Archive for the ‘506’ Category

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

What about people?

Thursday, January 17th, 2013

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

Tags:
Posted in 506 | Comments Closed

Critical Toolmaking and Arguments on the Internet

Thursday, January 17th, 2013

Wright, Goodchild and Proctor review debates around the conceptualization of GIS as a tool or as a science on a prominent GIS listserv in 1993. In so doing, they unpack the debates and situate possible conceptualizations of GIS on a continuum between tool and science, rather than as a simple dualism.  The additional point on the continuum they introduce is the conceptualization of GIS as toolmaking, analogous to engineering being situated somewhere between the pure and applied sciences.

The article concludes that only the conceptualization of GIS as science is sufficient to be considered science, and thus the only way GIS in and of itself might attain academic credibility. However, it would seem as though the authors failed to anticipate the rise of critical GIS as a field of study.  When they touched on “the scope of research [being] determined not by the tool’s value to geographers, but rather by the multifarious applications of GIS, to include all of the societal effects of the computerization of geographic information” (p. 356), I thought immediately of issues such as VGI,  loaction-based services and geosurveillance—all burgeoning GIS research topics today.  However, Wright at al never come back to these more qualitative opportunities for ‘doing GIS’. Perhaps they overlook this potential because it doesn’t quite fit into their continuum: critical GIS involves GIS gaining academic credence not within science (whether pure or applied), but by way of the humanities and social sciences.

The article also offers an interesting insight into the pitfalls of conducting debates over the medium of the internet, from the perspective of the 1990s. While the GIS-L debates of 1993 do not remotely approach the caliber of trolling and talking past one another typical of political debates on the internet today, Wright et al’s analysis on page 348 does a good job of anticipating the rhetorical impacts of the internet’s shift into widespread use.

-FischbobGeo

Posted in 506 | Comments Closed

The People in Geographic Information Science

Thursday, January 17th, 2013

Miller places dominate GIS practices within the realm of placed-based methods based off of a past where technology and theory began to intersect. In a finite world, limitations are place on an individual to appropriate how much time and resource is spent on an activity. Their decisions are ultimately based on their socio-economic condition. Because of this, a people-based GIS should complement placed-based GIS better understand urban systems. This was a great article that introduces the reader to time geography and activity theory. For me, it made me think about how a person is placed in a particular location because of their socio-economic condition, and now how a person is somewhere with x,y,z conditions (which was intuitive for me at first. Consider looking at a map, where a point represents a person and an attribute table holds their socio-economic profile. To me, the visualization on the screen associates a person to a particular location, and not attributes that bind them to that location.).

While reading the data collection techniques of STA and how new technologies can increasingly improve the cost, rigor, and time associated with data collection, a reoccurring thought was, how can this be applied to the marginalized population where access to mobile devices, computers or knowledge of the technology is limited? How can technology improve their situation in such a way researchers can easily collect and study their space-time activities to offer a policy prescription to remedy this? I think it’s key to recognize our own positionality when we consider how IT has “shrunk” the world for some in a positive way, empowering them to access more information, knowledge while decreasing travel time. On the flip side, it has shrunk the world for others in terms of limiting access and resources to improve their livelihoods.

-tranv

Posted in 506 | Comments Closed

GIS, Science or Tool? A continuum

Thursday, January 17th, 2013

This article nicely lays out 3 distinct arguments where scholars have argued GIS to be a tool, toolmaker and science. GIS as a tool and toolmaker is easier to grasp, while GIScience was much harder for me to wrap my mind around. At the beginning of this paper, my crude understanding of GIS as a science is if some form of rigorous scientific method can be applied to it (form a hypothesis, test a hypothesis, evaluate the results to improve our knowledge about the subject matter) then it may be considered a science. Here, the definition of science also becomes important where some have a vested interest to label GIS as a science to legitimize their work in an academic setting whereas others believe that labeling GIS as a tool doesn’t give it the credit it deserves when it can enact change and increase understanding. By the end of the paper, geographic information science is describe to be “concerned with geographic concepts, primitive elements used to describe, analyze, model, reason about, and make decisions on phenomena distributed on the surface of the earth” (Wright et al., 1997, 357). Does this mean that the “science” involved refers to the decisions we make in how we define categories, what we chose model (thus what we chose to omit), and theorize the particular subject matter?

