CHAPTER 24 Geographic Information Systemsdanbrown/papers/gisgia2000_proof.pdf · attention to the...

IGIAC24 7/7/03 1'. :16 PM Page 353

IntroductionThe role of GIS within the discipline of geography, notto mention its role within the daily operation of a verylarge range of human enterprises in the developedworld, has undergone major changes in the decade-plussince the first edition of Geography in America (Gaileand Willmott 1989) was published . Not the least ofthese major changes is an important redefinition of theacronym . In 1989, GIS meant only"geographic informa-tion systems" and referred to an immature but rapidlydeveloping technology. Today, many geographers makean emphatic distinction between the technology(GISystems or GIS) and the science behind the techno-logy (GIScience or GISci) . This important transitionfrom a focus on the technology to a focus on the far-ranging theoretical underpinnings of the technology andits use are dearly reflected in the research progress madein this field in the past decade. This chapter highlightssome of the significant aspects of this diverse researchand its related impacts on education and institutions .The chapter focuses on the work of North Americangeographers, though reference to the work of others isunavoidable. We recognize the many and increasing 'contributions of our colleagues in other disciplines andoverseas to the development of GISci, but focus ourattention to the scope defined by the present volume .The chapter doses with speculations on the future of GISin geography in America in the coming decade .

Geographic Information SystemsDaniel G. Brown, Gregory Elmes, Karen K. Kemp,

Susan Macey, and David Mark

CHAPTER 24

The Emergence of GeographicInformation Science

In the late 1980s, geographic information systems(GIS) were large stand-alone software and informationsystems being applied to a growing range of applicationareas . Today GIS are well integrated into the normaloperations of a large range of industries as diverse asforestry, health care delivery, retail marketing, and cityplanning. Developments in the capabilities of and accessto GIS technology during the past decade have paralleleddevelopments in the computer industry as a whole .Similarly, academic research into the fundamentalconcepts and theories that underlie GIS has maturedand become better connected across multiple disciplines.Drawing on fields as diverse as computer science,cognitive science, statistics, decision science, surveying,remote sensing, and social theory, "geographic informa-tion science" (Goodchild 1992b) has emerged as animportant synthesizing influence during the 1990s .The term "geographic information science" (GISci) wascoined and came into widespread use in the 1990s, andsuggests a shift in focus of many in the community awayfrom the technology for its own sake and toward morechallenging intellectual issues.

In a much referenced paper in which he argued for theidentification and fostering of a science of geographicinformation, Goodchild (1992b: 41) defined GISci re-search as "research on the generic issues that surround

GIAC24 7/_//03 11 :16 PM Page 354

354 • Geographic Methods

the use of GIS technology, impede its successfulimplementation, or emerge from an understanding ofits potential capabilities." In justifying a change in namefrom the International Journal of Geographical Informa-tion Systems to the International Journal of GeographicalInformation Science, Fisher (1997a : 1) relates that thejournal has published articles that "have contributed notto the understanding or development of systems as such,but to the science which underpins and exploits thesystems ." Pickles (1997: 369) offered this definition for ascience of GIS : "the scholarly investigation of its origins,logics, systems, new capacities, and new uses ." Thesedefinitions are construed broadly enough to includeboth "research about GIS" and "research using GIS," butit seems obvious that the former would be more centralto a geographic information science than the latter .However, it should be noted that the very large size of theGIS Specialty Group (GISSG), which in the late 1990swas the largest of the AAG's SGs, likely reflects the factthat many geographers use or hope to use GIS in theirresearch or teaching. Core GIS and GISci researchers inAmerican geography would be a smaller group .

GIS and Geography

Although geographers have remained central within theemerging GISci community, and although the GISSGhas become the largest specialty group within the AAG,there are signs of discomfort in the relationship betweenacademic geography and GIS as one of its children,albeit jointly parented with other disciplines . An earlyindication of this discomfort came in the form of TerryJordan's (1988) presidential address to the AAG, inwhich he argues that GIS is merely a tool constituting"non-intellectual expertise" (Jordan 1988) . We, on theother hand, believe that GIS can be thought to poseenough intellectual challenge to comprise a science .

One indicator of the relationship between GIS andgeography is the nature of publications in the discipline .A survey of articles published in the Annals of the Asso-ciation of American Geographers, an admittedly narrowgage of the discipline, turns up eight research articlespublished between 1990 and 1998 that included "GIS" or"geographic information systems" in the title, abstract,or keyword list Of the eight articles that specificallymention GIS, three (Egbert and Slocum 1992 ; Peuquet'1994; Curry 1997) discuss "research about GIS," whereasthe remaining five present "research using GIS," mostlyin physical geography (Butler and Walsh 1990; Dobsonet al . 1990 ; Savage 1991 ; Palm and Hodgson 1992;and Sabin and Holliday 1995). The list is a bit longer

when articles that fall within areas that often qualifyas GISci but did not mention GIS are added, includingspatial cognition (Golledge et al. 1992 ; MacEachren1992a) and cartography (Olson and Brewer 1997) . In asummary of research articles submitted for publicationin the Annals between 1987 and 1993, Brunn (1995)listed manuscripts in twenty-one topics . GIS was notincluded in the list explicitly, but was lumped with thetopic titled "Models and Techniques." A little over 2 percent of the articles submitted to the Annals during thisperiod fell into this category, and since other techniquesare included, only a fraction of those would be consideredGIS. This category would clearly not include articleson research that uses GIS . Based on the research articlespublished in the AAG's flagship journal, one mightbe excused for concluding that academic . geographersview GIS largely as a tool worthy of only limited basicresearch. Brunn's (1995) work seems to indicate that theproblem is related to a low number of submissions tothe Annals, rather than to any editorial bias against GIS .Geographers in GISci are publishing their work in otheroutlets .

The pages of the academic journals of the AAG alsosaw a continuation of the debate about the nature ofGIS and its relationship with geography (Dobson 1993 ;Pickles 1997; Wright et al. 1997) . Wright et al. (1997)summarize a discussion on this topic that occurredspontaneously in a computer-based newsgroup . Explicitin their evaluation was a consideration of three disparatepositions on the role of GIS: as a tool, as toolmaking, andas a science. This discussion raises basic questions aboutthe epistemological and ontological foundations of GIS,which had not been asked earlier in its development . Inhis comments on the work by Wright et al . Pickles (1997)lauds them for raising these issues, but remains criticalof the limited engagement that they and others in theGIS community have made with theories and critiquesof science within and outside geography .

In the United States, John Pickles has been instru-mental in encouraging and facilitating a rethinking ofthe place of GIS within the discipline and within societyin general . His 1995 edited volume, Ground Truth: TheSocial Implications of Geographic Information Systems(Pickles 1995), is essentially a call to action. Some ofthe criticisms aimed at quantification in geography inthe 1970s have been redirected at GIS, partly in responseto the boosterism that has surrounded the technology(e .g . Openshaw 1991) and partly as a general indictmentof the positivist theoretical environment within whichmany GIS practitioners work .

An earlier call to reexamine the role of GIS and thecomputer within geography came from Dobson (1993),

GIAC24 7/9/03 1 :59 PM Page 355

in a paper which is a revision of his earlier paperon "Automated Geography" (Dobson 1983) . Dobson'soptimism about the potential for a revolution in the waygeographers work, and the kind of work they do, lies inwhat he sees as the facilitation by computer technologygenerally, and GIS in particular, of integrated analysis,in the vein of the "landscape" approach of the latenineteenth and early twentieth centuries . Although theenthusiasm for integration and wholism may have beenshared by many, others felt this optimism temperedby the observation that there remained fundamentalcomputational (Armstrong 1993) and theoretical(Marble and Peuquet 1993) limits to what GIS can allowgeographers to accomplish . Further, some commenta-tors questioned the sorts of analyses GIS facilitatesand whether these were the ones needed (Pickles 1993 ;Sheppard 1993) .

GIS-Retated Research inGeography in America

The diversity of geography's traditional areas of study isstrongly reflected in the diversity of themes pursued bygeographers doing research in GISci and in the applica-tion of related technologies . While spatial analysisunderlies all practical applications of GIS, it also pro-vides a solid foundation for the development of newtools and the exploration of new ways of examining thegeographic world through this digital medium . Thetraditions of cartography provide the foundation for themap interface commonly used in GIS while cartographicresearch themes have new pertinence when appliedto GIS. Human and cultural geography themes haverecently risen in prominence as interest in issues sur-rounding the use and value of GIS has been expressed .

This section summarizes several research themeswithin GISci to which geographers contribute. Thesethemes are grouped into the following categories : com-putational and technological issues, representationalissues, analytical issues, data quality and error pro-pagation, integrating GIS, and GIS and society . Thesecategories have some, but not perfect, resemblance tothose presented in Goodchild's (1992b) discussion ofGISci and those generated by the University Consortiumfor Geographic Information Science (UCGIS, more onthis organization later in this article) in 1996 and 2000(Table 24 .1) . We cite a number of papers as examples ofparticular research areas only, rather than as a listing of

Geographic Information Systems . 355

Table 24 .1 Research challenges identified by theUniversity Consortium for Geographic InformationScience (UCGIS) in 1996 and 2000

Spatial data acquisition and integrationDistributed computingExtensions of geographic representationCognition of geographic informationInteroperability of geographic information

Spatial analysis in a GIS environmentThe future of the spatial information infrastructureUncertainty in spatial data and GIS-based analysesGIS and societyGeospatial data mining and knowledge discoveryOntological foundations for geographic informationscienceGeographic visualizationAnalytical cartographyRemotely-acquired data and information in GIScience

5 urce : UCGIS (1996, 2000).

all work in a given area . Furthermore, we do not cite thehundreds of applications of the numerous advancesdescribed, many of which are made in disciplines otherthan geography.

Computational andTechnological IssuesWhile many of the computational and technologicalresearch issues have been undertaken by computer andinformation scientists, geographers and other geographicinformation scientists have made some significantcontributions by capitalizing on generic advances incomputing technology.

Recent special issues of the International Journal ofGeographical Information Science highlight two of thesethemes: parallel processing and interoperability . In thespecial issue on parallel processing, Mower (1996) lists anumber of spatial data handling problems that have beenaddressed with parallel processing . These include imageprocessing, drainage basin analysis, network analysis,cartographic name placement, line intersection detec-tion, and viewshed analysis . Healey (1996) points to anumber of advances that have facilitated the adoption of

GIAC24 7/9/03 1 :59 PM Page 356


parallel processing approaches for . GIS. Significantinvestment in parallel technology by large hardwarefirms (such as Cray), development of standards forparallel software (MPI), and increased availabilityand need for large data sets in GIS all provided impetusfor further research and development in parallel GISalgorithms. Armstrong and Densham (1992) presented aconceptual framework for developing spatial algorithmswithin a parallel processing environment (e .g . spatialinterpolation ; Armstrong and Marciano 1996) . Xiongand Marble (1996) illustrated approaches to decompos-ing spatial analysis problems using the empirical exampleof a traffic flow analysis in a parallel environment.

Research in interoperability for GIS addresses"incompatibilities in data formats, software products,spatial conceptions, quality standards, models of theworld and whatever else make 'GIS interoperability adream for users and a nightmare for systems developers'"(Vckovski 1998 : 297). While interoperability as it isdefined by the Open GIS Consortium (described belowin the section on institutions), is in large part a typeof standards effort, it is a fundamental foundation ., forthe much-anticipated revolution of object-componentsoftware . In this scenario, which is rapidly unfolding,the huge, complex software packages typical of manycommercial GIS are unb undled to allow small, inexpens-ive components to be served across the Internet on apay-per-use basis. This has lead to the emergence ofyet another meaning for the S in GIS-geographicinformation services . Such low-cost services mightfacilitate democratization of GIS and its use as a meansof empowering the less advantaged members of society,a theme we will revisit in more detail below .

Much of the work in interoperability addressestechnical methods and mechanisms for overcoming thebarriers to full integration of disparate and hetero-geneous data, but some focus on the development andrefinement of data standards, in particular, the spatialdata transfer standard (SDTS) (e .g., Arctur et al . 1998 ;Moellering 1992) . The internet has provided an im-portant vehicle for development of data-sharing envir-onments (Nebert 1999) . However, barriers to technicalinteroperability have been easier to challenge successfullythan those related to semantic interoperability-incom-patibilities of languages, symbolic representations, andsyntax (UCGIS 1996) . For system's to be interoperablethere must be a consistent set of interpretations of theencoded information-one system must be capable ofunderstanding the meaning of another system's data .

Other technologies are changing the way GIS prac-titioners do their work. One of the more importantof these is most certainly the Internet . An estimated

540 million people used the Internet daily in early 2002 .A number of articles discussing both the opportunitiesand technologies involved with GIS on the Internet haveappeared in the industry's trade magazines, includingGIS World (now GEOWorld) and Geo Info Systems (nowGeospatial Solutions) . Although there has been muchboosterism (McKee 1999), the capabilities, impacts, andbenefits of delivering on-demand maps and GIS func-tionality are now becoming a very active area of researchand development (see for example Carver et al . 1997 ;Lin and Zhang 1998 ; Peng 1999; Harrower et al. 2000;MacEachren 1998). Another related development is thatof mobile computing, which integrates wireless com-mumcations technology (cellular and satellite) with globalpositioning systems (GPS) and GIS for greatly enhancedfield data collection and real-time mapping (Novak1995), and which has led to the emergence of new com-mercial enterprises in location-based services . Althoughthese technologies are dearly changing GIS practice(Blennow and Persson 1998), education and researchactivities related to mobile GIS have largely been focusedin the engineering disciplines .

