“GIS has fundamentally changed the way that we create, use and think about maps” Discuss.

GIS encompasses the Geographic Information Systems which consist of the hardware, software and practices to run spatial analysis and mapping programmes as well as the science which is the theoretical background to the systems (Gregory et al., 2009). The statement in the title can therefore be interpreted as geographic information systems and science both changing the way we interact with maps as these two elements are interlinked. In this essay, I will explore arguments for and against the statement such as disaster response strategies, social-spatial integration, the rise of technologies and cartographic traditions.

Geographic information systems’ predecessor was most likely to be the use of remote sensing for military purposes during the 1950s which developed into computer-assisted map production in the 1970s-80s (Longley et al.,2005). These remote sensing technologies were also used to forecast weather, identify resources inland and monitor ecological change. ARC GIS, arguably the most iconic and popular GIS to this day, was launched in the 1980s and was created to connect information to solve issues in the real world (Holt-Jensen,1999). These systems were able to make map creation more dynamic and are now used today as key disaster response resources. A wide variety of response-coordinators from governments and NGOs to individual volunteers can use dynamic temporal GIS maps to make better informed decisions when planning rescue efforts (ESRI). GIS has the ability to use data (e.g. real-time satellite images) of an affected area to highlight affected areas as well as key transport links which either still exist or have been destroyed.

On March 11^th 2011, a seismic event of magnitude 9.0 occurred East of Japan which not only led to tremors on Japan’s East coast but also caused a vertical displacement of water sending a devastating tsunami hurtling towards the same area. The response to this natural disaster was strongly aided by GIS – ESRI’s technology was partnered with Japanese military maps which have a strong accuracy which allowed for a more efficient response operation. Social media data, such as Twitter tweets, online news and FaceBook statuses, during the disaster was successfully integrated using GISystems and mapped which helped to identify which areas required the most urgent rescue and what action to take (Penn State University, 2013). Tweets for example could be coded by highlighting keywords such as ‘danger’ or ‘elderly’ however the tweeting volume was high so a data sifting software was applied which then derived data to be represented on a map showing urgency of response required in affect regions. This method was highly effective as it allowed survivors of the disaster who were suffering to express their true views of the tsunami impact and thus a more accurate way for authorities to respond quickly and appropriately. However, with some tweets not being geotagged, it means that unless multiple analyses are undertaken to assess the struggle, the urgency of response for some areas may have been under/over-estimated. The tsunami also led to a devastating meltdown of a reactor at the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant which led to an exclusion zone being set up as well as the evacuation of all the residents within this area. This evacuation effort as well as analysis of nuclear fallout was also hugely aided by GIS technologies which were able to detect and map the impact of the meltdown incident (American SentinelUniversity, 2011).

We can see from this that since the rise of GIS and its incorporation into natural disaster response, the way that we as a society create and utilise maps has completely changed. Previously thought of as a static source more traditionally used for navigation, a map can now be used dynamically and be constantly updated in order to help make more informed decisions under pressured circumstances and be able to incorporate spatial, temporal and social data in one visual representation. US government officials have also stated that GIS is now paramount to a successful response and communication effort post-disaster (American Sentinel University, 2011). Geographic information systems can also aid future recovery by helping reunite people post-disaster. ‘Google People Finder’ was set up after Haiti’s 2010 earthquake and has been used post-tsunami in Japan in order to reunite people with their loved ones across the affected areas (American Sentinel University,2011) (Penn State University, 2013).

With the rise of the World Wide Web (WWW) in from 1993, GISystems’ power expanded and allowed users to join and create maps from all over the world. Not only did it become a popular vehicle for GIS application delivery, it also allowed for personal use on mobile devices and was very cost effective (Longley et al.,2005). Historically, cartography has been associated with the elite and was used to control the poor (Harley, 1997) however the WWW has been able to change this in the modern world. The internet’s ability to allow users to interact and contribute to GIS maps has increased public access and learning which can be seen through Google Earth’s features as well as the ability for social media data to be portrayed cartographically as discussed above post-natural disaster. This has opened up the creation and use of GIS to everyone who has access to the online websites and fundamentally changed the way society interacts with maps today – not just the rich, educated and elite. However with the freedom of use of online GIS, uncertainties can arise (Holt Jensen, 1999). This is when GIScience becomes highly relevant as it serves to question the accuracies of GISystems and their representations. Online users can import a variety of data (of varying accuracies) to create representational maps and the science of geographic information has changed our ways of thinking about maps – we do not see maps as neutral, accurate resources anymore but have learnt to question their accuracy and honesty.