My experience in GIS falls into the toolbox category – to visualize a certain phenomenon in space. In my opinion, depending on how far you go in your studies, or how you apply the software defines you view of GIS as a tool, science or somewhere in-between. For a technician mapping out underground pipelines, GIS is a tool, whereas a scholar studying the use of GIS by various social groups can be viewed as a science. No matter how GIS is viewed, few people will doubt the contribution it has made in our understanding of spatial phenomenon.

-tranv

Posted in 506 | Comments Closed

Miller 2001

Thursday, January 17th, 2013

In detecting outbreaks of infectious disease, the time model has very much preceded the space model. Most public health agencies rely very heavily on time series of traditional and maybe syndromic health data (laboratory confirmed cases of illnesses as well as secondary data such as emergency department visits), looking for atypical temporal patterns. But few integrate spatial information (even fewer beyond running SatScan), even though statisticians and geographers have shown through research and simulations that outbreaks could be detected with improved timeliness and sensitivity/specificity (fewer false positives or false negatives) if spatial information were included. Many of the concepts in this paper are very relevant to outbreak detection, such as idea of a space-time path in a “lifestyle.” Either way, incorporating both space and time into analysis/research seems to be a real challenge in computational power, in model complexity, and in visualization.  Even though this paper was written over ten years ago and made some very concrete suggestions for moving forward in time geography, I’m not sure how far we’ve come.

-Kathryn

Posted in 506 | Comments Closed

Wright 1997

Thursday, January 17th, 2013

I believe GIS is a field of study, similar to (and related to) statistics, and the authors draw this analogy several times in the paper as well. What often inspires the question “science vs. tool” is the lack of substantive application – the associated methods can be applied in a variety of disciplines. But like statistics, GIS has theoretical underpinnings that are understood by experts, and practical applications that can be used (and misused) by experts and nonexperts in various fields.

One interesting point was a comment by someone in the listserve who compared GIS to statistical software – that using the statistical software isn’t “doing science” either. This is a good example and I believe the author of this comment was actually making the opposite point he or she intended to. Using statistical software does not make you a statistician, and using GIS does not make you a scientist or a GIS expert.  But the respective experts (statisticians; GIS-focused geographers or computer scientists), while they may not themselves be the architects of this software, often use it, and have a strong understanding of the theoretical underpinnings it uses to perform analysis.

When someone is “doing GIS”, this doesn’t not automatically make their work scientific, but methodological advancements from experts in GIS are scientific, and I would say that experts applying the methods in novel applications is often scientific. Again, like statistics, sometimes it seems like GIS is used to legitimize research, and this may be a symptom of a societal obsession with ranking academic discipline worth by how “scientific” or “hard” it is. When a research paper overemphasizes the use of GIS, attempting to add legitimacy, it is similar to using an unnecessarily complex statistical model in order to make up for poor quality data or add a false sense of achievement to a work. I see that an issue in academia rather than an issue specific to GIS.

[Side note: interesting that when this paper was written (1997) the authors claimed that academics in general are not well set up to create reliable software with a couple exceptions. In 2013 I’m sure we can all think of many of examples that show this is no longer the case! The creators of R; Luc Anselin; Andrew Gelman…many more]

-Kathryn

 

Posted in 506 | Comments Closed

Changes in thought and perceptions of science, tools and GIS

Thursday, January 17th, 2013

Wright, Goodchild, and  Proctor in their article “GIS: Tool or Science?” outline the varying cases for GIS being a tool or a science.  The article may point to opening our definition of science and shifting how science is quantified by results to a broader definition of applied and practical use. However, one can ask how does one’s perception and thought on, what is a tool? and what is a science? influence how GIS is viewed, and thus how it is defined. Can GIS not be both a tool and a science? Does not every science include tools and equations to understand the variability in nature and our world, and does not every tool rely on science to have a use? I believe GIS is a tool and a science. One just has to think of mathematics or physics where equations originally developed as a tool to answer a question have themselves become a science. For example, quantum mechanics where once only considered a tool to understand the atom but has since become a field of science and scientific research, although quantum mechanics can still be a tool. Any tool can become a science and any science can become a tool.