Representational Issues

The ways in which GIS represent real-world geographicphenomena limit current GIS . Chrisman et al . (1989)discussed the problematic representational issue ofraster versus vector in the previous volume of Geographyin America. Although this topic remains with us yet,the necessity of a functional distinction between thesetwo fundamentally different representations has beenreduced . Some GIS vendors now provide functionalitythat can integrate operations on raster and vector formatdata using automatic data conversion. In the 1990s,focus shifted to understanding the conceptual underpin-nings of these different representations . Couclelis (1992)and Goodchild (1992a) outline the underlying percep-tions of the world that give rise to the raster and vectordata models, namely the concepts of fields and objects.Others have attempted to develop a stronger philosoph-ical foundation for GIS through the consideration ofontology for both objects (B. Smith and Mark 1998,2001) and fields-continuous surfaces of measuredattributes (Peuquet et al. 1999) . Work in this area hashelped to better define the relationships between real-world phenomena, human understanding of thosephenomena, and their representation within digitaldatabases. Better definition of these relationships holdsthe promise of giving rise to alternative and/or betterrepresentational structures, more intelligent use of those

`GIAC24 7/7/03 11 :16 PM Page 3 .1

structures, and more intuitive interfaces for human-computer interaction .

Meanwhile, in continued examinations of the objectmodel, the observation that some objects suffer fromindeterminacy came to the fore . This observation mani-fested itself in a concern both for the nature of bound-aries between objects in an uncertain world (Mark andCsillag 1989) and for the representation of so-calledfuzzy objects (Fisher 1994) and their relationshipswith boundaries (Brown 1998) . In Europe, a researchinitiative on "Geographic Objects with IndeterminateBoundaries" was undertaken to explore alternativerepresentations (Burrough and Frank 1996) . As in mostsuch European meetings, American geographersmade significant contributions, including the identifica-tion of problems associated with indeterminate objects(Couclelis 1996) and potential GIS-based representa-tional solutions (Usery 1996) . Object-orientation hasbecome an important technical vehicle through whichobject representations can be implemented and hasgiven rise to GIS data representations that betterreflect spatial semantics (Leung et al. 1999), encapsulatesemantic and topological relationships among objects(Tang etal.1996), and facilitate modeling of geographicalmovement processes (Westervelt and Hopkins 1999) .

Work has begun to extend traditional representationsin other ways as well. Fundamental to these extensionsare the incorporation of full three-dimensional datastructures into existing GIS and the development ofrobust spatio-temporal representations (often calledfour-dimensional) . Concepts of how to represent timewithin a spatial data model were developed by Langran(1992) and Peuquet (1994), but practical successesin implementing temporal data structures were rare.E . J . Miller (1997) describes an approach to interpola-tion in four dimensions .

Related to these issues, research into spatial cognition,a tradition in geography that .extends well before the1990s (cf. Blaut and Stea 1971 ; Downs and Stea 1973;Golledge and Zannaras 1973) has recently attracteda larger audience as the GISci research communitybecomes increasingly aware that the ways in whichhumans view geographic space can be used to developformal models of that space. Such formal models cansubsequently be used as strong theoretical bases for datamodels, data structures, and approaches to data visual-ization (Mark and Frank 1991) . The work has examinedhow people acquire spatial knowledge (e .g . Golledgeet al. 1992) and process visual information from maps(Lloyd 1997), and informs our GIS-based approaches tocommunicating knowledge . Issues of spatio-temporalcognition and their implications for GIS design were


addressed by Egenhofer and Golledge (1998) . Majorresearch efforts have focused on cognition in order tocontribute to the development of better representationsof geographic space through understanding how peopleperceive such issues as scale and dynamics (Mark et al.1999) . Cognitive and computational research agendas inGISci have been connected through work on formalizingspatial relations (Egenhofer and Franzosa 1991 ; Markand Egenhofer 1994), on spatial databases and querylanguages (Egenhofer 1992, 1997), and on human-computer interaction for GIS (Mark and Gould 1991 ;Medyckyj-Scott and Heamshaw 1993) .

Scale, one of geography's fundamental concepts, isintimately related to how we represent the real world inthe digital medium. Scale is fundamental in our cogni-tion, measurement, representation, and presentation ofgeographic information. Early in the decade, McMasterand Buttenfield (1991) compiled an edited volume thatconsidered the issues associated with map scale and howthey translate into the digital environment . Lam andQuattrochi (1992) summarized the multiple definitionsof scale and placed it in the context of the fractal modelthat engaged geographic information scientists for manyyears (see also Lam and DeCola 1993) . Work on thedependence of geographical representations on scaleproduced important information about the degree ofspatial dependence and its effects on representations ofgeographic phenomena and processes (Bian and Walsh1993; Stoms 1994 ; Walsh etal . 1999) . Issues surroundingscale in GIS, remote sensing, and environmental model-ing were addressed in an edited volume by Quattrochiand Goodchild (1997) in which authors discuss em-pirical observations of the effects of scale change, fractalmodels, and data structures and tools for analysis atmultiple scales.

Visualization of geographic information is anotherfundamental geographic theme that has emerged as acritical representation issue for GIS. MacEachren et al.(1992 : 101) defined geographic visualization as "the useof concrete visual representations whether on paper orthrough computer displays or other media to makespatial contexts and problems visible, so as to engagethe most powerful of human information-processingabilities, those associated with vision ." Hearnshaw andUnwin (1994) edited a volume devoted to exploring thelinkages between new visualization approaches and datastored in a GIS, and a paper in the book by MacEachrenand Taylor (1994) illustrates the importance ofvisualiza-tion within modern cartography. Weibel and Buttenfield(1992) produced specific recommendations for softwaredesigners and GIS users to improve the graphic outputfrom GIS for use in analysis and decision-making. There

GIAC24 7/7/03 11 :16 ` 14 Page 358

358 - Geographic Methods

has been a substantial amount of work on developingapproaches to graphically portraying information aboutuncertainty in geographic information (MacEachren1992b; Beard and Mackaness 1993), including that pre-sented in a special issue of Cartographica (Beard et al.1991). Hunter and Goodchild (1995) reviewed a numberof techniques for handling and displaying uncertaintyinformation about digital elevation models (DEMs) . Theseapproaches included calculating epsilon bands, mappingprobabilities, and managing the error . Special issuesof Cartography and Geographic Information Systems(MacEachren and Monmonier 1992) and Computers andGeosciences (MacEachren and Kraak 1997) were devotedto the topic of geographic visualization in general .

Analytical Issues

Interestingly, the foundations created by early workin spatial analysis during geography's quantitativerevolution continue to provide the basis for many of theanalytical tools in today's commercially available GIS . Aspecial issue in the International Journal of GeographicalInformation Systems highlighted the range of spatialanalysis methods used within GIS (Burrough 1990), asdid books by Fischer et al. (1996), Fotheringham andRogerson (1994) and, more recently, Fischer (1999) .

When coupled with statistical and computer model-ing software, GIS has been advanced by the implementa-tion of a broad array of new tools, many of which havebeen borrowed liberally from developments in otherfields and adapted for spatial analytical applications.Geostatistics, an advanced toolkit developed for geolog-ical applications is now becoming commonly used inphysical geography applications (Oliver et al . 1989) andis integrated into the functionality of many GIS packagesor made available through direct linkages with stand-alone software (Cook et al . 1994). Human and urbangeography have benefited through better inferential sta-tistical capabilities from the development of functionallinks between GISystems and various spatial statisticaland modeling packages (Sui 1998) . Anselin et al . (1993),Griffith et al. (1990), and Can (1992) have createdsubstantial stand-alone and/or add-on modules thatprovide a range of spatial analysis capabilities for GIS,mostly related to characterizing spatial structure andincorporation of spatial autocorrelation into stand-ard statistical models. In some cases, researchers haveextended the conceptual underpinnings of an existingspatial analytical approach to facilitate its imple-mentation within a GIS/spatial context, for exampleH. J. Miller's (1991) use of the space-time prism concept .

Although not specific to GIS and spatial analysis,other non-parametric approaches have been imple-mented in association with GIS applications to providepredictive capabilities where non-linear relationshipsexist. Artificial neural networks provide such non-parametric approaches for image classification and pat-tern recognition and thus have some application withingeography and GIS (Fischer and Gopal 1993; Hewitsonand Crane 1994; Brown et al. 1998) . Classification andregression trees (CART) and generalized additive models(GAM) are examples of other such tools (Franklin1995 provides a good summary of predictive mappingapproaches for vegetation) . Spatial modeling has alsobenefited from developments in agent-based approachesto modeling . For example, Roy and Snickars (1996) andClarke and Gaydos (1998) use cellular automata andWestervelt and Hopkins (1999) use agent-based simula-tion to model spatial processes within a GIS context .

As data volumes have increased, exploratory spatialdata analysis has become increasingly used and accepted .Bailey and Gatrell (1995) take an explicitly exploratoryapproach to spatial data analysis, and the volume editedby Fischer et al. (1996) contains a substantial amount ofwork devoted to exploratory analysis . Work on explor-ing the spatial autocorrelation structure of geographicdata (Griffith 1993) has contributed significantly to bothexploratory and inferential statistical applications withinGIS. The book by H . J. Miller and Han (2001) on geo-graphic data mining and knowledge discovery describesmore recent advances in exploratory spatial data analy-sis. As might be expected, however, old foundations can-not be quickly unseated and this increasing emphasis onexploratory analysis and data mining still troubles thosewho believe that theory ought to drive data analysis,rather than the reverse (Taylor and Johnston 1995) .

Uncertainty and Error Propagation

As the field has matured, methods for identifying, cor-recting, tracking, and visualizing errors and uncertaintyin spatial data with GIS-based analyses have command-ed the attention of many GIS researchers . While notdearly an extension of traditional geographic research,this topic has allowed many geographers to extend theirknowledge of the behavior of geographic phenomena . Atthe end of the 1980s a research initiative by the NationalCenter for Geographic Information and Analysis(NCGIA, more on this organization later) resulted in animportant early book on the topic (Goodchild and Gopal1989). Intensive research by geographers and otherscontinued on these themes and results are collected in

IGIAC24 7/7/03 11 :16 PM Page 359

the proceedings of three conferences in a series on spatialaccuracy assessment in natural resources held in the1990s (Congalton 1994 ; Mowrer et al. 1996; Lowell andJaton 1999) .

Much of the early work was focused on develop-ing adequate descriptions of the error in spatial data(Goodchild 1989) . This led to work on error modelingthat involves describing both the overall magnitude oferror and how the error is thematically or spatial dis-tributed (Goodchild et al. 1992; Lanter and Veregin1992). In some cases, such descriptions are obtainedanalytically (Thapa and Bossler 1992), but in many casesricher descriptions of error can be obtained throughsimulation (Fisher 1990) .

Once modeled, it is possible to examine how errorpropagates through sequences of analytical processes ."Error propagation modeling refers to the attempt toemulate the processes of source error modification andtransference, with the goal of estimating the error char-acteristics of derived data products" (Veregin 1996:419) .Although the changes in error levels through simpleGIS-based analyses can often be quantified analytically(Lanter and Veregin 1992), simulation and probabil-ity approaches have proven more successful for evenslightly complex analyses (Fisher 1992 ; Huevelink 1993 ;Veregin 1996) . Monte Carlo methods are now commonlyemployed to evaluate the uncertainty in the output ofa GIS analysis based on some knowledge about anda model of the error in the input (Emmi and Horton1995). Obtaining estimates of error is important forunderstanding the degree to which the results of analysesshould be used to support a conclusion or decision .Propagation of error pattern through calculation ofderivatives of DEMs was used to diagnose and treata common systematic error pattern (Brown and Bara1994) .

Integrating GIS with Other Tools

In many applications, GIS is one tool among many usedto address a particular question or problem . In applyingGIS to these problems, researchers or practitioners havehad to develop approaches to combining the capabilitiesof GIS and other tools . Here we discuss three additionalareas in which GIS is used in a supporting role and theinput that geographers have made in support of theirintegration : environmental modeling, decision supportsystems, and remote sensing .

The integration of GIS and environmental modelsand the use of such tools to understand a broad range ofenvironmental processes were the topics of a series of


conferences held during the 1990s (Goodchild et al.1993,1996; andNCGIA 1996). The proceedings volumesfrom these conferences provide excellent compendia ofinformation on the range of solutions that have beendeveloped for addressing environmental issues rangingfrom atmospheric science through hydrology to ecology .Solutions range from developing efficient computercodes for transforming and passing data between differ-ent software products, to methods for handling funda-mental differences in the conceptual models upon whichdifferent software tools are based. Indeed, many of theseissues are now being addressed generically within theinteroperability context.

Many of the analytical developments in GIS, includ-ing integration with models, have been specificallyaimed at developing a basis for spatial decision supportsystems (SDSS ; Armstrong 1994) . In addition tointegrating GIS with models (Armstrong et al. 1991)and knowledge-based approaches (Kirkby 1996), SDSSdevelopments draw on the decision sciences (such asmulticriteria evaluation) to improve the utility of GIS indecision-making contexts (Carver 1991 ; Jankowski andRichard 1994 ; Eastman et al. 1995).

Early in the 1990s, the challenges of integrating GISand remote sensing were seen to include: error analysis,data structures and access to data ; data processing flowand methodology; the future computing environment;and institutional issues (Star 1991) . Many of these chal-lenges have been addressed through research in otherareas of GISci and are noted elsewhere. The influence ofresolution of both images and other geospatial data, andthe effect that observation scale has on analytical powerwere addressed at length in Quattrochi and Goodchild(1997). However, much remains to be done, as Jensen etal. (1998) suggest: do the current data collection andintegration strategies fulfill our needs? Is it possible tointegrate accurately the increasingly more abundant andprecise spatial data with other current and historicaldatasets to solve complex problems? Are there sign-ificant gaps in the remotely sensed data currently beingcollected? If data required by user communities are notavailable, how can the data be obtained and who shouldcollect it?

