Computers, Society, and Nature

What is the role of GIS in supporting decision-making processes? It looks like I’m not the only one left with that question after the readings…

There is the GIS tool that continuously allows to add information (the layer cake), store and organize a tremendous amount of data, analyze the data, make maps and better inform decision makers. Is it the only role? Is it enough? Does having a lot of information allows decision-makers to make better decisions? I don’t think so. As M.C Er puts it : “decisions are based on personal experience and subjective judgment.” Taking decision is then a very individual process. As sidewalkballet argue in this blog, maybe the GIS way works for a certain cognitive style of people.

There has to be something more than relying on great good more and more information to make good decisions. Is GIS playing a role in decision-making processes because it’s more cost-effective? That is really hard to answer as M.C Er points out. If we don’t know if there is some economic benefits in using GIS why is it used? Well maybe because it’s a good way to legitimize the process and legitimize the decision. Decision-makers and managers can say :” Look we are so up to date; we are using GIS!”. It can become a way for the agencies to promote ‘good practices’.

Furthermore, I think that seeing the role of GIS in a technocratic way can lead to focus more on the processes of using information (gather information, organize the information, analyze information, communicate the results…) rather than on solving problems. That could be a very comforting thing when it’s complex to identify the problem that you’re dealing with (unstructured problems). However, I don’t think that it’s the way to optimize GIS and decision-making processes.

Even new technologies and Web 2.0 can serve the purpose of simply adding information produced by citizens about local knowledge. However, as it was already mentioned in this forum, the decision makers are not necessarily willing to take that information into consideration.

What if the role was to improve collaboration between stakeholders? Rinner et al. talk more precisely about supporting deliberation in the decision-making processes rather than the decision itself. Now that is GIScience! It is about interactions between the technology, users and producers in a specific context. The outcome is a debate on how different persons view their environment. In the example of the Argumap, the thread structure reveals the spatial thought processes of participants with the relations created between arguments. I might be a little optimistic, but the debate and discussions that are created trough the interaction have a potential to reshape existing structure between agencies and citizens.

S_Ram

M. C. Er, in his paper on Decision Support Systems written in 1988, critically examines the future of a technology that – to say the least – had a lot of room to grow. While his predictions for the future may have read like a sci-fi novel at the time of its writing, they weren’t too far from the truth, especially considering the amount of technological development that has occurred over the last 25 years. While talking about considering personality and cognitive style in decision making may seem like a given to us now, the fact that he was able to recognize that need at the time is somewhat amazing.

Much of the article is still applicable today. While technologies have advanced, the exact definition of a DSS is still unclear. On the other hand, M. C. Er states that the DSS should be centered on the problem solver, while in reality this paradigm is shifting. PGIS means that the data will start coming straight from the source, enabling a more accurate use of a DSS. Facilitating the problem solver is no longer the main concern for DSS, however data quality and data sources have come into the spotlight in a world that seems exponentially more complicated than it was in the year this article was written.

Pointy McPolygon

Densham’s article reviews work on spatial decision support systems (SDSS), conceptualizing them as distinctive from the GIS of the time.  Crucially, Densham problematizes the direct application of GIS to solving spatial decision problems, proposing instead that dedicated SDSS software incorporating specialized architecture and a modular code repository or model base management system (MBMS) be developed instead. Nonetheless, the author envisions a continued role for geographers in the informed decision process, in order to avoid “the selection of variables with inappropriate levels of resolution and geographical extent… ultimately result[ing] in solutions that are deemed unsatisfactory when evaluated in terms of the quality of the decision-making process that generated them” (p. 403).

