- Email: [email protected]
Geography: a place for GIS
Comment Geography: a place for GIS Shih-Lung Shaw Department USA
of Geography,
Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431,
In a recent comment published in Applied Ge~~~ap~y~ Martin Renzer (1992) raised a concern about ‘the r~Iationship between applied geography and the swiftly growing technique side of the discipline’. As summarized in a response from Sant f1992), Kenzer’s arguments are based on three propositions: that pure and applied geography are not separate fields; that applied geography is heavily driven by techniques; and that the preoccupation with techniques is detrimental both to the discipline and to the prospects of its graduates, The first proposition is fairly widely accepted and thus should not be in question (Sant 1992). Regarding the other two propositions, the rapid growth of geographical information systems (GIS) in geography appears to be the main concern behind Kenzer’s arguments. In fact, he suggests that GIS might be experiencing a misdirected drive toward independence that is analogous to what applied geography attempted to do in the past (Kenzer 1992). This is the topic to be addressed here. GIS: an asset or a threat? The value of CIS to geography and the place of GTS in the geography curriculum have stimulated debate among geographers (see Jordan 1988, and subsequent correspondence in the AAG Newsletter; Openshaw 1991; Taylor and Overton 1991; Kemp et al. 1992). Kenzer suggests that geography students ‘are being trained mainly to push buttons and learn software programs’. It is understandable why some geographers are concerned about such rapidly growing techniques within the field of geography, Geography as an academic discipline must have an ‘intellectual core’, and should not educate its students solely as technicians. However, it is equally dangerous to label GIS as purely a technical field without intellectual roots. The author would like to argue, on the basis of some analogies, that GIS has a place in the geography curricuium and that GIS is an asset rather than a threat to the discipline. Value of GIS to geography Applied geography aims at ‘the application of geographic tools, concepts and methodologies to the solving of everyday problems’ (Kenzer 1992). Accompanied by technological development, geographers today have access to a variety of computer-based tools such as word processing, desktop publishing, automated mapping, statistical analysis, image processing, GIS, and so on. These tools are used in different ways to help geographers solve problems, but why haven’t we argued over the impact of, say, word processing on the field of geography? There
108
Comment
must be some fundamental differences among these tools in terms of their value to geography and their place in the geography curriculum. It is generally agreed that the basic concepts in GIS are not new to geography. Map scale, map projection, map overlay and spatial relationships have long been central concepts in geography and now in GIS. What is new in GIS is the technology. This new technology enables geographers to explore many phenomena which were unexplored or even unseen in the past. The quantitative revolution of the 1950s and 196Os, which helped geographers undertake more rigorous spatial analyses of their subjects, clearly offers some analogy to today’s GIS. Without access to co,mputer-based mathematical and statistical methods. many systematic studies in geography, such as locational modelling and transportation geography. would not have achieved new insights about spatial patterns and processes. Similarly, many applied geographic studies would have been less analytical in nature or unlikely to have been undertaken. The issue is that, with the use of tools. geographers have developed theories. models and applications based on geographic concepts. Regression analysis and its application to the family of gravity models (e.g., Taaffe and Gauthier 1973). or the spatial autocorrelation problem (e.g., Griffith and Amrhein 1991) are relevant examples. Such knowledge represents an integration of geographic concepts, methodologies and tools which would be difficult to acquire from outside the field. If we consider ‘GE’ an equivalent of quantitative methods in its potential importance to geography, it is clear that it should be taught within academic geography departments. Unfortunately, the expression ‘GIS’ is often misinterprcted as equivalent to specific GIS software packages. In fact, GIS requires understanding of more basic and fundamental geographic concepts than do many quantitative methods used by geographers. If the subject area of GIS had been given a different name (such as ‘geographic data handling and analysis’). geographers might have avoided many unnecessary debates on its value. A key example of