Science is derived in latin from the word for knowledge, therefore it can be considered as the pursuit and modification of knowledge and is that   not what GIS allow people to accomplish through the gathering and modification of information. Yet GIS is still a tool because it offers a means to an end (i.e. it allow a person to modify data to get a result). The way a person thinks, influences how they may perceive GIS. For instance if GIS is a means to an end, it is a tool, like a surveyor’s station to a surveyor who is plotting a map. Oppositely, if GIS is used to gather and study, it is a science, like a surveyor’s station to a geologist who is gathering data to understand the relationships of rocks to a point.  At present, technology and science are at a crux where both are intertwined, yet have the same definitions given centuries ago and are perceived in that same old fashion. Maybe it is time for a new definition to be created, as development in our world advances the tools and sciences we do as humans,where to integrate both GIS as a means and an end together.

C_N_Cycles

Tags:, ,
Posted in 506 | Comments Closed

Toolbox vs. Test Tube

Thursday, January 17th, 2013

Wright’s investigation into the nature of GIS is like the International Baccalaureates course, Theory of Knowledge; it poses more questions than it provides answers. In response to the title of the paper, my initial reaction was that it was a clear cut, hands down, tool. From my own experience, whenever people asked what I wanted to do I would say, without hesitation, “mapping.” I have since been told that GIS is far more than mapping, but until now that is all I have ever used it for. Eventually, most conversations would turn to, “what is GIS?” Until recently, my response was always, “It’s a toolbox. Much like a hammer is to a toolbox, as Clip, and Collapse Dual to Centerline are to ArcGIS. The tools are self evident, it’s just a matter of finding what you need in the shed.” That, however, is not the case.

My experience with GIS is marginal, at best. I am an end user, who contributes little in return to the further development of the software. Therefore, for my purposes it is a tool. For others, as is seen in the informal survey conducted on GIS-L, it has a much broader range of uses. These uses, however, are laden with subjectivity. Wright points out that fields considered a science are seen as more legitimate. The sequence of the paper gives “GIS as a science” the last say. The conclusion does not overtly state it, but from the point of view of Wright et al. they aim to promote GIS as a means of acquiring legitimacy. In time, much like Computer Science, it is likely that GIS will be given the same weight. It would serve GIS, however, if it spread to more than just “phenomena on the Earth’s surface.” Until it digs deeper, it will only be scratching the surface.

AMac

Tags:
Posted in 506 | Comments Closed

Conceptual models of geographic space or mutant pig vs. predatory parrot

Thursday, January 17th, 2013

In ” An account of the origins of conceptual models of geographic space” by Oleg McNoleg, there are many points where questions may be raised on the idea of what one may conceive as geographic space. These points may  lie beneath imaginary animals and tribes, and masked within a silly story, but do make one think about how man perceives himself within his natural environment. The Tessellati, a tribe along the frost line,  for example is shown to perceive a particular area of a few square kilometres divided into sections as their space and world. Whilst, the Vectules, a tribe along an ocean, perceives their world as a set of defining lines (water’s edge) and points of security (trees). The two tribes provide the defining ideas of what can be thought of as raster and vector data and how these formats are utilized to define one’s area. Furthermore, the paper provides a unique way of thinking about how geographic space is actually defined and to what extent a person or group may define that area. For example, is it defined by a point that represents a tree with a predatory parrot or  defined equal area containing a mutant pig. Questions of an individual’s or group’s idea of space  from article seems to be based on one’s need and therefore forcing a particular way of perception on space. Although this article does help to show how personal situation reflects one’s perception of space, it does not deal with how perception may change if the tribes or some individuals from the different tribes exchanged places.

