratized the use of GIS. However, this does not mean that “powerful and complex technologies” can be used by everyone. Much like access to photo editing software does not make a photographer, easy access to GIS does not make everyone a geographer. Nevertheless, anyone who so wishes now has the possibility of understanding and visualizing geographical processes. If this can inspire a “child of ten” to pursue a career in geography, it would only be an added benefit.

The use of online GIS adds a third form to Goodchild’s description that “GIScience might take two essentially distinct forms: research about GIS that would lead eventually to improvement in the technology; and research with GIS that would exploit the technology in the advancement of science” (2).  One can also use a GIS without understanding the technology or the science.

Finally, the popularity of Google Maps gives the uninformed a new appreciation for geography, and perhaps one fewer geographer will be asked “You study geography? So what’s the capital of X?”.

-IMC

Is GIS a science? While the question appears fairly benign it seems the implications of the answer are significant.
One aspect of this debate I find most interesting to me is that I had not ever considered GIS to be a science before reading this article. I remain skeptical to be sure. In my first semester of university I took the class Intro to GIS which for the most part taught students how to use the GIS as a tool. Theoretical knowledge was provided but in my opinion the main emphasis – and the most interesting parts – were the labs where we used applied GIS to real-world issues. While more advanced GIS courses go more into depth regarding the processes, tools, rules, and theories that allow GIS to be a useful I have always found the most important part of these courses to be the labs. To me this suggests that while it is important for us to understand how GIS works, it is more important for us to be able to operate a GIS.
On the other hand, GIS is a tool available to scientists to help them increase their knowledge of the world around them. If GIS helps scientists in the search for truths then why should it be denied the designation as a proper science?
I still remain skeptical about this issue, in my gut I feel that GIS is a tool. The scientific aspects of GIS seem, to me at least, to be provided by computer science, mathematics, geography, remote sensing, and other disciplines.

GoOutside

I had honestly never given this debate much thought. Having done a few introductory classes in GIS, the extent of my knowledge focuses on the how to. I suppose, without thinking too much about it, I have always perceived GIS as a tool that enables scientists to better deal with their data, and to perform analyses across space. This paper, like all the others made me think differently about my prior knowledge. I suppose I don’t have a strong opinion either way, but rather only had the one perception of GIS. For that reason, I think I could be swayed in either direction, given enough evidence to support the claim.

I think the idea of a continuum makes the most sense. Based on arguments from both sides, it seems that GIS can’t definitely be characterized as absolutely either. One argument for the science side was that you can’t do GIS without knowing about the rules that govern the creation of spatial modelling. It is true that this is something that is extremely important when attempting to use GIS, and yet it is something that I suppose I have taken for granted and overlooked. Additionally, when using Robinson et al. (1984) definition of science -“A logical and systematic approach to problems that seeks generalizable answers”- it only makes sense to consider GIS as a science, as it is precisely a systematic approach to the problem at hand.

They mention that GIS as a science gives it academic legitimacy. I don’t think that it needs to be called a science to be considered legitimate. Even as a tool, it is such a useful piece of equipment that allows for a much larger potential of your data set, across so many disciplines. I definitely believe that at any point along the continuum, the role of GIS in academia is validated.

In closing, I believe that GIS can be seen as anything along the tool-science continuum. Depending on the application, it could be used simply as a tool, or for a more sophisticated use in trying to advance a scientific question. I don’t think that there is a correct answer to this debate, but rather it is all about how you are using GIS for your own data.

Buzz

GIS: Tool or Science? Demystifying the Persistent Ambiguity of GIS as “Tool” versus “Science” – Wright, Goodchild, and Proctor (1997)

Wright, Goodchild and Proctor seem hung up on the status of GIS as a tool, tool-making practice, or science. To them, defining GIS is a necessity so as to improve its instruction and direction within academia. In this article they seek to answer whether it should be taught as a tool to undergraduates or as a research pursuit for graduates. In their observation, which seemingly undermines their pedagogic objective, the authors pose this question to the GIS community via an open, online forum.

At first glance I was caught up by the rigour of this method. How could this be considered legitimate? How could any meaningful insight be derived from such an informal setting? Was this in any way a scientific method to determine the existence of a science?

After reflecting on the fact that the majority of GIS users are not academic researchers, I realized that this might be an ideal question for a wide-cast, industry-based audience. Perhaps the answer should be openly sourced in this manner. ‘Open’ should not be a four-letter word when it comes to data sourcing. As we learned last class, open source data projects such as Open Street Maps have a similar accuracy to pervasive applications such as Google Maps. Furthermore, certain areas such as Mogadishu, Somalia—areas which have little commercial value to corporations e.g. Google—are more accurately portrayed on open source, collaborative platforms. What would be a better audience to ask such a question than GIS users themselves?

There are so many dimensions to analzye when considering whether or not GIS is a science. In this article Wright, Goodchild and Proctor not only recognize but also address the issue of academic esotericism. Instead of limiting the discourse to academic circles, the trio brings the discussion to all GIS users by putting it online. Going beyond the bounds of the university, the online forum also addresses the subject of biases in academia. For instance, the Faculty of Science hosts the Department of Geography, therefore, it is in the best interest of GIS researchers to frame GIS as a science.

Although I have not drawn my own conclusion as to whether or not GIS is a science as a consequence of this article, I have however become increasingly interested in the validity of openly source opinions, information, and data.

– BCBD

The multiple interpretations of the “S” in GIS capture the various uses, methodological challenges, opportunities and implications of Geographic Information. Research about and with GIS – GIS the science and GIS the tool – have gained significant momentum and importance since Goodchild’s keynote address at the Fourth International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling in the early 1990s. An important aspect of the evolution of GIS is the increased public access to GIS. While only alluded to in the article, the increased availability and accessibility of these technologies to ‘plugged-in’ individuals will drive continued innovation in the field and will have unclear ethical, social, political and economic ramifications. What are the privacy and security implications of widespread and readily available geographic information? How will open source data and technologies affect the competitiveness and relevance of closed data and technologies? These questions will need to be tackled by exploring all aspects of GIS – the System, the Science, the Studies, the Services – as they all contribute to a better identification and understanding of the technologies of GIS and the objectives and methodological underpinnings of the field. More research and attention needs to be focused on such issues to ensure the integrity of GIS the tool and GIS the science.

Fan_G