the value of GIS to geography is its powerful ability to represent geographic space in geographic inquiries. Maps have been widely accepted in human history to represent geographic space. However, the traditional representation of geographic space on paper maps has many limitations. With GIS, the choice of geographic space representation methods has stimulated the Burrough 1988). A wellwell-known vector/raster debate (see, for example, designed representation scheme has the potential to make some well-known geographic concepts and models applicable in real-world problem analysis. A recent study of implementing Hagerstrand’s time-space prism concepts within GIS is an example (Miller 1991). ‘GIS training’ versus ‘GIS education’ Kenzer (1992) argues that ‘GIS and similar techniques will shortly become part of every major word processing software package, available to anyone capable of technology’. He is therefore following simple commands or utilizing “windows” concerned about the role played by geography departments if such GIS products do become available. This concern is based on an assumption that, if an easy-to-use GIS becomes available, users will not require geographic knowledge in solving their everyday problems. This is equivalent to saying that an easy-to-use word processing package can always create well-written documents for anyone who knows how to push buttons! An easy-to-use GIS package makes the acquisition of GIS technical skills less complicated, but it is no substitute for problem-domain
Comment
109
knowledge and problem-soIving capability. Geography alone may not be able to deliver all of these requirements because the problem-domain knowledge could be in planning, economics, engineering, landscape architecture or geology, but there are enough fundamental geographic concepts embedded in GIS to justify the inclusion of GIS ‘education’ within geography. The efforts of the National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCGIA) and many academic geographers on both sides of the Atlantic in the development of GIS curricula speak volumes for the success of ‘GIS education’ rather than ‘GIS training’ in geography departments (Nyerges and Chrisman 1989; Goodchild and Kemp 1990; IJnwin et al. 1990). Many of today’s geography students may well be perplexed. They want to be employable after their university education. GIS happens to be one area with a high market demand, so students enroll in GIS courses to make themselves more competitive. It is the responsibility of the geography community to make sure that our students receive a geographic education that includes problem-solving, critical thinking and technical capabilities. In this sense, there should be no significant differences in geographic education for students who are interested in applied or other systematic areas of geography. GIS for the discipline of geography
Few geographers are driven by GIS or other high-tech tools. Instead, they are motivated by problems of an applied or basic nature which can often be more readily examined with powerful tools. Future development of GIS should not be left in the hands of GIS specialists only, since the development of a tool is aimed at the needs of specific problems. Geographers in all systematic areas of the discipline know best what tools may facilitate and improve their research. The general for network analysis’ and ‘raster consensus on using ‘vector representation representation for terrain analysis’ are examples that demonstrate the close interactions between methods of geographic space representation in GIS and various geographic modelling and analysis needs. Clearly, GIS is not just for those geographers who are interested in techniques. Its foundation is built on the very roots of geography itself. It is certainly important that we should not ‘look down our noses at each other’ (Kenzer 1992). Applied geographers are not second to other geographers. Similarly, GIS is not second to other systematic studies in geography. All subfields in geography will benefit from GIS if we embed GIS properly within today’s curriculum. References P. A. (1988) Principles of geographical information systems for land resources assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goodchild, M. F. and Kemp, K. K. (eds) (1990) NCGZA core curriculum in GIS. Santa Burrough.
Barbara, CA: National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis. Griffith, D. A. and Amrhein, C. G. (1991) Statistical analysis for geographers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Jordan, T. (1988) In AAG Newsletter, 23(5), 1. Kemp, K. K., Goodchild, M. F. and Dodson, R. F. (1992) Teaching GIS in geography. Professional Geographer, 44(Z), 181-I 91. Kenzer, M. S. (1992) Applied and academic geography and the remainder of the twentieth century. Applies Geography, 12, 207-210.
