Computers, Society, and Nature

“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

Alright this article is meant to show the readers that within the geospatial world, ontology must encompass both common-sense world of primary theory and the field-based ontology and I disagree with authors and their way of demonstrating their argument and…basically pretty much everything.

“A complete ontology of geographic phenomena will have to incorporate all of these scientific fact and more, but only some of them are of relevance to the primary theory of the geographic domain”

Doesn’t this mean that the primary theory is not relevant? Why should we stick to this one knowing that it is not near to completely representative of the definition one is looking for?

Beside, author mentioned that the primary theory recognizes the mountains based on their distinct shapes, covering, elevation and its level of hardship to climb, etc. However, geologists often categorize/classify the mountains based on their formations which are one of the most important factors to consider when distinguishing one mountain over other.

Also there is too much generalization and simplification in the authors’ arguments. For instance if one can distinguish between different animals and the authors argue that one can make distinction between these because they were separated through the evolutionary process, well the mountains and other plateau were have been changed and one can differentiate them through the geologic process with respect to their geological time frame. “Mountain is not a product of natural selection…” But it is a product of geological process and young mountains are being born and dying through geomorphological activities daily. There are in fact different types of mountains differentiated by these processes. Why ignore it?

Also it is mentioned that the ontology should be created within neutral framework but it seems like the primary theory is strictly based on the eyes of the humans rather than trying to categorize and view objectively and on top of that it has failed to demonstrate that one has properly done any scientific research to support the argument with over-simplification.

The fact that most of people who are not in the expert in such domain and because the time frame for the geologic processes is different, therefore unable for humans to sense but only can observe and analyze through data, does not mean it does not exist nor should be forced to be categorized based on human’s limited senses to perceive things.

Yes, it is not necessarily about mountains and I got carried away a little bit as well, but still my point is it seems like the authors could have done better. Overall, I was uncomfortable and confused while reading this article and can’t get rid of this leery feelings every time I read this article.

ESRI

“Do Mountains Exist? Towards an Ontology of Landforms” focuses on geospatial ontology creation and some of the main issues within this field. The main problem with answering the question “do mountains exist?” lies in the absence of bona fide boundaries for mountains. Moreover, the variety of definitions for “mountains” within different cultures adds to the difficulty of describing them. To properly define mountains, one must take into consideration multiple perspectives, including environmental boundaries (e.g. biomes and drainage basins).

One of the problems I had with this paper is that it does not delve into the importance of ontologies for GIS. “It is designed to provide computationally tractable, robust, neutral frameworks within which data deriving from different sources can be rendered intercommunicable”. This raises an issue that I had never fully considered. How can two individuals use the same dataset and be expected to come up with comparable results, if the data is not fully defined. This can cause issues within one research group, but is even more problematic if a researcher is using secondary data and cannot ask the original researcher for supplementary information. In this sense, ontologies serve to standardize concepts and allow for seamless exchange of information and knowledge. However, can concepts each have a single ontology? This seems impossible, considering the cultural and temporal implications of understanding and knowledge.

-IMC

Sorry in advance,  this is a long one.

Smith & Mark, “Do Mountains Exist? Towards an Ontology of Landforms”

Smith & Mark discuss the role of ontology in answering a fundamentally metaphysical question – do mountains exist? Central to their analysis is the ability to algorithmically describe and therefore categorize the geospatial world. Smith & Mark attempt to bridge geography and philosophy in this article to yield a geospatial ontology to support spatial reasoning and the nuances of natural language, however, their article simply comes across as a plug for positivist science.

On a philosophical level, Smith & Mark fail to place their ontological discussion into the mid-late 20th century discourse on existentialism and phenomenology. In this respect, the most pernicious argument they make is the existence of common-sense, universal to all cultures and intrinsic to all human beings (7). Further, they contend that common-sense vis-à-vis primary theory “must be compatible with the results of science” (8). This conclusion diametrically opposes the work of theorists such as Edward Said and Michel Foucault who note that knowledge systems are subject to complex political relationships of subordination and domination. From the relativist perspective, science is no exception to the power struggles of knowledge systems. From their logical, positivist science standpoint it is understandable that Smith & Mark make the conclusions that they do, however, they cannot simply brush over fundamental philosophical discourses.

From a geographical standpoint, Smith & Mark utilize and reinforce a narrative that portrays humanity and nature separable phenomena. By this account, pristine nature exists in the absence of human interaction. Smith & Mark do not acknowledge that many geographers, anthropologists, historians, and scientists reject this view. Political ecology, an interdisciplinary community of practice, is devoted to showcasing how policy makers seeking political gain often exploit the pristine myth. For a case in point example, see “Misreading the African Landscape” by Fairhead and Leach (1996).

Finally, the so-called “geophysical reality” of Mount Everest is yet another straw man argument constructed by Smith & Mark. Elementary geomorphological theory immediately contradicts that the “exactly this shape and material constitution [of Mount Everest], was there many millennia before humans came along” (14). Geographers know that this is not true even on a daily basis do the continuous, simultaneous, and dynamic processes of orogeny, weathering, and erosion. Additionally, a growing number of geomorphologists consider how humans influence geomorphological systems e.g. how dams affect river systems, how anthropogenic climate change is affecting glacial melting, etc.