C_N_Cycles

Tags:,
Posted in 506 | Comments Closed

Some kind of account of the origins of coneceptual models of geographic space

Thursday, January 17th, 2013

McNoleg conveys so much, and yet so little, in three pages. Further research reveals the Tessellati and Vectules either never existed, or have succeeded in erasing any trace of their existence from Google, Yahoo, Facebook Graph, etc. It is easy to draw parallels between the raster and vector data formats, though the pigcells of the Tessellati are a much better analogy. What McNoleg fails to mention is what sort of tessellation the Tessellati found to be most successful. A triangular model would simplify the construction of fencing with fewer angles required, but would produce areas in the pen wholly useless to the animal in that the nooks and crannies created by the acute angles would prevent the creature from accessing the area in the first place. Thus, maybe they found that rectangular, or even hexagonal pens worked better. Though, the 90 degrees required for the construction of a rectangular pen are much more common, considering it’s readily available in the hand of any child taunting a friend with the letter “L” on his or her forehead.

The “poly-gones” are a bit more of a stretch. Chances are the name Polly wasn’t even invented at the time, the name Wendy wasn’t around until the writing of Peter Pan. Furthermore, he does not include any differentiation between the single parrot cage, a line of parrot cages, and agglomeration of parrot cages. Whether or not this makes a difference is still up for debate, until then we’ll just have to scratch our heads and wonder what’s going on.

AMac

Tags:
Posted in 506 | Comments Closed

Power, control and the social construction of place

Friday, March 30th, 2012

When reading the other posts, it seemed that Aitken and Michel’s (1995) article did not receive many positive remarks, mainly for its lack of clarity and vagueness. Perhaps I spent too much time reading marginal continental philosophy this semester that made me more sympathetic to this piece. Although the article is more theory based, it examines pertinent issues of GIS that are still around today. The authors advocate for “all actors involved in the production and consumption of GIS to have some ownership in the creation of GIS knowledge” (17). They question the differences between the ownership of a process and the participation of a process. Power struggles are created when it is certain one group dominates the influence of the outcome over another group. If GIS is identified and examined as social constructions in this article, how will we change power relations to find a more equal (not perfect) opportunity in not only the process of ownership, but also the process of participation? According to the article, “a GIS cannot be divorced from the social context of its creation” (18). So how do we make the groups with ownership rights, socially construct an alternative way of increasing importance, and power to the ones involved in the participation process? One pertinent thing I do find frustrating with critiques is the depressing feeling I am left with after reading them. It is often easier to identify the challenges, rather than find useful and workable solutions.

In addition to ownership, liveware is also a critical component to understanding power relations. It is defined as being comprised of the individuals responsible for the design, implementation and use of GIS, noting that it is hailed as “the most significant part of a GIS” (18). What responsibility and influence does this particular group have on the reality of GIS? How much of it gets convoluted in political agendas, territories (both academic and non-academic) that expect to be defended? How is the misrepresentation of facts, skewing of results, and meeting private agendas accounted for, monitored or, in the most optimistic scenario, eliminated?

“What it is not clear is how the communicative and power structures which develop between the GIS creator and user affect the people whose everyday lives become metrics and data within the system, and whether indeed these people’s voices are heard at all” (18). Do we just get used to these power dynamics? Work our lives around them? I’d like to be a little more positive than this. A lecture inspired me to think otherwise. Andrew Pickering encourages us to “try things… experiment, and mess around with them”; an alternative to being stuck on one idea, or a particular set of definitions (especially when analyzing inequality) that confine us. This way of thinking seemed to parallel Aitken and Michel’s statement that “empirical studies of technological innovation reveal a complex, messy, and nonlinear process” (27). The authors appreciate the flaws of empirical studies, maybe because in some ways, the empirical studies bring the less tinkered with ‘real’ in GIS.