GIS and Society

The introduction to this chapter alluded to the debate onthe engagement of GIS and society within academicgeography, a debate that has emerged from acrimonyand. division to constructive engagement and synthesisduring the last decade. The discourse between GISci

I

IGIAC24 7/9/03 1 :59 PM Page 360


researchers and critical social theorists has focused onwhat has been characterized as the reconstitution of log-ical positivism, reductionism, and nomothetic methodsthrough GIS . A strong polarization of ideas and scholar-ship was apparent at the outset of the 1990s (e.g . Taylor1990; Taylor and Overton 1991 ; Openshaw 1991), butthe intellectual atmosphere of the 1990s was character-ized by increasing communication and debate betweenscholars of different perspectives. Early critiques of GISfrom the social-theoretic perspective were posited byJohn Pickles' "GIS and the surveillant society" (Pickles1991) and Neil Smith's "History and Philosophy ofGeography: Real Wars, Theory Wars" (Smith 1992) . Sui(1994) considered the influence of GIS and postmoderntheories in urban geography . If at the end of the decadethere was not complete accord, there were signs that thephilosophical tensions were furnishing constructivesyntheses .

The progress from antipathy to constructive engage-ment may be traced through a sequence of meetings andsubsequent publications. Foremost among these pub-lications is the edited book Ground Truth (Pickles 1995),mentioned earlier. It offers a seminal critique of under-lying epistemological and methodological differenceswithin the academic community. A meeting held inNovember 1993 in Friday Harbor, Washington, spurredby the propositions that later appeared in GroundTruth, resulted in the publication of a special issue ofCartography and Geographic Information Systems focus-ing on GIS and society (Poiker and Sheppard 1995) . Ameeting held in Minnesota in 1996 on "GIS and Society :The Social Implications of How People, Space andEnvironment Are Represented in GIS," (Harris andWeiner 1996) was a direct outcome from Friday Harbor.Other outgrowths of the debate were a special issue ofGeographical Review (Adams and Warf 1997), examin-ing cyberspace and geographies of the information soci-ety, and a special issue of Cartography and GeographicInformation Science focusing on public participationGIS (Obermeyer 1998) .

At the end of the 1990s, Pickles (1999 : 58-9) con-cluded that the GIS community continues to be"reticent to acknowledge the conditions of its own con-struction . . . and that has by and large failed to develop. . . critical reflection upon its own practice," but thatthe absence of "GIS and society" questions has beenrectified. Several essays in the 2nd edition of the volume,titled Geographical Information Systems, i . Principles andTechnical Issues; ii . Management Issues and Applications(Longley et al. 1999), grounded GIS in different view-points and provide a deeper background in cognitivestudies and management perspectives, including three

chapters on the impact of societal issues on GIS withrespect to education (Forer and Unwin 1999), privacy(Curry 1999), and geospatial data policies (Rhind 1999) .Many of these perspectives were absent from the firstedition of the same volume (Maguire et al. 1991) .

As part of the discussions of the UCGIS's research pri-ority in GIS and society, academics outlined five distinctresearch directions, which may be summarized as theinstitutional approach; the legal and ethical perspective ;the intellectual history perspective ; the critical socialtheory perspective; and the public participation GIS per-spective . There is necessarily a degree of overlap betweenthese areas of study.

The institutional approach identifies a set of questionsdirected at uncovering the status and magnitude of GISimplementation by public and private institutionsand their rates of adoption of GIS . Institutional issuesaround GIS use have to do with both the role of GISwithin existing institutions and the role of new GIS-related institutions, such as those concerned with sharingspatial data and the National Spatial Data Infrastructure(Weatherbe and Calkins 1991). The National ResearchCouncil's Mapping Science Committee (MSC) has pub-lished regularly on institutional issues (NRC 1993, 1994,1998, 2001) . The MSC reports have advanced policydialog of data production, partnerships with govern-ment, state-local interaction with federal agencies anddistributed GIS . MSC has brought research contribu-tions of federal agencies, such as the National MappingDivision of the USGS and the Federal GeographicData Committee to the attention of Congress as well asthe wider academic community. The committee isidentifying data needs for place-based decision-making,research priorities in geography at the USGS, and incor-porating GIS in sustainable development and K-12education .

Proponents of the institutional perspective areconcerned with issues of efficiency and effectiveness,measuring the costs and benefits of GIS and evaluatingthe degree of equity in their distribution among indi-viduals and social groups (Obermeyer and Calkins 1991) .Theories and methods have been developed to evaluatethe outcomes of the use of GIS decision-making andpolicy (Epstein et al. 1996;.Ventura 1995) . The effect ofGIS on interagency communication is evaluated, as areGIS's effects on citizens' relationships with goverrunentas reflected in people's beliefs and actions regarding themanagement of land and resources (D. A. Smith andTomlinson 1992 ; Tulloch et al . 1997) .

The legal and ethical perspective is concerned with thelegal and ethical setting of GIS, including the variousmechanisms governing access to spatial data, and the

7

L

IGIAC24 7/9/03 1 .59 PM Page 36 1

Geographic Information Systems • 361

consequences of the proliferation of proprietary spatial The critical social theory perspective examines limita-databases. How these changes are rooted in govern- tions in the ways that populations, location conflicts,mental and legal regulations (Onsrud and Rushton and natural resources are represented within GIS and the1995), the ethical implications of these changes (Curry extent to which these limits can be overcome by extend-1997), issues of liability (Epstein et al. 1998), and pos- ing geographic information representations (Picklessible legal remedies (Onsrud 1995) have all been subjects 1995, 1997, 1999 ; Poiker and Sheppard 1995) . Theof investigation.

critique emphasizes the ways in which the natureImportant within the legal and ethical perspective is

of and access to GIS simultaneously marginalize andthe question whether GIS dissolves traditional protec-

empower groups with overlappingor opposing interests .tions of privacy . Curry (1997, 1999) argued that the

Furthermore, questions are raised of how the evolutionuse of geographic information increases our ability to

of geographic information technologies reflects societalextract characteristics about individuals from aggreg-

structures and priorities as well as the practices of thoseated data and reconstruct "virtual people ." This raises

who develop and utilize the technologies (Harris andimportant questions about the role of private life and the

Weiner 1996). The implications of differential access tocontrol that individuals can or should have over informa-

information and technology is major thread to emergetion about them . Within this context, it can be argued

from these inquiries.that a technology such as GIS, though in many aspects

The public participation GIS perspective centers ondriven by needs in the military, has been accepted as

the effective and widespread exploitation of GIS bylargely uncontrollable; societal norms, such as those

the general public and by community and grassrootsabout what constitutes a private life, are adjusted in the

groups (Harris and Weiner 1998 ; Craig et al . 1999) .face of the technology, rather than the reverse .

Public participation has implications for empowermentDrawing on existing literature on ethics and science within community groups using GIS and the consequent

or professional behavior, the issue of ethical behavior restructuring of power relations . The implications ofwithin the GIS profession has been addressed by a number GIS for the public quickly move into the territory ofof authors . Fisher (1997b) outlines professional . ethical political and social theory . The term "GIS2," referring toissues as they relate to six different actors in the GIS pro- an alternative, grassroots GIS, emerges from an activistfession: vendors, data providers, researchers, appliers, agenda directed at democratization of informationeducators, and the public . Onsrud (1993) discussed the and society (Harris and Weiner 1996) . Interest inelements that constitute unethical conduct . In a more Community-Integrated GIS (CiGIS) decision-makingcritical account, Curry (1995 : 69) argues that by their has developed as a case in point of GIS2 . One researchvery nature "the creation and maintenance of GIS theme stems from the integration of both cultural andinvolve ethical inconsistencies." This argument relates resource data in multipurpose land information systemsback to the issue of privacy and the problem of storing (MPLIS) and the involvement of the public through thedata on individuals without their knowledge or consent .

land planning process (Moyer and Niemann 1998) .The intellectual history perspective addresses the

An outcome of this approach is the "Shaping Dane"evolution of geographic information technologies and

demonstration, a community-based land-use project inthe dynamics by which dominant technologies are

Wisconsin . Citizen planning is enabled through web-selected from a variety of potential geographic informa-

based dissemination of data, digital library information,tion technologies at critical points in time. This per-

GIS analysis, and display tools and feedback mechanismsspective attempts to reveal the societal, institutional, and

(Land Information and Computer Graphics Facilitypersonal influences governing these choices and their

2001). New geographic representations and technologiesconsequences. It questions whether and why productive

are needed to address problems arising from the use ofalternative technologies have been overlooked. Coppock

current GIS technologies in these contexts (Obermeyerand Rhind (1991) set out the historical mainstreams of

1998; Schroeder 1997) .GIS development. Foresman's edited volume, History of

A detailed research agenda for GIS and society, in partGIS (1998), is an important historical record of tech-nical, institutional, and intellectual progress, while otherstudies focus on software innovation . Chrisman et al.(1992) appraise the development and influence of theODYSSEY system. Mark (1997) examines the convolutedroad to "discovery" of the Triangulated IrregularNetwork (TIN) data model .

driven by momentum from within the GISci commun-ity, in part directed at issues raised by critical social the-ory, has emerged at the end of the twentieth century .Technological progress and data availability may be saidto drive some aspects of GIS and society research-for example interoperability, open-GIS, mobility, andlocation-based services. Basic research continues to

7

GIAC24 7/7/03 11 :16 PM Page 3 6 2


address the improvement of data models to reflect richersocial, cultural, and political landscapes. GIS researchershave benefited from methods derived from critical socialtheory, while simultaneously many human geographershave recognized the value of GISci, and find its theory,tools, and methods to be a valuable mode of inquiryalongside qualitative methods . The increasing impactof geographic information in daily life promises to bea rich field for the future development of geographicinquiry and knowledge for both the physical and humansides of the discipline .

GIS Education in Geographyin America

There has been substantial growth and maturation ofGIS education since 1989 . In the early 1980s, techniqueseducation in geography was predominantly focusedon cartography and remote sensing, with only passingmention of GIS (Dahlberg and Estes 1982) . ThoughChrisman et al . (1989) made little mention of GIS educa-tion, the conclusions did lament the lack of textbooksand an inadequate supply of faculty with sufficient train-ing to teach GIS . This scant attention stemmed partlyfrom the attitude of the period. From the 1960s throughthe 1980s, GIS education was largely confined to collegesand universities and predominantly seen as an adjunctto research needs (Chrisman 1998) .

In the 1990s, several factors created an unprecedentedgrowth in demand for GIS education. Its growing usein a broad array of application areas coupled with thegreater affordability, availability and ease-of-use ofGIS hardware and software have generated a strongdemand for GIS education and training . This demandhas provided a huge increase in teaching opportunitiesbut, unfortunately, much of the early growth focusedon technical training rather than on building strongintellectual foundations (Sui 1995 ; Warren 1995) .

Clearly, geography does not have a monopoly on GISeducation . GIS courses may now be found in health,environmental studies, biology, forestry, computer sci-ence and many other disciplines. The growth of businessapplications of GIS technology is being paralleled by its'penetration into top business schools such as Wharton,Clemson, and Harvard (M. L. Johnson 1998; Murphy1997). Many geographers now recognize that GIS hasbecome imbedded in the activities of a diversity ofprofessional occupations. At the same time, they have

learned of the key role GIS can play in the teaching ofimportant spatial concepts (DeCola and El Haimus1995; Svingen 1994), a "trojan horse" model . Down'sarticle "The Geographic Eye : Seeing through GIS?"(1997) eloquently illustrates how various geographicskills are enhanced through the use of GIS.

Since the early 1990s, a number of new instructionalresources have become available. The first widely usedtext for GIS, Principles of Geographical InformationSystems for Land Resources Assessment (Burrough 1986),had no competition for several years . Another signal thatthe field is maturing can be seen by the large number ofundergraduate level texts that have appeared in the lastfew years, many of them by geographers (Burrough andMcDonnell 1998 ; Chrisman 1997; Clarke 1997; Davis1996; DeMers 1997 ; Heywood et al . 1998) . While most ofthose identified above are conceptual and general infocus, many GIS books on the market have an applica-tion orientation intended to serve both the demands of aspecific market segment and the broader level of deliverynow needed in GIS education . However, 2001 saw thefirst incorporation of the word "science" into the title ofa GIS textbook (Longley et al . 2001) .

Perhaps the most significant early contributor ofcurricular materials in the 1990s was the NCGIA. TheNCGIA Core Curriculum in GIS (Goodchild and Kemp1992), first distributed in draft form in 1990 when GIStextbooks were very scarce, allowed faculty with littleGIS background but with knowledge of quantitativegeography or cartography to develop and teach adequateGIS courses without undue amounts of preparation time .Distributed around the world in paper format and inseveral languages beginning in 1992, it became animportant foundation for many GIS courses during thefirst half of the decade (Kemp 1997) The NCGIA laterparticipated in the development of three additional curri-cula distributed on-line, including a Core Curriculum inGISci <www.ncgia.ucsb .edu/giscc>, a Core Curriculumfor Technical Programs <www.ncgia.ucsb .edu/cctp>,and the Remote Sensing Core Curriculum, now man-aged by the American Society for Photogrammetry andRemote Sensing <www.asprs .org> (websites last accessed14 November 2002) .

Added to this base is the increasing availability throughthe Internet of a broad range of GIS education resources .Databases, online demonstrations, course modules andtutorials, and even older versions of GIS software arenow freely available . In addition, GIS software vendorsare supporting the educational community by providingGIS software and curriculum materials . A samplingincludes . Environmental Systems Research Institute'sVirtual Campus <campus.esri .com>, Intergraph's

GIAC24 7/9/03 1 :59 PM Page 3 6 3

downloadable GIS demos < www.intergraph .com/gis/demos>, and Maplnfo's series of demonstrationmodules <www.mapinfo .com> (websites last accessed14 November 2002) . Many of these programs have beenaimed at the high school and community college levels(A. Johnson 1998; Kavanaugh-Brown 1998; Nellis 1993 ;Padgett et al . 2000). While much of the educationalmaterial is now being published on the Web, we are alsoseeing regular pieces on GIS education in such popularjournals as Converge and Geo Info Systems/GeospatialSolutions (Ramirez 1995,1996; Phoenix 1996; Kemp andWright 1997 ; Macey 1997) . More frequent articles, spe-cial sections and special issues on GIS education haveappeared in academic journals such as the Journal ofGeography and Transactions in GIS .Funding from the NSF has been instrumental in

fostering GIS education expansion on several levels . TheInstrumentation and Laboratory Improvement (ILI)and Advanced Technological Education (ATE) pro-grams have supported new initiatives at the universityand community college levels. The ILI program hasassisted many schools in integrating technology withinnovative coursework in GIS . The ATE programis aimed at developing new initiatives in ; technicaleducation for community colleges, where surveying andcomputer-aided design (CAD) faculty have often takenthe lead in teaching GIS .