GIS has also changed our way of thinking of maps through the integration of spatial data (maps) with socio-economic data. It has created a way of representing these dynamic datasets effectively in order to allow increased understanding of social patterns through time and space – these have also helped decision making in business such as building new retail outlets (Longley et al.,2005). Although these have changed the way we have been able to understand social data through maps, it has also posed issues with privacy of data as well as the worry that the generalisation of data when representing can forget minority views and risks ecological fallacies developing (Longley et al., 2005).  Although GIS in this instance as hugely changed the way society understands and uses maps, it has also raised a lot of questions in mapping.

There are however arguments against geographic information systems fundamentally changing people’s views on maps suggested in the statement. The change in thinking towards maps’ honesty and accuracy could be attributed towards changes in thinking during the cultural turn of the 1980s when researchers across a variety of disciplines studied and realised the potential of maps to convey messages (Kitchin and Dodge, 2007). This disputes the claim that GIS fundamentally changed our ways of thinking about maps as it could have been caused by cultural studies academics’ views being filtered through popular media. Furthermore, although the software was created to incorporate geographic information into mapping, this could not have been carried out with the rise of computing and digital illustration which truly changed people’s ability to create and use maps (Longley et al., 2005). In a way, GIS was not the sole influencer of change and cannot be argued as the fundamental changer of society’s views and functions with maps today.

In conclusion, weighing up the variety of arguments around GISystems and GIScience, I believe it is clear that GIS has fundamentally changed how we create, use and think about maps. These have been seen through GIS’s role in disaster management, online mapping with public interactivity and its ability to incorporate socio-economic data and mapping in order to convey information – although we cannot forget that GIS’s development has not been without dispute over its inaccuracies and ethical issues. However, there are many other technologies such as the World Wide Web, graphics software and rise of computing which have aided its influence. Therefore it cannot be confirmed that GIS was the sole influencer of this change in society.

 ______________________________________________________________________________

Source: http://gis.townofchapelhill.org/

My Views: Ways to make your writing more interesting to read

After studying a piece of journalism and academic writing and engaging in a group discussion with my tutorial group, we found some key ways to make our work more interesting to read.

Visual evidence (graphs, diagrams and photographs) really hold our attention when reading a piece of writing as it creatively displays a key concept or idea a text is trying to explain. This makes the text more varied which keeps the reader engaged. My academic article I explored on globalisation made use of a lot of rhetorical questions which engages the reader by involving them. Tailored language to make it more accessible for target readers is also important because experts can be bored by concise summaries whereas beginners may be put off by multiple uses of complicated and technical language. Sentence length and writing structure is also important in order to keep the reader engaged and not bored. Sentences need to be succinct with key points made clear as opposed to waffling on as this will help the reader understand the writing and thus be more interested. Structure is essential, without it a piece of writing can be confusing and the key point of the writing may be confused or lost. One idea raised was the use of subheadings and we all agreed that we did find this very helpful when reading academic and press articles.

In terms of content, we also discussed that radical ideas although they can be memorable can be very frustrating to read and can put off the reader. We agreed that we preferred even debates in writing as opposed to one-sided bias perspectives with no consideration for other opinions. This is important in engaging the reader as it can entice them to read further in order to learn more about other points of view on the subject. That said, radical views can leave a lasting imprint on a reader’s memory as mentioned by one of the members of our group however it can leave a reader livid afterwards.

Looking at Orwell’s rules of writing, we came to an agreement that writing needs to have a balanced view on a topic as well as a perfect balance between concise beginner level writing to expert work. Writings which are too concise with lack of depth and length can be extremely disengaging to those who have a small knowledge of a subject. Furthermore, Orwell’s statement of using more everyday words as opposed to scientific words can be off-putting when writing academically as your work can be seen to be unintelligent and lack depth.