-henry miller

Tags:, , , ,
Posted in 506, geographic information systems | Comments Closed

Storytelling and integrated land-use models

Friday, March 30th, 2012

Clouclelis (2005) outlines the rethinking of integrated land-use models by orienting the article around three main roles that are interconnected: scenario writing, visioning, and storytelling. The details of the article more than suffice the upsides and downsides of urban planning history with regard to the computational and spatial planning world. The one role that intrigued me the most was that of storytelling. Storytelling, according to the article, strives to “build consensus by presenting particular desired or feared future developments in terms meaningful enough to be credible to non-specialists” (1354). I believe it to be a significant connection between qualitative, and quantitative attributes of planning systems. Clouclelis notes that there is much room for “interpretation and facts” derived from models, however planning emphasizes interpretation and values, a much more arbitrary combination (from a scientific stance anyways). There is a specific comfort that we find when relying on facts rather than values. The concreteness makes them somehow more plausible and tangible than individual intentions and agendas, hence having “models codify uncertain knowledge” (1359). We hold planning accountable for a particular outcome. We expect it to “lead to certain action” (1359). The pressure only accelerates on planning to provide solutions to problems at hand. If we eliminate the jargon in expert language to enhance meaning to implemented models for the non-expert, we should develop methods that are creative, and can facilitate the process of finding a balance between non-specialist, and specialist interaction. What can we learn from both camps? In my opinion, storytelling in itself is not enough to be evocative. The way we tell it has to be compelling. Ideas, experimentation, and actions by means of imagination and sharing, can be significant contributions to successful storytelling.

Another problem I want to address is the lack of clarity of what type of planning support system is indeed necessary, and in need of support (1355). The individuals, groups and communities involved all hold multiple agendas. “At the metropolitan level, transportation, commuting, growth, and sprawl cannot be addressed by one community without direct implications for several others” (1358). Will it ever be possible to address everyone’s needs? Is that feasible, realistic or practical? If that is not an option, will compromise be enough for a potential solution? Or will it be inevitable that certain groups’ requests will be sacrificed and overlooked?

-henry miller

Tags:,
Posted in 506, geographic information systems | Comments Closed

Rethink GIS and Communication Technologies

Friday, March 30th, 2012

It is a good question to ask what is the most important component of GIS, or who contrives the ‘Real’ in GIS. In order to clarify this problem we come to a series of context and communication problems due to the large argument in this field. Critical theory has been applied in the paper published by Aitken et al. in 1995, attempting to clarify these problems. Authors present the relationship between communication and GIS development, but the changes of GIS in recent research should not be overlooked. Geographic information science, sometimes referred to a kind of toll making process, is largely impacted by the advance of new technologies. Here I only talk about the development of communication technologies in GIS research.

 

Remote sensing, web 2.0, mobile technologies, all these technologies change how people obtain geospatial information and how they communicate with each other. With remote sensing, spectral information enables object based classification and data analysis, to utilize computers to extract geospatial information from satellite image data. Web 2.0, which provides a new platform for geospatial information exchange, begins to change how people access and contribute geospatial data. And mobile technologies enables the idea of GIS anywhere, with the development of cell phone, wearable computer, wireless sensor network, to name a few here.

 

Another problem we should pay attention to in communication technologies is information verification. With the development of mobile technologies, GIS applications which collect geospatial information through text message begin to emerge (e.g., Ushahidi). However, there is no guarantee about whether the geospatial information provided by users is reliable. Therefore, information verification technologies should be explored in GIS, due to the large amount of information is impossible to check with human operators.