While many programs and materials exist, therecontinues to be a need for more mechanisms to supportprogram development and information sharing (Kempand Unwin 1997) . Academic organizations and con-ferences have provided a continuing forum for GISeducators . The semi-annual series of conferences on GISin Higher Education beginning in 1991, but with rootsback to the mid-1980s, provided GIS educators with amuch-needed forum for interaction . As GIS educationevolved, the series metamorphosed into various confer-ences on GIS and Education and GIS in Education andthe focus expanded from a concern for course contentand technology to pedagogical discussion and deliverymechanisms. In 1995, Woronov wrote of GIS as being inits infancy in pre-college education, and lamented thefact that there were still many logistical, pedagogical,and technical issues to be resolved . In 1997, the GIScicommunity through the UCGIS identified a broadrange of challenges that GIS education continued to face(Table 24.2; Kemp and Wright 1997) . A summit onGISci education at the last GIS/LIS conference in 1998brought together representatives from several academic,professional, government, and private organizations .The issues discussed-the appropriate curriculumcontent for different constituencies, accreditation and

p a d Wright (1997) .

Table 24.2 Education challenges identified by theUniversity Consortium' forGeographic Information_Science in 1997

Emerging technologies for delivering Gt5 educationSupporting infrastructureAccess and equityAlternative designs for curriculum content andevaluation

Professional educationResearch-based graduate G15 education

Learning with GISAccreditation and certification

Geographic Information Systems - 363

certification, methods of delivering GIS education, theroles of universities and the private sector in GIS train-ing, educational partnerships, and distance learning inGIS-reflect the concerns of the academic community(Wright and DiBiase 2000) . Many challenges remain,but the widespread extension of GIS education downinto K-12 and community colleges and into professionalMasters programs is a demonstration that pressuresfrom the workplace for properly trained and educatedpersonnel are mounting . Across America, high demandfor young geography faculty who can teach GIS and/orGISci demonstrates how broadly the technology istaught within the discipline .

The maturing in the perception of GIS from the1980s view of GIS as simply a technique to the currentemphasis on GIS as a field of inquiry with substantialconceptual underpinnings has raised the question ofhow GIS could be introduced without teaching the geo-graphic concepts that underlie the system . Walsh (1992 :55) argued that "to know GIS one must first knowgeography." There has been continuing debate over theconcern .that "we may be failing to communicate theimportance of the geography within the automation"(Posey 1993:456) . Indeed, there remains a dichotomy inGIS education about the two primary avenues throughwhich GIS is incorporated into the curriculum: teachingabout GIS, and teaching with GIS-a dichotomy thatechoes completely the distinction between research withGIS and research about GIS . While there remains a needto train students in the basic principles and techniques ofGIS, the strictly "technique" approach is waning in favorof embedding GIS within an applied or concept-basedcurriculum, ensuring that fundamental spatial literacy isa component of this general program .

IGIAC24 7/9/03 1 :59 PM Page 364


It is relevant to consider four aspects of the relation-ship between GIS and higher education, especially ingeography : geography as the home discipline of GIS ; GISas a collection of marketable skills; GIS as enabling tech-nology for science; and GIS as an intellectual theme with-in geography (Kemp et al . 1992) . GIS should no longerbe seen as just a technique subject. At the tertiary level,we have come full circle with renewed interest in gradu-ate and research education in GIS, as evidenced by itsincorporation within the richer fabric of GISci (Mark1998) . At the high-school level, in addition to providingskills relevant to the workforce, GIS technology is beingintegrated into the curriculum as a tool to simulatereal-life situations and foster skills crucial to developinghigher-level thinking and problem-solving (McGarigle1998; Ramirez 1995) . Thus, by emphasizing the appliedside of GIS as a means to explore substantive themesin various contexts, the concern that GIS would becomea purely technical subject (King 1991), isolated from realworld, societal issues has been alleviated .

Given the lack of geography programs in US highschools, the most common home for GIS education atthis level remains in science and geoscience programs(Bednarz and Ludwig 1997; DeCola and El Haimus1995; McGarigle 1997). The visualization and problem-solving abilities afforded by GIS have led to itsincorporation particularly in the earth science andenvironmental studies areas of the curriculum. GIS isalso often used as an interdisciplinary modeling toolin real-life applications (Kelly 1998 ; McGarigle 1997,1998) . GIS has successfully been used to heighten envir-onmental literacy and awareness among high-schoolstudents. "Students who have an understanding of theGIS structure have excelled in the cognitive and affectivedomains concerning environmental issues which is animportant step in achieving environmental literacy"(Ramirez 1996 :38) .

These achievements augur well for an increasedunderstanding of the value of the spatial perspective .However, the lack of preparation in geographic literacyamong students and teachers remains a handicap that weare only starting to address with special programs(Bednarz and Luwig 1997 ; Palladino 1998). Whileconcerns voiced at the First National Conference onthe Educational Applications of GIS (Woronov 1995),namely that GIS use in schools implies changes in class-room practice and requires high levels of technicalexpertise, are fading, GIS often remains a "hard sell" tobusy teachers and the larger community (McGarigle1997) . While Fitzpatrick (1991 : 159) noted that GIS hadreached "a level where elementary students, using com-

monplace but powerful hardware, can easily conductsophisticated analyses after only brief instruction,"concerns about the necessarily technical nature of thesubject and its place in the curriculum continue to bedifficult to overcome. Indeed, the introduction of GISinto pre-college classrooms is progressing at a "frustrat-ing pace" (Audet and Paris 1997: 293) .

At all levels of education, barriers such as the lack ofresources, administrative support, teacher training, andrewards, have been noted by several authors (Audetand Paris 1997 ; Bednarz and Ludwig 1997 ; Macey 1998 ;Murphy 1997; Posey 1993) . In the 1980s, the primarybarriers were technological in nature resulting from theneed for high-end hardware and generally expensivesoftware programs. In the 1990s, hardware and soft-ware improvements, plus the availability of educationalpricing have greatly reduced, though not entirely elimin-ated, these obstacles. The provision and maintenance ofthe laboratory infrastructure for all education contextsremains a concern (Macey 1998; Palladino anu Kemp1991). In 1997, the UCGIS identified "SupportingInfrastructure" as one of its GIS education challenges .This challenge identified not only the obvious technicalinfrastructure issues, but it noted the lack of academicrecognition and support that is given to those teachingthis highly technical, rapidly evolving subject . At theprimary- and high-school levels, the relatively lowavailability of pre- and post-service teacher training andof acceptance of GIS into the curriculum continue tohamper its adoption (Bednarz and Ludwig 1997) . Effortsby several organizations including the NCGIA and theNational Council for Geographic Education (NCGE)in concert with vendor support are making inroadsinto the provision of teacher training . Other initiatives,including the development of pedagogical tools suchas Urban World (Thompson et al. 1997) and TheGeographer's Craft (Foote 1997), are easing the heavydevelopment burden that still characterizes the teachingof GIS. In addition, the World Wide Web is opening upnew opportunities in GIS education, as distance learninginitiatives, such as those at Pennsylvania State University<www.worldcampus.psu.edu/pub/programs/gis> and atthe University of Southern California < www.usc .edu /dept/geography/learngis> come on line (websites lastaccessed 14 November 2002) .

In the middle of the decade, Nellis (1994) set out threeagendas of reform to enable the integration of spatialtechnologies into geographic education : building con-sensus about the learning and teaching of geography,training well-integrated users of technology withingeographic curricula, and restructuring the discipline

GIAC24 7/9/03 1 :59 PM Page 36 5

to bring about real change . It is now recognized thatin geography, the role of technology such as GIS "canlead to more active learning andd adventurous teaching"(Nellis 1994 : 36) . It can also be a valuable integrator .However, while Goodchild (1992b) called for an educa-tion system that responds rapidly to new research and isable to build new concepts quickly into new programs,he notes that "unfortunately, the higher education sectoris too often characterized by conservatism, and it maytake many years, for new ideas to work themselves intothe curriculum" (ibid. 42) . As Macey (1997) notes, "thegreatest impact in GIS education will be felt at thebottom, grass-roots level in the coming decade." Muchremains to be done to achieve the much-heraldedpromise of GIS through widespread education thatinvolves not only the technology but also the criticalfundamental spatial concepts and the value of the spatialperspective .

GIS Institutions andTechnological ChangeThe decade of the 1990s has been a period of significantchange in the institutions and technologies surroundingGIS throughout the world, and American geographershave played significant roles in some of these changes .From the viewpoint of the first years of the twenty-first century, it is difficult to recall what it was likewithout "geographic information science," FGDC,OGC, UCGIS, and other institutions and technologies .None of the above institutions existed in 1989! Nor didthe World Wide Web, whose development also has had amajor influence on academia and society in general, andon the GIS community and GIS practice in particular .Although academics and other researchers had accessto the Internet for email and file transfer in the 1980s,the Web was a major change in usability and extent ofthe Internet The Virtual Geography Department, theNCGIA on-line Core Curricula, and the ESRI VirtualCampus mentioned above are examples of the import-ance of the Web in GIS and geographic education .

GIS Institutions

One of the most notable developments in GIS in the1990s was the establishment of a large number of institu-


Table 24 .3 GIS institutions established in the UnitedStates, 1988-1999

1988 National Center for Geographic Information a dAnalysisestablished by the National ScienceFoundation

1990 FGDC (Federal Geographic Data Committee), aninteragency committee, organized under OMBCircular A-16

1991 NSGIC (National States Geographic InformationCouncil)

1993 Open GIS Project began

1994 NSDI (National Spatial Data Infrastructureestablished by Executive Order 12906

1994 Open GIS Consortium founded

1995 University Consortium for GeographicScience officially established

Information

tions, such as organizations, journals, conference series,etc. In 1989, there were very few formal institutionsspecifically focused on GIS, in the United States or else-where. Academic GIS activities were mainly coordinatedby geographic, cartographic, or surveying organizations,and these same older fields also provided journalsand conferences for publication and dissemination ofresults . In the government sector, mapping agenciesoften led GIS activities, but there was little formalcoordination. In the private sector, the situation wassimilar. By 2002, all this had changed (Table 24.3) .

The GIS Specialty Group (GISSG) of the Associationof American Geographers (AAG) was itself very youngwhen the first edition of Geography in America (Gaileand Willmott 1989) was written. The GISSG came intoexistence in 1986/7, and elected its first officers at the1987 AAG meeting in Portland, Oregon. Though theorganization neither conducts nor publishes research, itsmembership organizes sessions and occasionally offersworkshops within the AAG Annual Meetings . It is prob-ably the only GIS-related institution whose membershipconsists exclusively of (self-identified) geographers .Membership in the SG grew steadily until 1995, doublingin seven years from its inaugural membership . Absolutenumbers have been roughly constant since then, andabout 20 per cent of all AAG members are members ofthe GISSG, a testimony to the broad impacts of, andinterest in, GIS within the discipline.

The National Center for Geographic Information andAnalysis (NCGIA) was a very young organization in

GIAC24 7/9/03 1 :59 PM Page 3 6 6


Table 24 .4 Research initiatives ofthe National Centerfor Geographic Information and Analysis (NCGIA)1988-1997

1. Accuracy of spatial databases2 . Languages' of spatial relations3. Multiple representations4 . Use and value of geographic information5 Large spatial databases6. Spatial decision support systems7. Visualization of spatial data quality8 . Formalizing cartographic knowledge9. Institutions sharing geographic information

10 . Spatio-temporal reasoning in GIS(11 . cancelled)12 . Integration of remote sensing and GIS13 . User interfaces for G1S14. GIS and spatial analysis15 . Multiple'roles for GIS in US global change

research1

Law, information policy, and spatial databases17 . Collaborative spatial decision-making18 . (Replaced by Conference) Spatial technologies,

geographic information, and the cityGIS and society : the social implications of howpeople, space, and environment are representedin GIS

20._ Interoperating GISs21 . Formal models of common-sense geographic

worlds

1989,. and is mentioned just briefly by Chrisman et al .(1989) . It was formally established in December 1988 bya research grant from the geography program of the U .S .National Science Foundation to a three-site consortiumof the University of California, Santa Barbara, the StateUniversity of New York at Buffalo, and the University ofMaine . From the perspective of this review, it is import-ant to note that two of the three consortium centersare located in geography departments (at Santa Barbaraand Buffalo) . The original award was for five years andwas subsequently extended for three additional years,ending as an NSF grant in December 1996 . Since then,the NCGIA has continued as an independent researchconsortium.

During this initial eight-year period, the NCGIAidentified twenty-one Research Initiatives intended tofocus research attention on significant problem areasthat impeded the growing use of GIS (see Table 24 .4) .Eighteen of these Initiatives included Specialist Meet-ings, workshops that brought together researchers indiverse but related fields of study to examine the current

Table 24.5 Research initiatives o1997-1999

Panel on Cognitive Models of Geographic SpaceScale and detail in the cognition of geographicinformationCognitive models of dynamic geographic phenomenaand representationsMultiple modalities andd multiple frames of referencefor spatial knowledge

Panel' on Computational Implementations ofGeographic Concepts

Interoperating geographic information systemsThe ontology of fieldsDiscovering geographic knowledge in data-richenvironments

Panel on Geographies of the Information SocietyMeasuring and representing accessibility in theinformation agePlace and identity in an age of technologicallyregulated movementEmpowerment, marginalization and public -participation GIS

situation and to lay out an agenda for research . Manygeographers have been important participants in thesemeetings and the subsequent research activities .