Densham argues that “[c]urrent GIS fall short of providing GIA capabilities” because “their support of analytical modeling is lacking”, their display and reporting capabilities are limited, and they “are not flexible enough to accommodate variations in the either the context or the process of spatial decision making” (p. 405). There is no date on the paper, but its most recent citation is 1991, suggesting that when this article was published, the Soviet Union was still a thing and Apple products were at their first peak of popularity: has GIS today overcome the limitations of Densham’s era?  I would argue it has. For starters, hardware and operating systems have made huge advances since the year of my birth, supporting greater data storage, graphical capabilities and computational power for analytical programs (even interpreted ones!).  Meanwhile, the advent of the internet along with new, more user-friendly scripting languages like Python, has made implementing model capabilities within GIS’ DBMS framework and the existence of code libraries—both dismissed by Densham as not feasible—possible.  These technological advances, along with improvements in graphical representation and user interfaces, have enabled GIS software to integrate decision support modules (such as the classic SDSS problem, location-allocation) directly into the software or as a plugin while retaining the potential for customization of decision models.  Today, producers of GIS software packages aggressively market their products’ SDSS functionality.

GIS and its enabling technologies have made strides, but so have competing technologies in business information/intelligence systems/software (BIS) such as the impressive Tableau software package. Despite the increasing role of spatial data visualization, analytics and decision support in BIS, development of these tools tends to be the realm of computer scientists and not geographers. Even though tech has advanced considerably across the board, Densham’s argument that geographers are not obsolete still resonates today. As geographers, we need to assert our place at the spatial decision support table, both by advancing GIScience such that GIS remains relevant to (and if possible, ahead of) contemporary decision support analytics, and by reminding software developers and decision-makers of the importance of a nuanced understanding of spatial concepts and considerations.

-FischbobGeo

I think it’s interesting that this article (written in 1988) starts the discussion by suggesting that there has been no consensus on defining what a DSS is – it reminds me of the intersection we’re at with GIS; it is a tool or a science? M.C. ER notes that some have tried to different a DSS from a non-DSS through the intention of the design, though many counter examples arise (M.C. ER’s, 1988). Similar to our discussion about GIS as tool, science, or somewhere in-between, perhaps we can use a similar methodology in how we define what a DSS is. How the DSS (or tool of a DSS) it is used, and the intention of the tool in that particular context dictates whether or not it a DSS.

M.C. ER acknowledges that “it cannot replace upper-level managers in decision making”  (M.C. ER’s, 1988), yet I would suggest that if the decision to be made involves any type of complexity, or exceptions, the group should be broadened to encompass a wider range of people. After all, it is a “support” system, implying that it is there to help with the process, rather than making decisions unless the path to a decision can always be deduced to a binary logic.  Since 1988, DSS has significantly evolved and grown in complexity and sophistication. Group DSS (I think of group DSS in terms of electronic meeting systems, such as web conferencing from around the world) have made its mark in the workplace, while I’m less sure about how AI DSSs have progressed since the 90’s. Perhaps a missing, or unsuspected trend that emerged was the integration a spatial component into a DSS, whether it be the ability to web conference from around the world, or the ability to seek new patterns that can affect decisions when factors and information can be geographically tagged.

-tranv

In this chapter, Densham spoke at length about the components required to develop a decision support system capable of handling and utilizing spatial information. He seemed to approach this from the development perspective – how can this type of system be designed to be useful and useable for both programmers and decision-makers. As Dipto already mentioned, two decades have passed since this book was written and GISystems have advanced considerably since – many packages now could be considered at least many aspects of what Densham describes as important in a SDSS. This discussion also reminds me of some statistical debates, where many statisticians have argued the need for a decision-theoretic approach to analysis. In a full Bayesian data analysis (with spatial data or not), a loss function should be specified that relates to the decision made from the results of the analysis – the loss function should capture the “consequences” of making a given decision. An example could be a randomized clinical trial between two drugs (A and B), and based on the results of the trial, drug B is deemed superior based on some criteria. The decision to use one drug over the other will negative consequences (adverse reactions, financial repercussions) and these could be represented in the loss function probabilistically. Presumably one set of repercussions would be worse than the others, and ultimately assist in a more holistic decision-making process beyond the usual statistical analysis performed. I don’t think I’ve ever seen this actually attempted in the literature yet,  but with more data and better software/systems, analyses could move in this direction. I think there are probably many areas where researchers, scientists, and many others call for systems that aid in decision-making rather than simply performing a given task or analysis.