110
Content
Miller, H. (1991) Modeling accessibility using space-time prism concepts within geographical information systems. international Juurnal of Geographical ~~for~at~o~ Systems, S(3), 287-301. Nyerges, T. L. and Chrisman, N. R. (1989) A framework for model curricula development in cartography and geographic information systems. Professional Geographer, 41(3), 283-293. Openshaw, S. (1991) Commentary: a view on the GIS crisis in geography, or, using GIS to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again. Environment und Pluming A, 23(S), 621429. Sant, M. (1992) Applied geography and a place for passion. Applied Geography. 12, 295-298. Taaffe, E. J. and Gauthier. H. L. (1973) Geography oftrmzsportution. En&wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Taylor, P. J. and Overton, A?. (1991) Further thoughts on geography and GE. ~nvir~~~e~?t and Plann~l~g A. 23. l~S7-1~90. Unwin, D. J. et al. (1990) A syllabus for teaching geographical informatioli systems. international Journal of Geographical information Systems, 4(4), 457-465. (Revised
manuscript
rereived 4 October
1992)
of Geography,
Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL 33431,
In a recent comment published in Applied Ge~~~ap~y~ Martin Renzer (1992) raised a concern about ‘the r~Iationship between applied geography and the swiftly growing technique side of the discipline’. As summarized in a response from Sant f1992), Kenzer’s arguments are based on three propositions: that pure and applied geography are not separate fields; that applied geography is heavily driven by techniques; and that the preoccupation with techniques is detrimental both to the discipline and to the prospects of its graduates, The first proposition is fairly widely accepted and thus should not be in question (Sant 1992). Regarding the other two propositions, the rapid growth of geographical information systems (GIS) in geography appears to be the main concern behind Kenzer’s arguments. In fact, he suggests that GIS might be experiencing a misdirected drive toward independence that is analogous to what applied geography attempted to do in the past (Kenzer 1992). This is the topic to be addressed here. GIS: an asset or a threat? The value of CIS to geography and the place of GTS in the geography curriculum have stimulated debate among geographers (see Jordan 1988, and subsequent correspondence in the AAG Newsletter; Openshaw 1991; Taylor and Overton 1991; Kemp et al. 1992). Kenzer suggests that geography students ‘are being trained mainly to push buttons and learn software programs’. It is understandable why some geographers are concerned about such rapidly growing techniques within the field of geography, Geography as an academic discipline must have an ‘intellectual core’, and should not educate its students solely as technicians. However, it is equally dangerous to label GIS as purely a technical field without intellectual roots. The author would like to argue, on the basis of some analogies, that GIS has a place in the geography curricuium and that GIS is an asset rather than a threat to the discipline. Value of GIS to geography Applied geography aims at ‘the application of geographic tools, concepts and methodologies to the solving of everyday problems’ (Kenzer 1992). Accompanied by technological development, geographers today have access to a variety of computer-based tools such as word processing, desktop publishing, automated mapping, statistical analysis, image processing, GIS, and so on. These tools are used in different ways to help geographers solve problems, but why haven’t we argued over the impact of, say, word processing on the field of geography? There
108
Comment
must be some fundamental differences among these tools in terms of their value to geography and their place in the geography curriculum. It is generally agreed that the basic concepts in GIS are not new to geography. Map scale, map projection, map overlay and spatial relationships have long been central concepts in geography and now in GIS. What is new in GIS is the technology. This new technology enables geographers to explore many phenomena which were unexplored or even unseen in the past. The quantitative revolution of the 1950s and 196Os, which helped geographers undertake more rigorous spatial analyses of their subjects, clearly offers some analogy to today’s GIS. Without access to co,mputer-based mathematical and statistical methods. many systematic studies in geography, such as locational modelling and transportation geography. would not have achieved new insights about spatial patterns and processes. Similarly, many applied geographic studies would have been less analytical in nature or unlikely to have been undertaken. The issue is that, with the use of tools. geographers have developed theories. models and applications based on geographic concepts. Regression analysis and its application to the family of gravity models (e.g., Taaffe and Gauthier 1973). or the spatial autocorrelation problem (e.g., Griffith and Amrhein 1991) are relevant examples. Such knowledge represents an integration of geographic concepts, methodologies and tools which would be difficult to acquire from outside the field. If we consider ‘GE’ an equivalent of quantitative methods in its potential importance to geography, it is clear that it should be taught within academic geography departments. Unfortunately, the expression ‘GIS’ is often misinterprcted as equivalent to specific GIS software packages. In fact, GIS requires understanding of more basic and fundamental geographic concepts than do many quantitative methods used by geographers. If the subject area of GIS had been given a different name (such as ‘geographic data handling and analysis’). geographers might have avoided many unnecessary debates on its value. A key example of the value of GIS to geography is its powerful ability