During this same period, the NCGIA contributed toGIS education and supported several conferences andsymposia. Additional NSF funding was obtained in 1997to initiate the Varenius Project which explicitly seeksto "advance the science of geographic information"(Goodchild et al. 1999) . Building upon the successof their original activities, an additional set of nineResearch Initiatives grouped within three thematic areaswas identified (see Table 24 .5) . Many of these expandedupon earlier topics and all have sponsored SpecialistMeetings attended by geographers .

Spurred on by the activities of the NCGIA, a series ofinformal meetings at conferences in 1992 and 1993 led toa workshop held in Boulder, Colorado, in December1994 (Mark and Bossier 1995) . At this workshop, forty-two participants representing thirty-three universities,one national laboratory, and one professional society(the AAG), met to create formally the University Con-sortium for Geographic Information Science to repres-ent the GISci research community in the United States .Of the forty-two people who attended the Boulderworkshop, thirty-two were American geographers .

The UCGIS was incorporated in 1995 . A major goal ofthe UCGIS is to increase funding for GISci research, and

GIAC24 7/7/03 11 :16 PM Page 36 7

it has conducted several Congressional events aimed atinfluencing US policy on the funding of GISci . In addi-tion, the UCGIS has established and promoted a set ofnational "challenges" for GISci research and educationaimed at encouraging research and financial attentionto these themes (see Tables 24 .1 and 2) .

UCGIS had sixty-five full members in 2002, of whichsixty-one were universities or university consortia . Sixprivate firms are affiliate members. Geographers formthe largest single group among more that 1,000 GISciresearchers listed in UCGIS member portfolios . Three ofthe first five presidents of UCGIS were former chairs ofthe AAG GISSG.

In 1990, the US National Academy of Sciences estab-lished the Mapping Science Committee to provide inde-pendent advice to government agencies and others ongeographic data and information issues. The MappingScience Committee was active throughout the decade,and by 2001 had produced ten reports, some of whichhave been highly influential, including the monographsToward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for theNation and Distributed Geolibraries. Spatial InformationResources (NRC 1993, 1999) . More of the work of theMSC is describe in the section on GIS and Society(above) .

During the 1990s, several key developments occurredwithin the US Federal government in the area of geo-graphic data standards and infrastructure coordination .The Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), aninteragency committee organized under OMB CircularA-16, was formed in 1990 to coordinate geospatialinformation activities within the US Federal govern-ment. This committee is chaired by the Secretary of theInterior, and gave high visibility to GIS and geospatialdata throughout the 1990s. The main purpose of FGDCis coordination across Federal agencies, and between theFederal government and governments at other levels.Thus far, FGDC has put an emphasis on standards forgeographic data and for metadata. In particular, theFGDC is responsible for coordinating the NationalSpatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), which was estab-lished on 11 April 1994 by Executive Order 12906 . Thepurpose of this was to establish "a coordinated NationalSpatial Data Infrastructure to support public and privatesector applications of geospatial data in such areas astransportation, community development, agriculture,emergency response, environmental management, andinformation technology" (Clinton 1994) . The ExecutiveOrder charged the FGDC with the responsibility toimplement NSDI by coordinating activities within thefederal government and encouraging participation bystate, local, and tribal governments .


Standards are a key element in such an infrastructureproject. In the early 1980s, the US Geological Surveybecame the lead agency for geographic data stand-ards within the Federal government. In 1992, aftertwelve years of development, the Spatial Data TransferStandard (SDTS) was approved as a Federal InformationProcessing Standard (FIPS) and designated as FIPS 173 .Compliance with SDTS is mandatory for federal agen-cies exchanging geospatial data outside their agencies .Responsibility for maintaining and extending SDTS alsolies with the FGDC.

Other levels of government in the United States alsoformed organizations during the 1990s . The NationalStates Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) heldits first meeting 27-9 October 1991 in Atlanta. Themajority of US states are now members ofNSGIC, whichhas an annual meeting and is an official stakeholderorganization of the FGDC . In many states there is a doserelationship between a land-grant university with stateextension functions and GIS within state agencies, andthus many US academic geographers play an active rolein NSGIC. The National Association of Counties alsocoordinates some county-level GIS activities across thenation and several states now have formed statewidegeographic information councils or agencies .

The private sector also became organized in the 1990s .The Open GIS Consortium (OGC) was founded inAugust 1994 to provide a formal structure and processfor developing an interoperability specification for GIS .Primarily focused in the private sector in the UnitedStates, OGC currently has members from many coun-tries, and from the public, private, and academic sectors .OGC is particularly active in ensuring compliance withinternational geospatial standards activities through theInternational Organization for Standardization (ISO) .

Two important GIS-related organizations were formedin Europe during the same period. In 1993, the EuropeanScience Foundation (ESF) established the GISDATAScientific Programme, which continued in operationthrough 1997 (Masser and Salge 1996). Like the USNCGIA, this program identified a number of importantresearch topics and held several research-oriented work-shops . US researchers were active participants in all theseworkshops. As well, the Association for GeographicInformation Laboratories in Europe (AGILE) was estab-lished in 1998 shortly after the formation of the UCGIS.AGILE's mandate is to promote academic teaching andresearch on GIS at the European level and to ensure thecontinuation of the networking activities that emergedthrough the GISDATA Programme, and through theEuropean Union's Fifth Framework and the DirectorateGeneral XIII .

N me

GIAC24 7/9/03 1 :59 PM Page 3 6 8


gj

n

ahlished,1979 999Table 24 .6 61S journals es

1979 Geo-Processing (closed mid-1980s)

1987 Intemationat/ournal ofGeographicalInformation Systems

1990 Cartography and Geographic Information,Systems*`

Surveying and Land Information System

1994 Geographical Systems

1995 Journal ofGeographic information Sciences

1996 Transactions in GIS

1997 Geolnformatica

International Journal of GeographicalInformation Science*

1999 Spatial Cognition and Computation

Journals and ConferencesIn 1989 the International Journal of GeographicalInformation Systems (IJGIS) was the only scholarly jour-nal explicitly devoted to GIS, though a number of specialissues devoted to GIS had appeared in journals up to thattime, notably a series in Photogrammetric Engineeringand Remote Sensing . By the end of the 1990s there were atleast eight such journals, two of which were formed byname changes of cartographic or surveying journals,and five that are new (see Table 24.6) . Another shiftof note was the 1997 name change of IJGIS, with the"S" changing from "systems" to "science" at that time .Several trade magazines for GIS and related areas, such asGIS World (now GEOWorld), Geo Info Systems (nowGeospatial Solutions), and Business Geographics (whichceased publication in 2001), also were established in the1990s.

The 1990s also saw the establishment of a varietyof conference series in GIS . One such series, the GIS/LIS meeting, went through an entire life cycle in theperiod covered by this book . The first GIS/LIS meetingco-sponsored by the AAG, the Urban and RegionalInformation Systems Association (URISA), the Amer-ican Congress onSurveying and Mapping (ACSM), andthe American Society for Photogrammetry and RemoteSensing (ASPRS) was held in San Antonio, Texas, inNovember 1988 . AM/FM International, later known asGeospatial Information and Technology Association

(GITA), also joined the GIS/LIS consortium, and a totalof eleven meetings were held, the last in November 1998in Fort Worth, Texas . The GIS/LIS meetings provideda single venue for GIS researchers and practitionersto exchange ideas. In 1998, some of the sponsoringorganizations decided to withdraw to concentrate ontheir own national meetings. The field has changed agreat deal since the late 1980s, and GIS/LIS, which playeda critical role in these developments, was not as dearlyneeded in 1999.

Also in the 1990s, several specialized GIS-relatedinternational meeting series became established, whileothers seemed to be in decline . The Auto Carto meetingswere the premier outlet for automated or analytical car-tography in the 1970s and early 1980s, but the seriesapparently ended with Auto Carto 13 in Seattle in 1997 .The Spatial Data Handling (SDH) meetings, foundedunder the aegis of the International GeographicalUnion's Commission on Spatial Data Handling, beganin 1984 and have been held in alternate years, coveringall technical and theoretical aspects of GIS . A meetingcalled GIScience 2000 was held in Savannah, Georgia,at the end of October 2000, and it can be expected tobecome a meeting series if the follow-up meeting inBoulder, Colorado, in September 2002 is judged to bea success .

The decline of generic or broadly based GIS-relatedmeetings may be due in part to the emergence of strongnew meetings of a more specialized nature . The firstinternational symposium on large spatial databaseswas held in 1989, and subsequently has met in odd-numbered years under the acronym SSD, producingeach time a fully-refereed volume of papers published inSpringer-Verlag's Lecture Notes in Computer Scienceseries (cf. Buchmannet al . 1989) . This conference bringstogether more computational GIS researchers on theone hand and the spatial and spatio-temporal databasecommunities from computer science and engineeringon the other. Similarly, another research community,focused on spatial cognition and geographic reasoning,crystallized with a meeting held in Spain in 1990 (Markand Frank 1991). This was followed by another stand-alone meeting on cognition, computation, and GIS inItaly in 1992 (Frank etal . 1992), and the next year the firstConference on Spatial Information Theory (COSIT'93 ;Frank and Campari 1993) was held, also in Italy. Thisalso became a series, with meetings in Austria (1995),Pennsylvania (1997), Germany (1999), and California(2001) . Other important conferences to appear in thisdecade were in the Integrating GIS and EnvironmentalModeling series (1991, 1993, 1996, and 2000) and theinternational GeoComputation series (held annually

GIAC24 7/9/03 1 :59 PM Page 3 6 9

since 1996) . A series of international meetings on spatialdata accuracy in natural resource applications beganin 1994 with a meeting in Williamsburg, Va . This is abiennial series that includes geographers in, collabora-tion with spatial statisticians and scientists in naturalresources. The first International Symposium on Geo-graphic Information and Society, held in Minneapolisin June 1999, may turn into a parallel internationalconference series for this growing research area .

Summary and Prospects

The transition from a society based on paper mapsto one based on digital geographic information hasnot been carefully planned . It is impossible to predictscientific discoveries, and in a field where the technologyexhibits obsolescence within months and where human .skills may be mismatched with technology within a yearor two, the dangers of forecasting are especially great .Nevertheless, we provide some speculations about thefuture of this important area of geography .

We can be confident that the price-performance ofcomputing will continue to improve . It seems equallylikely, however, that the sizes of datasets will grow to useor exceed the new capacity of the improved systems . Theexponential growth of digital geographic informationwill continue, and will generate concomitant demand forprofessionals at all levels, people who understand itsuses and foundations . Nevertheless, use of geographicinformation and associated technology by untrained, oreven unaware, individuals will increase even more dram-atically . Geographic technology and services will be em-bedded in the artefacts of everyday life-automobiles,personal digital assistants, websites, and communica-tion devices . The growth of wireless communicationtechnologies will allow every appliance to have access tothe Web, and to have its position in geographic spaceknown to the networks, creating an entirely new geo-graphy of technology and users. Academic geographyand geographers will be competing with other spatiallyenabled disciplines to explore and explain the actual andvirtual worlds we will be creating. Unless students ofgeography maintain very high levels of technical abilityand instrumentation, it is likely that the contribution ofgeography to GISci will diminish over the next decade . :The transition from analog to digital, working itselfout in so many arenas, will inevitably generate moregeographies of the information society, providing thediscipline with .numerous, new intellectual challenges.


In the technical area, it is clear that our representa-tions of geographic phenomena must be extended andenhanced. The ability to handle intensively sampledspatio-temporal information, including motion, change,and dynamic fields, will be one focus, and true three-dimensional GIS will be another. Data mining andknowledge discovery techniques will be needed to helpscientists, decision-makers, and the public in generalmake sense of the exceptional quantities of relativelyraw or uninterpreted data that will be available on theInternet within the next decade. The impact of inter-operability, object-component systems, and open sys-tems will continue to expand, with increasing focusdeveloping on semantic interoperability .

Complex, two-way interactions between geographicinformation technologies and society will continue torequire basic and applied research, which will feedinto policy decisions and new laws . The GIS and societydebate will broaden as greater and more diverse seg-ments of society come in contact with digital geographicinformation . Additionally, the GIS and society debatewill deepen as new models of representation areintroduced, especially those that are able to capturethe dynamic and temporal behavior of individuals .The debate on the pros and cons of surveillance and themeaning of privacy in a spatially enabled society willcrescendo, but will not be resolved within a decade .Geographers will be well placed to lead in research onthis critical dimension of GISci . We will be challengedon the one hand to make positive contributions tosystems and services for the citizen, for example inpublic administration, health, and for special-needsgroups such as the elderly and disabled . On the otherhand, we will be tasked to provide sound theory andepistemology for a science that changes almost asquickly as it is recorded.

For geographers who study GIS and who use it in theirresearch, the challenge will be to maintain a focus andto provide understanding and developments based ongeography's long experience with exploring changingworlds. Multidisciplinary explanation will become thenorm, yet geographers should strive to continue toprovide a distinctive contribution . The entrance ofGIS into primary and secondaryy schools promises thedevelopment of a generation of spatially literate stu-dents . Similarly, spatial skills are being acquired rapidlyin business and government. A wider proportion ofthe American public is beginning to be aware that"Geography Matters." The wider use of GIS across manysegments of society coupled with rigorous geographiceducation could portend a richer appreciation of thediscipline in 2010 than today .

C

IGIAC24 7/7/03 11 :16 PM Page 370


REFERENCES

Adams, P. C ., and Warf, B. (eds .) (1997) The Geographical Review,Special Issue, 87/2 .

Anselin, L ., Dodson, R. F., and Hudak, S . (1993) . "Linking GIS andSpatial Data Analysis in Practice." Geographical Systems, 1 :2-23 .

Arctur, D ., Hair, D ., Timson, G., Martin, E. P ., and Fegeas, R .(1998) . "Issues and Prospects for the Next Generation of theSpatial Data Transfer Standard (SDTS) ." International Journalof Geographical Information Science, 12/4 : 403-26 .