Smith & Mark make the important recognition that ontology is inherent facet of scientific endeavour, however, I believe their allegiance to positivism is flawed and outdated.

– BCBD

Seeing this week’s reading topic I was already intimidated. I generally do not do well with philosophical rants and wonderings of why things are the way they are; I struggle with abstract concepts. From what I understood of the article (which I am still trying to wrap my head around as I type this sentence) is that someone like me would subscribe to Robert Horton’s primary theory. Primary theory is ‘common sense’ and object based which is cross-cultural. In other words, it is a set of accepted paradigms. It doesn’t concern itself too much with ‘why’ or ‘how’ things are but just that they exist. This was pretty much where I got lost. This article was wordy and weird. I found it difficult to follow and it made my already loose understanding of what ontology was even worse. The article was somehow explaining how geomorphic processes occur while simultaneously attempting to explain the concept of ontology. I understand why ontology is important – especially given the rise of information sharing (the internet). If everyone has a different concept of what a ‘mountain’ is then it becomes very difficult to collaborate on projects or even to understand products (such as maps). What I don’t understand is why this article needed to make an already murky subject so much more dense and confusing.

Until next time,

Nod

“Do Mountains Exist? Towards an Ontology of Landforms” by Smith and Mark explores the ontology of mountains. Before reading this article, I had never given much thought to the question: “what is a mountain?” I know what a mountain is when I see one, at least, I thought I did. But differences in language, culture and context, highlight the importance of properly defining the world around us. The link to GIScience is made obvious in the article: How do you store and define a mountain in a computer system, in a GIS, or in an environmental model? A good ontology provides a common framework to understand ‘things’ and to create such ‘things’ in a computer system. This allows for standardization which in turn facilitates communication and interoperability. Ontologies are at the foundation of shared information (spatial or other). However, it is important to consider who created the ontology when assessing its relevance and supremacy in different contexts or situations. While ontologies are useful, they are not necessarily inclusive of differing perspectives. Consider the (overused) example of how the Cree define a river (which includes the bank and the river) vs how Western scientific thought describes a river. How do you reconcile competing ontologies within a GIS? Is there no room for competition?

Fan_G

“Geovisualization illustrated” discusses alternatives to static maps, such as the “immersive and highly interactive virtual environments” which can be used to present spatial data (Kraak, 2003: 390). These are particularly useful in exploring the data and learning from it, offering more insight than traditional maps. Reading this paper, I was reminded of the first class we had in GEOG506, where we discussed what was or wasn’t considered a map (using a graph of migration flows). It now seems clear that there are quasi-endless ways of visualizing spatial data, to put forward different attributes.

Geovisualization could be a solution to the problem of representing temporal data, because of its ability to include time as a variable, especially in the 3D model. It would then be possible to visualize changes through time on one layer, which is not possible in commercial GIS software.

I would argue that the geovisualization models shown in this paper are not very user-friendly and require some explanation to be understood. However, an interactive version with sliders and rotating axes would be much easier to comprehend. In this case, geovisualization would be a tool limited to those with access to computers and an Internet connection. Can 3D maps be made clearer on paper?

-IMC

Kraak (2002) Geovisualization illustrated

“Geography and GIS are more than just maps” is a common phrase heard in undergraduate geography courses around the world. Indeed, many discussions in GEOG 506 revolve around this issue. Breaking down conventional beliefs such as GIS as contemporary cartography, framing GIS as a tool, or opening and unpacking the ‘black box’ are essential themes in the seminar. On this train of thought Kraak (2002) seeks to broaden the possibilities of geospatial datasets beyond the 2D map and statistical output. Instead of an end product, he envisions that diverse geovisualization forms will lead to geospatial exploration, hypotheses building, and ultimately the creation of new knowledge. Following the observation of Finke et al. (1992), Kraak notes that creative discoveries are often a product of unconventional thinking (2002: 391).

While this view is agreeable to most readers, creating environments that facilitate unconventional thinking is not a straightforward task. More often than not, practicality stifles creative conditions. This can largely be attributed to the need to meet demands in the job market, as outgoing students seek to improve their employability. As a result, pedagogical practice tends to deviate from the creative ideal. Conventional practices are taught to the majority of students, cementing their realm of possibilities. In GEOG 201 we focus on learning ArcGIS, the de facto industry standard. When we are equipped with the same tools—and often the same subject matter—we immediately reduce the prospects of diversity. Additionally, due to logistics of undergraduate coursework, students rarely get to see let alone create geovisualizations beyond 2D maps.

There is a reason why most users regard GIS as a tool as opposed to a science. Although there is an incredible amount of abstraction, endless uncertainty, and a discipline wrought with ontological debates, for most this goes unseen. Introductions to GIS claim that it is more, but for students that never reach the level of analysis found in GEOG 506, GIS is merely a tool to create pretty maps. The question is – should this be the norm?