References:

-Kathryn

Compared with the M.C. ER’s  “Decision Support Systems: A Summary, Problems, and Future Trends” from 1988 and the “The use of Web 2.0 concepts to support deliberation in spatial decision-making.” by Rinner et al. shows the progression of the DSS since its inception. Information gathering and sources of information are no longer limited – a wider audience of professionals and non-professionals in the field are able to participate in the debate significant to them. “Graphical and other sophisticated displays” (M.C. ER’s, 1988) has now evolved from a pretty user interface to also encompass a geographical aspect through the incorporation of GIS, and easy to use geospatial interfaces like Google Map.

A real benefit to utilizing web 2.0 is the efficiency to gather information from a variety of sources. By using an increasingly sophisticated World Wide Web and taking advantage to the space-time compression, the forum is open to anyone with Internet access to contribute their ideas and opinions. At the same time, opening the forum to such a wide range of audiences can cause an overload of information that can be hard to manage, and prove as credited sources.

The authors have touched on the desire of using Web 2.0 and PGIS to assist in the decision making process. Since the article has been written in 2008, a quick Google scholar search shows ~ 7000 results (dating from 2009 or later) from using the search criteria “web 2.0, spatial decision, policy, public participation”. To me, this indicates that this field continues to gain momentum and show real opportunities in changing the way decisions tend to be made in a top down manner. However, are the professionals and decision makers open to involving a wider audience who may not be as academically qualified?  Gathering the data, and analyzing it takes a tremendous amount of time as well, which can deter policy makers from taking advantage of these tools. I see this as a huge opportunity in the urban planning field, where no one can be categorized as inappropriately qualified. By living in the city, planning decisions made will inherently affect your day to day life where those opinions should have some weighting in the decision making process.

-tranv

Well, that was a good debate back then… I’m glad that the issue is solved and that GIS as a science is now accepted. Science is not about having answers; it is about asking questions. We now have resources to think critically about how GIS has an impact on the society, and conversely how the social, cultural, political and economic dynamics influence GIS developments. I’m glad that we (westerners) are less and less going into non western communities or working with marginalized groups saying: “I have the tools to solve your problems!”.  Science brings a critical and analytical point of view when working with GIS to answer research questions, or when directly questioning the GIS itself.

I’m glad that we (academics) let go of that epistemological debate about GIS, and that we are focusing more on ontological issues about GIS, on ways to represent qualitative information, and on ways to make GIS accessible, useful and beneficial to marginalized populations.

The text from Harvey J. Miller shows how it is important to think critically about GIS. It’s not perfect, and sometimes it’s not well designed to look at specific issues. Miller argue that the urban and transportation dynamics are changing with the globalization and in turn, the GIS technology has to be adapted in order to assess the everyday life practices of people. The idea of a full-circle is also present in the first text : “GIS: Tool or Science?” (sidewalkballet also saw it!). Technology (GIS toll and GIS toolmaking) influences the society (science) and in turn society influences the technology. Maybe GIScience looks like a spiral with the mutual influences of technology and society (see image: spiral). The society and researchers are questionning the developments of the technology, it’s making the spiral go backwards but after that, there is a shift to a new loop that gets bigger as it evolve.

Finally, I’m glad to be in a GIScience course and to think critically about all of this!

S_Ram

Harvey J. Miller’s article on the role of people in GIS raises an interesting question on fundamental analysis underlaying urban GIS use. Traditionally, GIS uses a ‘place-based’ analysis however that fails to capture many of the essential elements that should be analyzed within the urban context. After all, transportation and urbanism are essential the expansion of people, so they should be more easily analysed using a people-based model. This difference can be hard to wrap your head around but picture these two scenarios of a student’s day at McGill, analysed using place-based (1) and activity theory (2):

1) all the different McGill buildings are places, about every hour a certain amount of students enter and exit each building, where the activities change in each class room within the building.

2) examining each individual as their physical environment changes, the trips they take from one class to another, and what they have learned where. How long they spent in each class versus how time they spent in the libraries studying for those classes, etc…

The advantage, in this case, to using activity theory is that you are able to establish pattern and purpose in the individuals action. In a world where people are constantly moving around while others are trying to figure out what exactly it is that they are searching for, this type of analysis can prove to be extremely useful.