Armstrong, M. P . (1993) . "On Automated Geography!" Profes-sional Geographer, 45/4 : 440-2 .

- (1994) . "Requirements for the Development of GIS-BasedGroup Decision Support Systems ." Journal of the AmericanSociety for Information Science, 45/9 : 669-77.

Armstrong, M. P ., and Densham, P. 1 . (1992) . "Domain Decom-position for Parallel Processing of Spatial Problems." Computers,Environment, and Urban Systems, 16: 497-513.

Armstrong, M. P ., and Marciano, R. J . (1996). "Local InterpolationUsing Distributed Parallel Supercomputer ." Interrrationaljoumalof Geographical Information Systems, 10/6 : 713-29.

Armstrong, M . P., Rushton, G ., and Honey, R . (1991). "DecisionSupport for Regionalization : A Spatial Decision Support Sys-tem for Regionalizing Service Delivery Systems ." Computers,Environment and Urban Systems, 15/1-2 : 37.

Audet, R. H., and Paris, J . (1997) . "GIS Implementation Modelfor Schools: Assessing the Critical Concerns." Journal of Geo-graphy, 96/4: 293-300.

Bailey, T. C ., and Gatrelt, A. C. (1995) . Interactive Spatial DataAnalysis. New York : John Wiley & Sons .

Beard, M . K., and Mackaness, W . A. (1993) . "Visual Access toSpatial Data Quality ." . Cartographica, 30/3 : 37-45 .

Beard, K. M., Clapham, S., and Buttenfield, B. P. (1991) . Initiative7 Specialist Meeting: Visualization of Spatial Data Quality.Technical Report 91-26. Santa Barbara, Calif.: National Centerfor Geographic Information Analysis .

Bednarz, S. W ., and Ludwig, G. (1997) . "Ten Things HigherEducation Needs to Know about GIS in Primary and SecondaryEducation ." Transactions in GIS, 2/2 : 123-33 .

Bian, L., and Walsh, S. J . (1993) . "Scale Dependencies ofVegetation and Topography in a Mountainous Environmentof Montana." Professional Geographer, 45/1 : 1-11 .

Blaut, J. M., and Stea, D . (1971) . "Studies in GeographicLearning ." Annals, Association ofAmerican Geographers, 61 :387-93.

Blennow, K., and Persson, P . (1998) . "Modelling Local-ScaleFrost Variations Using Mobile Temperature Measurements witha GIS." Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 89/1 : 59 .

Brown, D. G . (1998) . "Classification and Boundary Vagueness inMapping Presettlement Forest Types ." International Journal ofGeographical Information Science, 12/2 : 105-29.

Brown, D . G ., and Bara, T . J . (1994) . "Recognition and Reductionof Systematic Error in Elevation and Derivative Surfaces from7-1/2 Minute DEMs." Photogrammetric Engineering andRemote Sensing, 60/2 : 189-94.

Brown, D . G ., Lusch, D . P ., and Duda, K . A. (1998) . "SupervisedClassification of Glaciated Landscape Types Using DigitalElevation Data." Geomorphology, 21/3-4 : 233-50 .

Brunn, S . D . (1995) . "Geography's Research Performance Basedon Annals Manuscripts, 1987-1993." Professional Geographer,47/2 : 204-15 .

Buchmann, A., Gunther, 0., Smith, T., and Wang, Y . (eds .) (1989) .Symposium on the Design and Implementation of LargeSpatial Databases. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 409 .Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 271-86 .

Burrough, P . A. (1986) . Principles of Geographical InformationSystems for Land Resources Assessment. Oxford: ClarendonPress.

- (ed .) (1990) . "Methods of Spatial Analysis in GIS ." Inter-national Journal of Geographical Information Systems, SpecialIssue, 4/3 .

Burrough, P . A., and Frank, A. U . (eds .) (1996) . Geographic Objectswith Indeterminate Boundaries . GISDATA /I. London: Taylor &Francis.

Burrough, P. A ., and McDonnell, R . A. (1998) . Principles of Geo-graphic Information Systems . 2nd edn . New York: OxfordUniversity Press.

Butler, D . R ., and Walsh, S. I. (1990) . "Lithologic, Structural, andTopographic Influences on Snow Avalanche Patch Location inEastern Glacier National Park, Montana ." Annals, Associationof American Geographers, 80/3 : 362-78.

Catkins, H . W., and Weatherbe, R . (1995) . "Taxonomy of SpatialData Sharing," in H. Onsrud and G . Rushton, (eds.), SharingGeographic Information. New Brunswick: Center for UrbanPolicy Research, 65-75 .

Can, A. (1992) . "Residential Quality Assessment : Alternative Ap-proaches Using GIS." Annals of Regional Science, 26: 97-110.

Carver, S. 1. (1991) . "Integrating Multi-Criteria Evaluation withGeographical Information Systems ." International Journal ofGeographical Information Systems, 5/3 -.321-39 .

Carver, S., Blake, M., Turton . I ., and Duke-Williams, 0 . (1997) ."Open Decision-Making : Evaluating the Potential of the WorldWide Web ; in Z. Kemp (ed .), innovations in GIS, 4 . New York :Taylor & Francis, 267-77 .

Chrisman, N. (1997) . Exploring Geographic Information Systems.New York: John Wiley & Sons.- (1998) . "Academic Origins of G1S," in Foresman (1998 :3-43) .

Chrisman,. N . R., Dougenik, J. A ., and White, D. (1992) . "Lessonsfrom the Design of Polygon Overlay Processing from theODYSSEY Whirlpool Algorithm ." Proceedings 5th InternationalSymposium on Spatial Data Handling, 2 : 401-10.

Chrisman, N. R., Cowen, D . J ., Fisher, P . F., Goodchild, M . F., andMark, D. M . (1989) . "Geographic Information Systems," InGaile and Wilmott (1989 : 76-96) .

Clarke, K. C . (1997) . Getting Started with Geographic InformationSystems . Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall.

Clarke, K . C., and Gaydos, L. J . (1998) . "Loose-Coupling a CellularAutomaton Model and GIS : Long-Term Urban GrowthPrediction for San Francisco and Washington/Baltimore ."International Journal of Geographical Information Science,12/7 : 699-714 .

Clinton, W. 1 . (1994) . Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisitionand Access: The National Spatial Data Infrastructure . Office ofthe President, Executive Order 12906 .

C

GIAC24 7/7/03 11 :16 PM Pag, 371

Congalton, R . G . (ed .) (1994) . International Symposium onSpatial Accuracy of Natural Resource Data Bases: "Unlocking

the Puzzle." Conference Proceedings, 16-20 May 1994.Washington, DC : American Society for Photogrammetry andRemote Sensing.

Cook, D., Cressie, N ., Majure, J ., and Symanzik, J. (1994) . "SomeDynamic Graphics for Spatial Data (with Multiple Attributes)in a GIS ." Proceedin in Computational Statistics, 11thSymposium, Heidelberg : Physica-Verlag, 105-19 .

Couclelis, H . (1992) . "People Manipulate Objects (but CultivateFields) : Beyond the Raster-Vector Debate in GIS," in Frank,Campari, and Formentini (1992 : 65-77) .- (1996) . "Towards an Operational Typology of Geographic

Entities with III-Defined Boundaries," in Burrough and Frank(1996 : 45-55) .

Craig, W .1 ., Harris, T. M., and Weiner, D . (eds .) (1999) . Empower-ment, Marginalization and Public Participation GIS, ProjectVarenius Report . Santa Barbara, Calif.: National Center forGeographic Information and Analysis .

Curry, M. R . (1995) . "Geographic Information Systems and theInevitability of Ethical Inconsistent" in J . Pickles (1995 :68-87) .- (1997). "The Digital Individual and the Private Realm ."

Annals, Association ofAmerican Geographers, 87/4: 681-99 .- (1999) . "Rethinking Privacy in a Geocoded World," in

Longley, Maguire, Goodchild, and Rhind (1999: 757-66) .Dahlberg, R. E ., and Estes, J . E. (1982) . "Education in Cartography

and Remote Sensing for Applied Geography," in J . W. Frazierled.), Applied Geography. Selected Perspectives . EnglewoodCliffs, NJ : Prentice Hall, 235-62 .

Davis, B. E. (1996) . GIS: A Visual Approach. Santa Fe, NM :OnWord Press.

De Cola, L., and El Haimus, A. (1995) . "Teaching GeographicConcepts with GIS." GIS World, 8/5 : 68-72 .

DeMers, M . N. (1997) . Fundamentals of Geographic InformationSystems. New York: John Wiley & Sons .

Dobson, J . E. (1983) . "Automated Geography." ProfessionalGeographer, 35: 135-43.- (1993) . "The Geographic Revolution : A Retrospective on theAge of Automated Geography ." Professional Geographer,45/4: 431-9 .

Dobson, J. E ., Rush, R . M., and Peplies, R . W. (1990) . "ForestBlowdown and Lake Acidification ." Annals, Association ofAmerican Geographers, 80/3 : 343-61 .

Downs, R. M. (1997) . "The Geographic Eye: Seeing Through GIS?"Transactions in GIS, 2/2 : 111-22 .

Downs, R . M., and Stea, D . (1973) . Image and the Environ-ment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior. Chicago :Aldine.

Eastman, J . R ., tin, W., Kyem, P. A. K ., and Toledano, J . (1995) ."Raster Procedures for Multi-Criteria/Multi-Objective Decisions ."Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 61/5 :539-47 .

-Egbert, S. L ., and Slocum, T. A. (1992). "Exploremap : An

Exploration System for Choropleth Maps ." Annals, AssociationofAmerican Geographers, 82/2 : 275-88.

Egenhofer, M. (1992) . "Why not SQL!" International Journal ofGeographical Information Systems, 6/2 : 71-85 .- (1997) . "Query Processing in Spatial-Query-by-Sketch ."Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 8/4: 403-24 .


Egenhofer, M . J., and Golledge, R . G . (eds .) (1998) . Spatial andTemporal Reasoning in Geographic Information Systems .Oxford : Oxford University Press .

Egenhofer, M., and Franzosa, R . (1991) . "Point-Set TopologicalSpatial Relations ." International Journal of GeographicalInformation Systems, 5/2 : 161-74 .

Egenhofer, M ., Glasgow,)., Gunther, 0 ., Herring,) ., and Peuquet,D . (1999) . "Progress in Computational Methods for Re-presenting Geographic Concepts.' International Journal ofGeographical Information Science, 13/8: 775-96.

Emmi, P . C ., and Horton, C . A. (1995) . "A Monte Carlo Simulationof Error Propagation in a GIS-Based Assessment of SeismicRisk." International Journal of Geographical InformationSystems, 9/4 : 447-61 .

Epstein, E. F., Hunter, G . J ., and Agumya, A . (1998) . "LiabilityInsurance and the Use of Geographical Information ." Interna-tional Journal of Geographical Information Science . 12/3 : 203 .

Epstein, E. F., Tulloch, D . L ., Niemann, B . J ., Ventura, S . J ., andLimp, F. W. (1996) . "Comparative Study of Land RecordsModernization in Multiple States." Proceedings GIS/LIS '96.Bethesda, Md.: American Society for Photogrammetry andRemote Sensing.

Fischer, M. M. (1999) . "Spatial Analysis : Retrospective andProspect," in Longley, Maguire, Goodchild, and Rhind (1999-283-92).

Fischer, M . M ., and S . Gopal . (1993) . "Neurocomputing-a NewParadigm for Geographic Information Processing ." Environ-ment & Planning A, 25/N6: 757-60.

Fischer, M ., Scholten, H . I., and Unwin, D . (eds.) (1996) . SpatialAnalytical Perspectives on GIS . New York : Taylor & Francis.

Fisher, P . F . (1990) . "Simulation of Error in Digital ElevationModels." Papers and Proceedings of Applied GeographyConferences, 13 : 37-43.

- (1992). "First Experiments in Viewshed Uncertainty :Simulating Fuzzy Viewsheds ." Photogrammetric Engineeringand Remote Sensing, 58 : 345-52 .- (1994) . "Probable and Fuzzy Models of the Viewshed

Operation," in M. Worboys (ed.), Innovations in GIS. London :Taylor & Francis, 161-75 .- (1997a) . "Editorial: Welcome to the International Journal of

Geographical Information Science ." International Journal ofGeographical Information Science, 11/1 : 1-3.- (1997b) . "The Ethics of Six Actors in the Geographical

Information. Systems Arena," in Z . Kemp (ed.), Innovations inGIS, 4. New York: Taylor & Francis, 227-33 .

Fitzpatrick, C. (1991) . "Teaching Geography with Computers ."Journal of Geography, 92/4: 156-9.

Foote, K. E. (1997) . "The Geographer's Craft : Teaching GIS in theWeb ." Transactions in GIS, 2/2 : 137-50 .

Forer, P ., and Unwin, D. (1999) . "Enabling Progress in GIS andEducation," in Longley, Maguire, Goodchild, and Rhind (1999 :747-56) .

Foresman, T . W. (edJ (1998) . The History of GeographicInformation Systems: Perspectives from the Pioneers . UpperSaddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall .

Fotheringham, S ., and Rogerson, P . (eds.) (1994) . SpatialAnalysis and GIS. New York : Taylor & Francis .

Frank, A . U ., and Campari, I . (eds.) (1993) . Spatial InformationTheory: A Theoretical Basis for GIS . Lecture Notes in ComputerSciences, 716 . Berlin : Springer-Verlag .

IGIAC24 7/7/03 11 :16 PM Page 372


Frank, A . U ., Campari, I., and Formentini, U . (eds .) (1992) .Theories and Methods of Spatio-Temporal Reasoning inGeographic Space. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 639 .Berlin : Springer-Verlag.

Franklin, J . (1995) . "Predictive Vegetation Mapping: GeographicModelling of Biospatial Patterns in Relation to EnvironmentalGradients." Progress in Physical Geography, 19/4: 474-99 .