– BCBD

This week’s Kraak article was a rather pleasant read. I thought that framing the article around a specific example of Charles Minard’s famous map of Napoleon’s March on Moscow to better illustrate the topic of geovisualization was an intelligent choice. This article was well structured and the flow of ideas made for easy comprehension of the subject; from introduction of what a geovisualization is, to what Minard’s map depicted, to different types of maps/geovisualization etc. What struck me about this article was the sheer amount of alternative ways of presenting the same information and how those different presentations can drastically affect the way the information is retained. For example, how slider maps can both aid in the presentation of temporal information (versus a static map) but also affect how the data is perceived (i.e. slider moves at even time frames, however the original route involved stops that could last up to a month). Furthermore, the different applications of geovisualization demonstrated how traditional cartographic rules or traditional static maps can be restricting in portraying information. Take for example the 3D model depicted in Figure 5, in this portrayal if information shows not only the aforementioned month long stop that a similar map (figure 4) did not. Overall I found this article very eye-opening as it showed that geovisualization is not just colours and making maps look pretty – it’s a dynamic science that can help us draw conclusions and retrieve more information than we ever thought possible.

Until next time,

Nod

Kraak’s article titled “Geovisualization illustrated” discusses the concept of geovisualization. What I thought was particularly interesting was the idea that the visual representation of data is exploratory, and can facilitate the development of research questions and the generation of knowledge. In this way, data becomes the center of scientific exploration- it is what guides and drives research, placing the inductive approach to science at the forefront. The power of geovisualiztion is in the multitude of ways it allows us to better understand data. The limits of geovisulization are in bounds to creativity of the researcher and the computational tools used showcase data. I think Big Data will encourage improvements in geocomputational methods and techniques needed to process large amounts of information into digestible, readable and informative images. To limit the “creative challenges” greater collaboration will be needed.
Another exciting aspect about geovisualization that was not discussed in the article, is the importance it plays in the translation and diffusion of large amount of information to the public. The challenge of geovisulization then becomes how to effectively and accurately illustrate concepts or ideas through images.
A side note that I think is worth mentioning is that the standards used in geovisualization are characteristics of cultural and cartographic norms used in the West. Learning about ways space and time are visually represented by other cultures might enable us to gain a deeper understanding of our data and more effectively communicate ideas across cultures using maps and images.
Fan_G

“No biological or environmental constraints fully determine human thought and action, but neither does any schema or cognitive structure” (Amadeo & Golledge, 2003: 141)

Environmental Perception and Behavioural Geography is concerned with the “behavioral issues that ultimately, through their implications, contribute to long-term knowledge about durable human–environment relations” (Amadeo & Golledge, 2003: 134). This field of geography emerged with the desire of understanding human decision-making in spatial contexts. Initial research was flawed because of its assumptions that individuals had “limited but prominent” goals, but new works aim to comprehend actual persons.

EPBG reminds me of the lecture on agent based modelling. With a refined knowledge of human behaviour, will it be possible to use a GIS to create accurate models of humans?

On the one hand, I am tempted to say that it would be impossible. Much like indigenous knowledge, human behaviour is too unique and versatile to be compatible with a GIS. One of the critiques of EPBG was in fact the “constrained structures in the elicitation of ‘data’” (Amadeo & Golledge, 2003: 142). Because human experience can’t be constrained or understood by binary categories (so far), I hope it will remain outside the realm of science and modeling.

On the other hand, in a world where our location is constantly being recorded through our smart phones, and our interests and preferences can be identified by looking through our Internet history, there seems to be no limit to the data available on humans and our behaviour. If our gender, age, sexual identity, location, can be identified through an analysis of tweets, is there a limit to the power of technology? Do computers actually know us better than we know ourselves?

– IMC

Humans are considered to be biological entities and there has been a shift from studying  aggregations of human events to considering humans as individual biological entities and studying them as such. This reminds me of the agent based model of Emergent Group Level Navigation: An Agent Based Evaluation of Movement Patterns in a Folivorous Primate (Bonnell et al., 2013) in which each agent makes both independent and collective decisions and the unit of measurement is at the agent scale. Though the findings were aggregated the lowest common denominator was the monkey unit.

The notion that spaces and places have the power to evoke an emotional response, and that this can then speak to the individuals intended activity is a salient idea. Geography is concerned with processes that happen over space, and these response though cognitive in nature are no exception. One might argue however, that such things are difficult to measure.

This concept of environmental perception  and behavioural geography does not seem related in any way to GIScience. While I read through the article I struggled to find any semblance of links between the two topics. Upon further reflection however, the emergence of the domain of environmental perception and behaviour geography would require a development in GIScience techniques and capabilities to speak to this growing research interest in how the activities of an individual is formed by the perception of the environment in which they find themselves. Though I do not have an answer, I’m left with the following question: In what ways would analysis and data type option need to adapt to represent the dynamics of the EPBG specialization within a GIScience context?

– Othello