 

–cyberinfrastructure

Posted in 506, geographic information systems | Comments Closed

Landscape and GIS Modeling Development

Friday, March 30th, 2012

In the paper published by Couclelis in 2005, the author presents a problem that attracts lots of research interests in GIS, the rethink about the relationship between the landscape modeling and the planning. Planning is a kind of strategy making processing, whereas modeling is mathematical and scientific process. GIS modeling process takes the previous data as input, and outputs the patterns extracted from past geospatial information. But planning is about the future strategies, we need to take the future into account based on today’s information. The gap between GIS modeling and planning brings numerous troubles in landscape studies, and this gap has been decreased by the development of technologies.

Recently, the advance of technologies has brought great changes in the landscape modeling systems. For example, web 2.0 has provided a new platform for geospatial information exchange, which means users do not only get geospatial information for web 2.0, but they also contribute information for GIS studies. With the increasing number of web 2.0 users, the information collected with web 2.0 gradually plays a pivotal role in decision-making process.

Another important factor that changes GIS modeling in landscape planning is visualization. Visualization technologies, especially 3D visualization in GIS, provide a standard view about the landscape. Compared with previous 2D technologies, 3D provides much detailed view about the landscape information. By viewing the 2D image, users may treat the landscape as flat and use their own information to imagine the true landscape. This may cause difference between people with different knowledge about designing and planning. 3D visualization significantly limits this difference by providing a standard view. With remote sensing technologies and 3D techniques, detailed information that cannot be collected by the naked-eyes can be delineated, as the video demonstrated.

–cyberinfrastructure

Tags:,
Posted in 506, geographic information systems | Comments Closed

Where did the future go indeed

Thursday, March 29th, 2012

There are many things I would like to discuss about the Couclelis article, but as I will be further discussing this tomorrow, I will leave it at this question: what is planning if there is no future? It was really interesting how Couclelis outlined that planning had moved away from considering the future; it is no longer strategic but operational and managerial. But then… is it even planning? What are we doing if we’re not learning from the past, testing in the present, and moving to the future? Surely a solution that is not seeking to make something into the best it can be is not the solution planners should be aiming for, anyways. Certainly there is uncertainty to consider, and many opinions (and narratives) to take into account. But one thing that is wonderful about planning for the future is the ability to make the changes we see in today that need to be made, and then learn from them as the changes are implemented. I agree with Madskiier_JWong when they suggest that uncertainties should not be dealt with linearly, but that a complex understanding is helpful to make decisions for the future. And while some may argue that complexities add more uncertainties, I would say they also add more possibilities.

Oh, and one more thing: “Grassroots planning is admirable but it can only grow grass; someone or something needs to grow the fruit trees and the oaks of the future.” What a great line.

–sah

Tags:,
Posted in 506, geographic information systems | Comments Closed

GIS and the Multiple Objectives Approach

Thursday, March 29th, 2012

It was interesting to read Couclelis’ article in conjunction with Aitken and Michel’s article, as they both highlighted the effect strategic planning has on communities. A frequent occurrence in urban planning is when community groups are given a few options or strategies to select from, the pros and cons of which have already been analyzed. This process, according to some, engages the public in the planning process. What often occurs, however, is that one or two of the options are portrayed in a positive light in comparison to the others. The natural, more logical choice for citizens, therefore, is the more attractive looking option, which is coincidentally the one planners wanted. This notion reflects greatly upon issues of promoting misleading information, which I discussed in my last post.

I particularly enjoyed the aspects of Couclelis’s article that focussed on storytelling. I think that instead of constructing options or strategies for the public to choose from, engaging in dialogue to determine the wants and needs of the community (as well as the fears and dislikes), which then informs strategies and options is a much more comprehensive approach. The important difference between these two approaches is that the first merely attempts to achieve a specific goal, for example to reduce travel times along a transit corridor by (1) road expansion or (2) building rapid transit. The second approach, on the other hand, enables planners to question a myriad of objectives, which arise because of storytelling. This is sometimes referred to as the multiple objectives approach.