Gaile, G. L ., and Willmott. C. J . (1989) . Geography in America.Columbus, Ohio: Merrill.

Golledge, R . G ., Gale, N ., Pellegrino, J . W ., and Doherty, S. (1992) ."Spatial Knowledge Acquisition by Children : Route Learningand Relational Distances." Annals, Association of AmericanGeographers, 82/2 : 223-44.

Golledge, R ., and Zannaras, G . (1973) . "Cognitive Approaches tothe Analysis of Human Spatial Behavior," in W . Ittleson (ed.),Environment and Cognition. New York: Academic Press .

Goodchild, M . F. (1989) . "Modeling Error in Objects and Fields,"in Goodchild and Gopal (1989: 107-13) .- (1992a) . "Geographical Data Modeling ." Computers and

Geosciences, 18 : 401-18.- (1992b). "Geographical Information Science." InternationalJournal of Geographical Information Systems, 6/1 : 31-45 .

Goodchild, M., and Gopal, S . (1989) . The Accuracy of SpatialDatabases. New York : Taylor & Francis.

Goodchild, M. F ., and Kemp, K. K. (eds .) (1992) . NCGIA CoreCurriculum in GIS. Santa Barbara, Calif.: National Center forGeographic Information and Analysis .

Goodchild, M . F., Egenhofer, M ., and Fegeas, R. (eds .) (1999) .Interoperating Geographic Information Systems . Dordrecht:Kluwer.

Goodchild, M . F., Guoging, S., and Shiren, Y. (1992) . "Develop-ment and Test of an Error Model for Categorical Data."International Journal of Geographical Information Systems,6/2 : 87-104.

Goodchild, M. F., Parks, B . 0 ., and Steyaert, L T . (eds) (1993) .Environmental Modeling with GIS. New York : Oxford UniversityPress .

Goodchild ., M . F., Egenhofer, M . J ., Kemp, K. K ., Mark, D . M ., andSheppard, E. (1999). "Introduction to the Varenius Project."International Journal of Geographic Information Science, 13/8:731-45 .

Goodchild, M. F ., Steyaert, L T., Parks, B . 0., Johnston, C.,Maidment, D ., Crane, M ., and Glendinning, S . (eds) (1996) . GISand Environmental Modeling : Progress and Research Issues .Fort Collins, Cot . : GIS World .

Griffith, D . A. (1993) . "Advanced Spatial Statistics for Analyizingand Visualizing Geo-referenced Data ." International Journal ofGeographical Information Systems, 7/2 : 107-23.

Griffith, D . A., Lewis, R ., Li, B ., Vasiliev, I ., Knight, S., and Yang, X.(1990) . "Developing Minitab Software for Spatial StatisticalAnalysis: A Tool for Education and Research ." OperationalGeographer, 8: 28-33 .

Harris, T. M ., and Weiner, D . (1996) . GIS and Society: The SocialImplications of How People, Space and Environment areRepresented in GIS. Technical Report 96-7. Santa Barbara,Calif. ; National Center for Geographic Information andAnalysis .- (1998) . "Empowerment, Marginalization, and 'community-

integrated' GIS ." Cartography and Geographic InformationSystems, 25 : 67-76.

Harrower, M., MacEachren, A. M., and Griffin, A. (2000) ."Developing a Geographic Visualization Tool to Support EarthScience Learning." Cartography and Geographic InformationScience, 27/4 : 279-93 .

Healey, R . G . (1996) . "Editorial : Special Issue on ParallelProcessing in GIS ." International Journal of GeographicalInformation Systems, 10/6: 667-8.

Hearnshaw, H . M., and Unwin, D. J . (eds .) (1994) . Visualizationand Geographic Information Systems. New York: John Wiley &Sons.

Heuvelink, G . B . M . (1993) . Error Propagation in QuantitativeSpatial Modelling: Applications in Geographical InformationSystems. Utrecht: Netherlands Geographical Studies, Univer-sity of Utrecht .

Hewitson, B . C., and Crane, R . G. (eds.) (1994) . Neural Nets :Applications in Geography. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Heywood, I ., Cornelius, S., and Carver, S . (1998) . An Introductionto Geographic information Systems . New York: AddisonWesley Longman .

Hunter, G. I ., and Goodchild, M. F. (1995) . "Dealing with Error inSpatial Databases : A Simple Case Study ." PhotogrammetricEngineering and Remote Sensing, 61/5 : 529-37 .

Jankowski, P ., and Richard, L . (1994) . "Integration of GIS-basedSuitability Analysis and Multicriteria Evaluation in a SpatialDecision Support System for the Route Selection ." Environ-mentand Planning B, 21/3 : 323 .

Jensen, J ., Saalfeld, A ., Broome, F., Cowen, D ., Price, K ., Ramsey,D., and Lapine, L. (1998) . Spatial Data Acquisition andIntegration . UCGIS White Paper <www .cla.scedu/geog/ucgis/>,last accessed 14 November 2002 .

Johnson, A. (1998) . "Filling a Vital Niche in GIS ProfessionalEducation GIS Programs at Community Colleges ." ESRI ARCNews, 20/2 : 32 .

Johnson, M . L. (1998) . "GIS in Business : Issues to Consider inCurriculum ." Journal ofGeography, 97/3 : 98-105 .

Jordan, T. (1988). "The Intellectual Core: President's Column ."AAG Newsletter, 23: 1.

Kavanaugh-Brown, 1 . (1998) . "Students Contribute to Commun-ities ." Government Technology, 11/10 : 48 .

Kelly, D . (1998) . "Have a Problem? Ask Greenbrier High SchoolStudents to Solve It." Converge, 1/4: 14-18.

Kemp . K . K. (1997) . "The NCGIA Core Curriculum in GIS andRemote Sensing ." Transactions in GIS, 2/2 : 181-90 .

Kemp K. K ., and Unwin, D. J . (1997) . "From Geographic Informa-tion Systems to Geographic Information Studies : An Agendafor Educators ." Transactions in GIS, 2/2 : 103-9 .

Kemp, K . K., and Wright, R. (1997) . "UCGIS identifies GIScienceEducation Priorities." Geo Info Systems, 7/9: 16-20.

Kemp, K ., Goodchild, M., and Dodson, R . (1992) . "Teaching GISin Geography ." The Professional Geographer, 44: 11-191.

King, G. Q. (1991) . "Geography and G1S Technology ." Journal ofGeography, 90/2 : 66-72 .

Kirkby, S . D . (1996) . "Integrating a GIS with an Expert System toIdentify and Manage Dryland Salinization ." Applied Geography,16/4: 289.

Lam, N ., and DeCola, L. (eds .) (1993) . Fractals in Geography.Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice Hall .

Lam, N. and Quattrochi, D. A. (1992) . "On the Issues of Scale,Resolution, and Fractal Analysis in the Mapping Sciences ."Professional Geographer, 44: 88 .

GIAC24 7/7/03 11 :16 PM Page 373

Land Information and Computer Graphics Facility (2001) . "Web-Based Community Planning for the Citizen Planner," LandInformation Bulletin, National Consortium for Rural GeospatialInnovations . Madison : University of Wisconsin .

Langran, G. (1992) . Time in Geographic Information Systems .London : Taylor & Francis .

Lanter, D . P ., and Veregin, H . (1992) . "A Research Paradigm forPropagating Error in Layer-Based GIS." PhotogrammetricEngineering and Remote Sensing, 58 : 825-33 .

Leung, Y., Leung, K . S ., He, J. Z. (1999) . "A Generic Concept-Based Object-Oriented Geographical Information System ."International Journal of Geographical Information Systems,13/5 : 475-98.

Lin, H ., and Zhang, L. (1998) . "Internet-Based InvestmentEnvironment Information System: A Case Study on BKR ofChina." International Journal of Geographical InformationScience, 12/7 : 715-25.

Lloyd, R . E. (1997) . Spatial Cognition: Geographic Environments.Dordrecht: Kluwer .

Longley, P . A., Maguire, D . J ., Goodchild, M . F., and Rhind, D . W.(eds.) (1999) . Geographical Information Systems, i. Principlesand Technical Issues; ii.Management Issues andApplications .2nd edn . New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Longley, P . A., Goodchild, M . F., Maguire, D. J., and Rhind, D . W .(2001) . Geographic Information Systems and Science. NewYork : John Wiley & Sons .

Lowell, K ., and Jaton, A . (eds) (1999) . Spatial Accuracy Assess-ment: Land Information Uncertainty in Natural Resources .Chelsea, Mich .: Ann Arbor Press .

MacEachren, A. M. (1992a). "Application of EnvironmentalLearning Theory to Spatial Knowledge Acquisition fromMaps." Annals, Association of American Geographers, 82/2 :245-74.- (1992b) . "Visualizing Uncertain Information ." Cartographic

Perspectives, 11 10-19.MacEachren, A. M., and Kraak, M. J. (eds .) (1997) . "Special

Electronic Issue on Exploratory Cartographic Visualization ."Computers & Geosciences, 23/4 .

MacEachren, A. M ., and Monmonier, M . (1992) . "Introduction :Special Issue on Geographic Visualization" . Cartography &GIS, 19/4 : 197-200.

MacEachren, A. M., and Taylor, D . R. F. (eds.) (1994) .Visualization in Modem Cartography. Oxford : Pergamon.

MacEachren, A . M ., Boscoe, F . P., Haug, D ., Pickle, L . W . (1998) ."Geographic Visualization : Designing Manipulable Maps forExploring Temporally Varying Georeferenced Statistics."Proceedings of the IEEE Information Visualization Symposium,Research Triangle Park, NC, 19-20 Oct . 1998, 87-94.

MacEachren, A. M., Buttenfield, B ., Campbell, J ., DiBiase, D ., andMonmonier, M . (1992) . "Visualization," in R . Abler, M . Marcus,aid J . Olson (eds .), Geography's Inner Worlds. Rutgers, NJ :Rutgers University Press, 99-137 .

Macey, S. M . (1997) . "GIS Education : From the Top Down and theBottom Up." Geo Info Systems, 7/4 : 16-17.- (1998) . "Managing a Computer Teaching Laboratory ."Journal of Geography, 97/1 : 13-18 .

McGarigle, B . (1997) . "GIS Goes to School ." GovernmentTechnology, 10/9 : 28-9.- (1998) . "HAZMAT HIGH : High School Students Learn GIS and

Help with Emergency Planning ." Converge, 1/3: 16-20.


McKee, L. (1999) . "Catch the Integrated Geoprocessing Trend ."GEOWorld, 12/2 : 34.

Maguire, D . J ., Goodchild, M . F., and Rhind, D . W . (eds .) (1991) .Geographical Information Systems : Principles and Applications .Harlow: Longman Scientific and Technical .

Marble, D . F., and Peuquet, D . 1 . (1993) . "The Computer andGeography: Ten Years Later." Professional Geographer, 45/4 :446-8 .

Mark, D. M . (1997) . "The History of Geographic InformationSystems : Invention and Re-invention of Triangulated IrregularNetworks (TINS) ." Proceedings, GIS/LIS'97. Bethesda, Md .:American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing .- (1998) . "Integrative Graduate Education and Research

Training in Geographic Information Science ." Proceedings ofthe GIS/LIS. Fort Worth, Tex. : 618-24. CD-ROM .

Mark, D . M., and Bossier, J . (1995) . "The University Consortium forGeographic Information Science ." Geo Info Systems, 5/4: 38-9.

Mark, D . M., and Csillag, F. (1989). "The Nature of Boundaries on"Area-Class" Maps ." Cartographica, 26/1-.65-78 .

Mark, D. M., and Egenhofer, M . 1 . (1994) . "Modeling SpatialRelations between Lines and Regions : Combining FormalMathematical Models and Human Subjects Testing ." Carto-graphy and Geographic Information Systems, 21/4: 195-212.

Mark, D . M., and Frank, A. U. (1991) . Cognitive and LinguisticAspects of Geographic Space. Dordrecht : Kluwer.

Mark, D . M ., and Gould, M . D . (1991). "Interacting with Geo-graphic Information : A Commentary ." PhotogrammetricEngineering and Remote Sensing, 57/11: 1427-30.

Mark, D. M ., Freksa, C., Hirtle, S. C ., Lloyd, R ., and Tversky, B.(1999) . "Cognitive Models of Geographic Space." InternationalJournal of Geographic Information Science, 13/8: 747-74.

Masser, I ., and Salge, F . (1996) . "The GIS Data Series: Editors'Preface," in Burrough and Frank (1996 : pp. ix-x) .

Medyckyj-Scott, D., and Hearnshaw, H . M . (eds.) (1993) . HumanFactors in Geographical Information Systems . London :Belhaven Press .

Miller, E. J . (1997) . "Towards a 4D GIS : Four-DimensionalInterpolation Utilizing Kriging," in Z . Kemp (ed), Innovationsin GIS, 4. New York : Taylor & Francis, 181-197 .

Miller, H . J. (1991). "Modeling Accessibility Using Space-TimePrism Concepts Within a GIS." International Journal of Geo-graphic Information Systems, 5/3: 287-301 .

Miller, H . J ., and Han, J . (eds .) (2001) . Geographic Data Miningand Knowledge Discovery. London: Taylor & Francis .

Moellering, H . (1992) . "Opportunities for Use of the Spatial DataTransfer Standard at the State and Local Level ." Cartographyand Geographic Information Systems, 19/5 : 3 32-4 .

Mower, J . E . (1996) . "Developing Parallel Procedures for LineSimplification ." International Journal of Geographical Informa-tion Science, 10/6 : 699-712.

Mowrer, H . T ., Czaplewski, R . L ., and Hamre, R . H . (eds.) (1996) .Spatial Accuracy Assessment in Natural Resources andEnvironmental Sciences: Second International Symposium.Conference Proceedings, 21-3 May 1996. General TechnicalReport RM-GTR-277 . Fort Collins, Col . : Rocky Mountain Forestand Range Experiment Station .