to represent geographic space in geographic inquiries. Maps have been widely accepted in human history to represent geographic space. However, the traditional representation of geographic space on paper maps has many limitations. With GIS, the choice of geographic space representation methods has stimulated the Burrough 1988). A wellwell-known vector/raster debate (see, for example, designed representation scheme has the potential to make some well-known geographic concepts and models applicable in real-world problem analysis. A recent study of implementing Hagerstrand’s time-space prism concepts within GIS is an example (Miller 1991). ‘GIS training’ versus ‘GIS education’ Kenzer (1992) argues that ‘GIS and similar techniques will shortly become part of every major word processing software package, available to anyone capable of technology’. He is therefore following simple commands or utilizing “windows” concerned about the role played by geography departments if such GIS products do become available. This concern is based on an assumption that, if an easy-to-use GIS becomes available, users will not require geographic knowledge in solving their everyday problems. This is equivalent to saying that an easy-to-use word processing package can always create well-written documents for anyone who knows how to push buttons! An easy-to-use GIS package makes the acquisition of GIS technical skills less complicated, but it is no substitute for problem-domain
Comment
109
knowledge and problem-soIving capability. Geography alone may not be able to deliver all of these requirements because the problem-domain knowledge could be in planning, economics, engineering, landscape architecture or geology, but there are enough fundamental geographic concepts embedded in GIS to justify the inclusion of GIS ‘education’ within geography. The efforts of the National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (NCGIA) and many academic geographers on both sides of the Atlantic in the development of GIS curricula speak volumes for the success of ‘GIS education’ rather than ‘GIS training’ in geography departments (Nyerges and Chrisman 1989; Goodchild and Kemp 1990; IJnwin et al. 1990). Many of today’s geography students may well be perplexed. They want to be employable after their university education. GIS happens to be one area with a high market demand, so students enroll in GIS courses to make themselves more competitive. It is the responsibility of the geography community to make sure that our students receive a geographic education that includes problem-solving, critical thinking and technical capabilities. In this sense, there should be no significant differences in geographic education for students who are interested in applied or other systematic areas of geography. GIS for the discipline of geography
Few geographers are driven by GIS or other high-tech tools. Instead, they are motivated by problems of an applied or basic nature which can often be more readily examined with powerful tools. Future development of GIS should not be left in the hands of GIS specialists only, since the development of a tool is aimed at the needs of specific problems. Geographers in all systematic areas of the discipline know best what tools may facilitate and improve their research. The general for network analysis’ and ‘raster consensus on using ‘vector representation representation for terrain analysis’ are examples that demonstrate the close interactions between methods of geographic space representation in GIS and various geographic modelling and analysis needs. Clearly, GIS is not just for those geographers who are interested in techniques. Its foundation is built on the very roots of geography itself. It is certainly important that we should not ‘look down our noses at each other’ (Kenzer 1992). Applied geographers are not second to other geographers. Similarly, GIS is not second to other systematic studies in geography. All subfields in geography will benefit from GIS if we embed GIS properly within today’s curriculum. References P. A. (1988) Principles of geographical information systems for land resources assessment. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Goodchild, M. F. and Kemp, K. K. (eds) (1990) NCGZA core curriculum in GIS. Santa Burrough.
Barbara, CA: National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis. Griffith, D. A. and Amrhein, C. G. (1991) Statistical analysis for geographers. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Jordan, T. (1988) In AAG Newsletter, 23(5), 1. Kemp, K. K., Goodchild, M. F. and Dodson, R. F. (1992) Teaching GIS in geography. Professional Geographer, 44(Z), 181-I 91. Kenzer, M. S. (1992) Applied and academic geography and the remainder of the twentieth century. Applies Geography, 12, 207-210.
110
Content
Miller, H. (1991) Modeling accessibility using space-time prism concepts within geographical information systems. international Juurnal of Geographical ~~for~at~o~ Systems, S(3), 287-301. Nyerges, T. L. and Chrisman, N. R. (1989) A framework for model curricula development in cartography and geographic information systems. Professional Geographer, 41(3), 283-293. Openshaw, S. (1991) Commentary: a view on the GIS crisis in geography, or, using GIS to put Humpty-Dumpty back together again. Environment und Pluming A, 23(S), 621429. Sant, M. (1992) Applied geography and a place for passion. Applied Geography. 12, 295-298. Taaffe, E. J. and Gauthier. H. L. (1973) Geography oftrmzsportution. En&wood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Taylor, P. J. and Overton, A?. (1991) Further thoughts on geography and GE. ~nvir~~~e~?t and Plann~l~g A. 23. l~S7-1~90. Unwin, D. J. et al. (1990) A syllabus for teaching geographical informatioli systems. international Journal of Geographical information Systems, 4(4), 457-465. (Revised
manuscript
rereived 4 October
1992)