To feed some fire to the debate on GIS as a tool or science, it is clear that Miller operates using GIS as a science since he questions the underlying concepts upon which place-based analysis is conducted (with regards to urban environments). Activity theory shows us what people – extremely mobile in this day and age – do with their limited amount of time that they are given. Place-based analysis does not capture the flux of people in a way that is capable of demonstrating the way peoples thoughts affect their actions. That is in essence, what everyone wants to know…

Pointy McPolygon

Wright et al. released an article in 1997 title “GIS: Tool or Science” which attempts to gauge the perceived position of GIS along a continuum from ‘this could add a nice figure to my research’ all the way to ‘GIS-ology (science!)’. The authors used opinionated data from a user-driven debate on a GIS listserv on the topic and found that the users perceived GIS as either a ‘tool’, a ‘toolmaking’ endeavor, or a ‘science’. Clearly GIS can be seen in many a different lights, even among us GIS nerds. As geographers – I am told – we are the perfect creatures to be paired with GIS because we uniquely combine the ability to think about data management  in terms of space and a knowledge of physical surface phenomena of the planet. The authors found that 2 dynamic forces were at work that caused this difference of opinion among GISers: how the users define ‘science’, and whether or not GIS is distinct enough to be considered a science.

Without getting into too much epistemology, the authors attempt to dissect the philosophy of science. What I found more interesting than their definition of science was the way they de-blurred the line between technology and science by saying GIS must meet 4 criteria. Significant? Check… Challenging? check check check… inadequate research in other disciplines? Definitely… Commonality among issues? Why does it feel like I keep repeating myself.. Sounds like it has crossed the boundary to me!

On the other hand, if GIS is a science, and not all geography students are scientists, then am I correct in saying that it must emerge from under the umbrella of the ‘geography’ discipline? The authors point out that GIS is what brought legitimacy to geography in academia, but if GIS wants to be popularly recognized as GIScience then it must expose the third criteria of technology as a science; it must show how it is distinct from existing sciences. In all GISeriousness, grad students now perform research projects on GIS all over the world and its hard not to see it as a science… but maybe im just an ignorant youngster – I was only 6 years old when this article was published, after all.

Reference:

Wright, D. J., M. F. Goodchild, and J. D. Proctor. (1997). Demystifying the persistent abiguity of GIS as “tool” versus “science”. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 87(2) pp. 346–362.

-Pointy McPolygon

Miller’s article was a very interesting introduction to temporal considerations and a person-centered approach in the context of geography. Why have I never encountered Hägerstrand’s time geographic framework before? It’s a fascinating way of looking at the world!

While focusing on the potential for advances in urban transportation modeling, Miller looks at cutting-edge trends in theory and technology to cut past the McNolegian scope on today’s dominant spatial data models and computational tools. He also zooms out from place-based representations of geospatial phenomena to propose person-based data models grounded in both space and time.  Rather than simply applying GIS as-is, Miller makes an effort to advance our understanding of how we may create more faithful abstractions of our universe to, in turn, undertake more faithful analyses of our universe’s phenomena.  For these reasons, it can be said that this article conceptualizes GIS as a science rather than a tool.

Could Miller’s work also be considered toolmaking? My initial thought was ‘yes’: he urges on the continual improvement of GIS tools and posits certain ways in which we could begin such improvements.  However, he doesn’t go quite as far as implementing the data models and analytical methods that he introduces.  It is up to subsequent work to take the theories collected and synthesized by Miller and translate them into practice—this is where the distinction between ‘doing GIS’ as science and as toolmaking appears to lie. 

Yet by getting the scientific ball rolling, Miller has made a contribution to GIS as toolmaking.  To borrow a concept from time geography, advancing the science of GIS and improving the tool can be considered an activity bundle, as the former eventually becomes a necessary precursor to the latter.  Thus, the continuum for GIS conceptualizations may be messier, and less mutually exclusive, than one might gather from Wright et al: it may indeed be possible to ‘do GIS’ in more than one way at a time.

-FischbobGeo