In this transit project, perhaps it is discovered that reducing pollutants caused by vehicle emissions is actually the leading concern of the community. Preserving the character of the neighbourhood may be another major issue. From this approach, it may be understood that neither of the original goals may be suitable for the community, and that others should be explored. This inevitably increases the amount of effort required and creates a more complex planning process, but it arguably allows for more meaningful alternatives to be created.

The importance of GIS is in modeling and comparing the alternatives generated by this method. The objectives stated by the community can be weighed against each other and models can be compared. For example, a GIS may aid in determining that all transit improvement options share the benefit of reducing pollutants by 5%. This feature, therefore, can be removed from the analysis and allow for better, more transparent comparison of options.

– jeremy

Posted in 506, geographic information systems | Comments Closed

Agent-Based Models and Land-use Planning

Thursday, March 29th, 2012

I couldn’t help think about our lecture on agent-based modeling when I started to read Helen Couclelis’s article on coupling better models with land-use planning. I know that, here, Couclelis is thinking about a different kind of modeling than that often implied in agent-based modeling approaches. She first notes how “sour” the relationship between planning and the academy has gone (135). Then, after detailing the debate over whether or not a planning process utilizing models has any effect on actual land-use plans, Couclelis delves into how, in practice, actual physical planning has become a decentralized activity that doesn’t incorporate strategy (1357).

I get it and I agree. The work being done on the ground, at least in North America, Couclelis argues no longer resembles any of the model runs done in academia. I think the quote Outdoor Addict utilized from the article sums up this problem well. In sum, the models have failed to predict the future accurately enough or, at least, keep up with land-use in practice. Even the “systematic effort to understand what makes certain things about the future predictable and others not, or how to prepare for genuinely unpredictable futures, have so far had only a negligible impact on land-use planning and modeling” (1360). So, what do we do?

Perhaps this is the problem inherent in any modeling process. We do not know that the future will follow the path layed-out in a model. We do not even know that the models initial parameters catch all the various variables and their interactions. Clearly, although she doesn’t say it quite so directly, modelers in this field are struggling with this problem. As Madskiier_JWong points out, uncertainty is the name of the game when it comes to modeling or trying to predict the future (essentially what modeling is when you unpack all its sophistication).

My suggestion: perhaps this is where agent-based modeling might come in. It seems from our previous lecture that agent-based modeling excels at representing lots of competing variables (or agents) and representing the emergent phenomenon that result from their disparate actions. In a land-use context, this might help us to better understand how certain sites might be used in future years and how they might handle such use. Couclelis does suggest this approach on page 1369 when she talks about assessing the cognitive and social dimensions of model interpretation so that modelers can move away from the macro level they currently operate on. Yet, she doesn’t devote much time to it, and such an approach  doesn’t fit within the confines of models she describes that try to predict varying types of land-use cover and changes to infrastructure. But it may add a valuable dimension. A quick search online shows that many people are, indeed, already trying to couple these two ideas.

–ClimateNYC

Tags:, ,
Posted in 506, geographic information systems | Comments Closed

Modelling and planning

Thursday, March 29th, 2012

I don’t have a background in planning, so have relatively little to comment on Couclelis’ article. What I don’t understand is why planners have abandoned the strategic approach, and instead focus on what seems to be contemporary problem mitigation. Sure, there have been failures in strategic planning – some of those new towns and new housing projects in the UK come to mind, but how are we supposed to try to implement values of sustainability and similar without such an approach?

I’d also like to ask, where does GIS come into this article? It certainly comes in when the author throws around statements like “[planning should be] better integrated with certain informal techniques designed to promote its normative and future-oriented dimensions”. Wait a minute…normative dimensions and GIS? There are some things GIS can and cannot do. How are we supposed to take a ‘normative’ approach when planning with GIS? When you put an input into a model and get your output, should it have some kind of normative quality to it? How does a model even do that? I’m not saying that a model is necessarily positive – your output is just more likely to be occur when following a certain set of constraints, but how do we generate output that promotes the normative dimension of planning?