Murphy, L. D . (1997) . "Why Aren't Business Schools TeachingBusiness Geographics?" Business Geographics, 5/2 : 24-6.

NCGIA (1996) . Proceedings, Third International Conference/Workshop on Integrating GIS and Environmental Modeling.

GIAC24 7/9/03 1 :59 PM Page 374


Santa Fe, NM, 21-6 January 1996. Santa Barbara, Calif.:National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis .

Nebert, D . (1999) . "Interoperable Spatial Data Catalogs ."Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 65/5-573-5.

Nellis, M. D . (1993) . "The New Geography : ARCVIEW for TeachingGeography." Geographic Insights, 3 : 6 .- (1994) . "Technology in Geographic Education : Reflections

and Future Directions." Journal of Geography, 93/1 : 36-9 .NRC (1993) . Towards a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure

for the Nation . Mapping Science Committee . Washington, DC:National Research Council .- (1994) . Promoting the National Spatial Data Infrastruc-

ture Through Partnerships. Mapping Science Committee.Washington, DC: National Research Council .- (1999) . Distributed Geolibraries : Spatial Information Re-sources, Summary of a Workshop . Washington, DC : NationalAcademy Press.- (2001) . National Spatial Data Infrastructure PartnershipPrograms: -Rethinking the Focus. Washington, DC: NationalAcademy Press.

Novak, K. (1995) . "Mobile Mapping Technology for GIS DataCollection." Photogrammetric Engineering and RemoteSensing, 61/5 : 493 .

Obermeyer, N . J . (ed .) (1998) . "Public Participation GIS ." Carto-graphy and Geographic Information Systems, Special issue,25/2 .

Oliver, M ., Webster, R ., and Gerrard, 1 . (1989) . "Geostatistics inPhysical Geography. Part II : Applications." Transactions of theInstitute of British Geographers, 14: 270-86 .

Olson, J . M., and Brewer, C. A. (1997) . "An Evaluation of ColorSelections to Accommodate Map Users with Color VisionImpairments ." Annals of the Association of American Geo-graphers, 87/1 : 103-34 .

Onsrud, H.1 . (1993) . "Identifying Unethical Conduct in the Use ofGIS." Cartography and information Systems, 22/1: 90 .- (1995) . "The Role of Law in Impeding and Facilitating the

Sharing of Geographic Information," in Onsrud and Rushton(1995 : 292-306) .

Onsrud, H . I ., and Rushton, G . (eds.) (1995) . Sharing GeographicInformation. New Brunswick, NJ : Center for Urban PolicyResearch Press (CUPR) .

Openshaw, S. (1991) . "A View on the GIS Crisis in Geography, orUsing GIS to Put Humpty Dumpty Back Together Again ."Environment and Planning A, 23 : 621-8.

Padgett, D . A., Li, L., and Mignolo, A. (2000) . "Developing a GISCurriculum . The Small Liberal Arts College Experience ." GeoInfo Systems, 10/4: 36-9.

Palladino, S . D . (1998) . K-14 : A Review of Eight Years of NCGIAEfforts. <www.ncgia .ucsb.edu/-spalladi/documents/ESR1 .htm 1 >,last accessed 14 November 2002 .

Palladino, S . D ., and Kemp, K. K. (eds .) (1991) .' GIS TeachingFacilities: Six Case Studies on the Acquisition andManagement of Laboratories. Technical Paper 91-21 . SantaBarbara, Calif. : National Center for Geographic Information andAnalysis .

Palm, R., and Hodgson, M. (1992) . "Earthqua Insurance :Mandated Disclosure and Homeowner ponse inCalifornia ." Annals, Association of American eogrophers,82/2 : 207-22 .

Peng, Z : R. (1999) . "An Assessment Framework for the Develop-ment of Internet GIS," Environment and Planning B, 26/1 :117 .

Peuquet, D . J . (1994). "It's About Time : A Conceptual Frameworkfor the Representation of Temporal Dynamics in GeographicInformation Systems ." Annals, Association of AmericanGeographers, 84/3: 441-61 .

Peuquet, D . J ., Smith, B., and Brogaard, B. (1999) . The Ontologyof Fields . Santa Barbara, Calif. : National Center for GeographicInformation and Analysis.

Phoenix, M . (1996) . "GIS's Role in Higher Education ." Geo InfoSystems, 6/5 : 50-1 .

Pickles, J . (1991) . "Geography, G.I.S., and the SurveillantSociety." Papers and Proceedings of the Applied GeographyConference, 14 : 80-91 .- (1993) . "Discourse on Method and the History of Discipline :

Reflections on Dobson's 1983 Automated Geography ."Professional Geographer, 45/4 : 451-5 .

- (ed .) (1995) . Ground Truth: The Social Implications ofGeographic Information Systems . New York : Guilford Press.- (1997) . "Tool or Science? GIS, Technoscience, and the The-

oretical Turn ." Annals, Association of American Geographers,87/2 : 363-72 .- (1999) . "Arguments, Debates and Dialogues : The GIS - Social

Theory Debate and the Concern for Alternatives," in Longley,Maguire, Goodchild, and Rhind (1999 : 49-60) .

Poiker, T., and Sheppard, E. (eds .) (1995) . "GIS and Society."Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, SpecialIssue, 22 .

Posey, A. S . (1993) . "Automated Geography and the NextGeneration ." The Professional Geographer, 45/4: 455-6 .

Quattrochi, D . A., and Goodchild, M . F. (eds.) (1997) . Scale inRemote Sensing and GIS. New York: CRC Publishers .

Ramirez, M. (1995) . "Closing the Gap: GIS in the High SchoolClassroom ." Geo Info Systems, 5/4 : 52-5 .

- (1996) . "Florida Schools Study GIS for EnvironmentalEducation ." Geo Info Systems, 6/5 : 35-8.

Rhind, D . W . (1999) . "National and International Geospatial DataPolicies," in Longley, Maguire, Goodchild, and Rhind (1999:767-87) .

Roy, G. G ., and Snickars, F. (1996) . "City Life : A Study of CellularAutomata in Urban Dynamics," in Fischer, Scholten, and Unwin(1996 : 213-28) .

Sabin, T. J ., and Holliday, V . (1995) . "Playas and Lunettes on theSouthern High Plains: Morphometric and Spatial Relation-ships." Annals, Association ofAmerican Geographers, 85/2 :286-305 .

Savage, M . (1991) . "Structural Dynamics of a Southwestern PineForest under Chronic Human influence ." Annals, Association ofAmerican Geographers, 81/2 : 271-89.

Schroeder, P. C. (1997) . "GIS in Public Participation Settings ."Paper presented at University Consortium for GeographicInformation Science, Annual Assembly and Summer Retreat,15-21 June. Bar Harbor, Me . : UCGIS .

Sheppard, E. (1993) . "Automated . Geography: What Kind of Geo-graphy for What Kind of Society?" Professional Geographer,45/4 : 457-60 .- (1998) . "Working Bibliography on Geographies of the

Information Society." <www.ncgia.ucsb .edu/vareniusinfo_soc_panel/bibliog2 .html>, last accessed 15 November 2002 .

GIAC24 7/7/03 11 :16 PM Page 375

Sheppard, E., Couclelis, H ., Graham, S ., Harrington, J . W., andOnsrud, H. (1999) . "Geographies of the Information Society ."International Journal of Geographic Information Science, 13/8 :797-823 .

Smith, B., and Mark, D . M. (1998) . "Ontology and GeographicKinds," in T . K. Poiker and N . Chrisman (eds.), Proceedings,8th International Symposium on Spatial Data Handling (SDH

'98) . Vancouver : International Geographical Union, 308-20 .- (2001) . "Geographic Categories: An Ontological Investiga-

tion" International Journal of Geographical Information Science,15/7 : 591-612 .

Smith, D . A ., and Tomlinson, R . F. (1992) . "Assessing Costs andBenefits of Geographical Information Systems : Methodologicaland Implementation Issues ." International Journal of Geo-graphical Information Systems, 6 : 257-71 .

Smith, N . (1992). "History and Philosophy of Geography : RealWars, Theory Wars ." Progress in Human Geography, 16/2 :257-71 .

Star, J . L. (ed.) (1991) . Proceedings: The Integration of RemoteSensing and Geographic Information Systems . Special Sessionof ACSM-ASPRS Annual Convention, Baltimore, 1991.Washington, DC: American Society for Photogrammetry andRemote Sensing.

Stoms, D. M. (1994) . "Scale Dependence of Species RichnessMaps." Professional Geographer, 46/3 : 346-58.

Sul, D . Z . (1994). "GIS and Urban Studies: Positivism, Post-Positivism, and Beyond ." Urban Geography, 14-.258-78.- (1995). "A New Pedagogic Framework to Link GIS to

Geography's Intellectual Core ." Journal of Geography, 94/6-578-91 .- (1998) . "GIS-Based Urban Modelling : Practices, Problems,and Prospects." International Journal of GeographicalInformation Science, 1217: 649-50 .

Svingen, B. E. (1994) . "New Technologies in the GeographyClassroom ." Journal of Geography, 93/4: 180-5 .

Tang, A . Y., Adams, T . M., Usery, E. L. (1996) . "A Spatial DataModel Design for Feature-Based Geographical InformationSystems ." International Journal of Geographical InformationSystems, 10/5 : 643-59.

Taylor, P. J . (1990). "Editorial Comment: GKS ." PoliticalGeography Quarterly, 9: 211-12.

Taylor, P.1 ., and Johnston, R . J . (1995) . "Geographic InformationSystems and Geography," in Pickles (1995 : 51-67) .

Taylor, P. J ., and Overton, M. (1991) . "Further Thoughts onGeography and GIS: A Preemptive Strike?" Environment andPlanning A, 24: 463-6.

Texas, University of (1998) . The Virtual Geography DepartmentHome Page. (www.utexas .edu/depts/grg/virtdept/main.html) ,last accessed 15 November 2002.

Thapa, K ., and Bossier, 1 . (1992) . "Accuracy of Spatial DataUsed in Geographic Information Systems ." PhotogrammetricEngineering and Remote Sensing, 58: 835-41.

Thompson . D ., F . Lindsay, E., Davis, P . E., and Wong, D . W. S.(1997) . "Towards a Framework for Learning with GIS : The Caseof Urban World, a Hypermap Learning Environment Based onGIS." Transactions in GIS, 2/2 : 151-67.

Tulloch, D . L., Epstein, E. F ., Niemann, B. J ., and Ventura, S . J.(1997) . Multipurpose Land Information Systems Development

Geographic Information Systems - 375

Bibliography: A Community-Wide Commitment to theTechnology and Its Ultimate Applications . Technical Report97-1 . Santa Barbara, Calif. ; National Center for GeographicInformation Analysis.

UCGIS (1996) . "Research Priorities for Geographic InformationScience." Cartography and Geographic Information Systems,23/3T <www.ncgia .ucsb .edu/other/ucgis/CAGIS.htm l >, .T lastacces d 15 November 2002 .- (1998) . White Paper on Research in GIS and Society

<www.ucgis .org>, last accessed 15 November 2002 .- (2000) . Emerging Research Themes. White papers accessible

at <www.ucgis .org/emerging/>, last accessed 15 November2002 .

Usery, L. (1996) . "A Conceptual Framework and Fuzzy SetImplementation for Geographic Features," in Burrough andFrank (1996: 71-85) .

Vckovski, A . (1998) . "Guest Editorial . Interoperability in GIS ."International Journal of Geographical Information Science.Special Issue, 12/4: 297-8 .

Ventura, S. J . (1995) . "The Use of Geographic Information Sys-tems in Local Government." Public Administrative Review, 55 :461-7 .

Veregin, H . (1996) . "Error Propagation through the Buffer Opera-tion for Probability Surfaces ." Photogrammetric Engineeringand Remote Sensing, 62/4: 419-28.

Walsh, S . J . (1992). "Spatial Education and Integrated Hands-onTraining: Essential Foundations of GIS "Journal of Geography,91/2 : 54-61.

Walsh, S . J ., Evans, T . P., Welsh, W . F ., Entwisle, B.. Rindfuss,R. R. (1999) . "Scale-Dependent Relationships betweenPopulation and Environment in Northeastern Thailand ."Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 65/1 :97-105 .

Warren, S . (1995) . "Teaching GIS as a Socially ConstructedTechnology ." Cartography and Geographic InformationSystems, 22/1 : 70-7.

Weibel, R ., and Buttenfield, 8 . P . (1992) . "Improvement ofGIS Graphics for Analysis and Decision-Making." InternationalJournal of Geographical Information Systems, 6/3 : 223-45 .

Westervelt, J. D ., and Hopkins, L D . (1999) . "Modeling MobileIndividuals in Dynamic Landscapes ." International Journal ofGeographical Information Systems, 13/3: 191-208.

Woronov, T . (1995) . "Issues in GIS in Education," in D . Barstowand M. D. Gerrard (eds.), Conference Report: First NationalConference on the Educational Applications of GeographicInformation Systems (EdGIS) . Washington, DC: NationalScience Foundation, 110-13 .

Wright, D., and DiBiase, D . (2000) . "Distance Education inGIScience." UCGIS White Paper, <dusk.geo.orst.edu/diste d >,last accessed 15 November 2002 .

Wright, D . J ., Goodchild, M. F ., and Proctor, J. D. (1997) . "GIS :Tool or Science? Demystifying the Persistent Ambiguity of GISas 'Tool' versus ' ,cience' ." Annals, Association of AmericanGeographers, 87/T.346-62 .

Xiong, D ., and Marble, D . F. (1996) . "Strategies for Real-TimeSpatial Analysis Using Massively Parallel SIMD Computers :An Application to Urban Traffic Flow Analysis ." InternationalJournal of Geographical Information Systems, 10/6 : 769-89 .

Date post:	08-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dinhcong
View:	222 times
Download:	8 times

CHAPTER 24 Geographic Information Systemsdanbrown/papers/gisgia2000_proof.pdf · attention to the...

Documents