-Peck

Posted in 506, geographic information systems | Comments Closed

Lost in Hyperspace…

Thursday, March 29th, 2012

Aitken and Michel’s article bothered me. Perhaps I read their intentions incorrectly, but as some other posters mentioned, they seem to be slightly overreacting. They spend the paper discussing how GIS can only further empower the hegemony of urban planners: deconstructing the failings of urban planning and those who plan, and making explicit the ways GIS will facilitate the “oppression” and blindsiding of the people whose communities are planned. And yet, GIS as a science, like any science (like planning!), has bias inherent, is limited to those who understand the language, can afford the systems… and yet is carried out nonetheless. And GIS as a tool, (as is implied here), like any tool, is neutral–it can be used for good or for evil, as they say. So I take issue with the constant denigration of the use of GIS as it is today. Wouldn’t any tool be just as dangerous? And haven’t urban planners (and the politicians behind them) been planning for years (without GIS as we know it today) with ill-conceived ideas of how a community should be, how people want to live–if Pruitt Igoe is any evidence, I would argue many have.

Additionally, however, Aitken and Michel wrap up with how “the GIS community may enable those affected by planning contexts to speak for themselves”. This seems perhaps a redemption for GIS. Allowing people who aren’t planners into the equation, expanding the context of GIS, may make it useful after all. But then they sum of with this.

“Clearly, there is a need to demystify the specialized speech and practice of GIS… it is beyond the scope of our discussion to elaborate on how training and access to GIS could be provided to all people affected by a planning context. Nor is it possible for us to delineate fully the myriad of ways the institutional structure would have to be changed in order to accommodate equal access to GIS”.

So they introduce all the problems, but refuse to really address any solutions, and that is where Aitken and Michel lose me in their fight (for?) (against?) GIS.

–sah

Tags:
Posted in 506, geographic information systems | Comments Closed

GIS and the Importance of Communication

Thursday, March 29th, 2012

In the 1960’s an 70’s, GIS models—guided by rational instrumental planning processes—put the needs of the economy before citizens. This occurred in the form of massive urban renewal projects and, according to Stuart Aitken and Suzanne Michel, a lack of dialogue and communication was to blame. In accordance with the Chicago School of urban ecology, laws and models were derived, which revealed the secrets of urban dynamics. In order to position the community at the centre of the planning process and to avoid planning mistakes of the past, Aitken and Michel posit that GIS must be fully recognized as a tool in a process and the community should always remain at the centre of discussion. Does this process, then, transition GIS from a science to a tool?

While it is often assumed that the role of GIS in the planning process is an objective one, I feel that our current planning practices still rely on the rational instrumental planning process. As an example, the subject of misguiding community residents reminded me of a residential development project currently under way in Vancouver. Plans were made by the developer and formally submitted to the City. At some point in the proposal process, the project’s renderings—which were meant to address resident’s concerns that the building was too tall—were identified by local residents as inaccurate portrayals. As one can see in the images below, the developer’s representation of the project (A) is quite different from the city’s (B) and even more so in comparison to one made by a community member (C).

From: http://vancouver.openfile.ca/vancouver/text/tensions-rize-mount-pleasant

Aitken and Michel posit that individuals and/or organizations manipulate communication in order to legitimize political agendas and to exclude community members and I think that this development project is a good illustration of this occurring in real life. Using this as an example, I agree with Peck in that citizen awareness is crucial in understanding the planning process. If it were not for educated citizens who understood the role image manipulation has, the inaccuracy of the renderings may have never been realized.

I believe, however, that it is also the role of planning organizations to properly inform citizens, and I think that is where the authors’ concerns arise. A GIS potentially enables the spreading of skewed information, and this brings us back to the role of communication. Because a dialogue was in place with (informed) citizens, the planning process (and, therefore, the role of GIS) was arguably improved. Further, because data manipulation was caught, the marginalization of more locally grounded public discourses—those trying to gain “footholds in the planning process” by using accurate portrayals—was avoided.

– jeremy

Posted in 506, geographic information systems | Comments Closed

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »