评注:地理学和地理科学的一般原则和分析框架

IF 2.7 Q1 GEOGRAPHY
M. Goodchild
{"title":"评注:地理学和地理科学的一般原则和分析框架","authors":"M. Goodchild","doi":"10.1080/19475683.2022.2030943","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Geography and GIScience (geographic information science) are both concerned as disciplines with the infinite complexity of the surface and near-surface of the Earth, or what we might call the geographic domain. Many other disciplines also concern themselves with this domain, including most if not all of the social and environmental sciences, but none do so with the generality of geography and GIScience. Geography has a long tradition of concern with integration, with exploring the links that exist between disciplines and with problems whose solution requires knowledge that extends across many disciplines. It is not surprising, therefore, that an invitation to address the general principles and analytical frameworks in geography and GIScience has generated such a diversity of perspectives. There are clearly many questions one might ask about the geographic domain, and many routes to building representations that might be used to address those questions, especially when those representations must capture many distinct phenomena in the same framework. Geographers have long used maps as a framework with which to create, store and share representations of the geographic domain. But maps have obvious limitations: they are flat while the geographic domain is curved; they use two spatial dimensions to represent the three spatial dimensions of the domain; they must necessarily focus on static features; unlike numerical data, they are not readily submitted to quantitative analysis; and the scale of a map imposes a constraint on the representation’s level of detail. Today, the move to digital representations has in principle removed many of these limitations. Geographic information systems (GIS) and spatial databases now capture, represent and analyse the information that was previously shown in maps; they include the third spatial dimension; and it is now possible to represent and investigate time-dependent phenomena. Thus, tupu, the concept advanced by Chen Shupeng and the subject of Li’s paper (Li, this volume), is in many ways the guiding principle of today’s spatiotemporal databases. Although there have been very important advances in the capturing of greater detail, spatial and temporal resolution must always remain limited to some degree because of the limitations of our observing systems. Moreover, practice is often slow to adjust to new opportunities, and many of the decisions made in the early days of the digital transition, at a time when computational resources were extremely limited, still have their legacy effects today (Goodchild 2018). Clearly, any general principles that might apply to the geographic domain would be extremely valuable as a basis for digital representation and analytic frameworks, and several are identified in these papers. Many make reference to the principle of spatial dependence, nicely expressed by Tobler (1970) in what he suggested might qualify as a First Law of Geography: nearby things are more similar than distant things. The practice of mapping topography with contours would be impossible without it, as would the practice of dividing the world into areas of approximately uniform characteristics – the regions of regional geography or the polygons of GIS. Anselin (1989) argued that spatial heterogeneity was also a defining principle, a theme pursued by Fotheringham and Sachdeva (this volume) in their discussion of geographically weighted regression (GWR). Jiang (this volume) argues for scaling as a principle, based on the observation that small geographic phenomena tend to be much more abundant than large ones and that abundance is often almost precisely related to size by a power law. Central to all of these discussions is the concept of geographic context, or the tendency for geographical surroundings to influence outcomes. This is one possible basis for the similarity principle advanced by Zhu and Turner (this volume), and for the spatial heterogeneity discussed by Fotheringham and Sachdeva (this volume). Finally, scale and its related","PeriodicalId":46270,"journal":{"name":"Annals of GIS","volume":"90 1","pages":"85 - 87"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Commentary: general principles and analytical frameworks in geography and GIScience\",\"authors\":\"M. Goodchild\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/19475683.2022.2030943\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Geography and GIScience (geographic information science) are both concerned as disciplines with the infinite complexity of the surface and near-surface of the Earth, or what we might call the geographic domain. Many other disciplines also concern themselves with this domain, including most if not all of the social and environmental sciences, but none do so with the generality of geography and GIScience. Geography has a long tradition of concern with integration, with exploring the links that exist between disciplines and with problems whose solution requires knowledge that extends across many disciplines. It is not surprising, therefore, that an invitation to address the general principles and analytical frameworks in geography and GIScience has generated such a diversity of perspectives. There are clearly many questions one might ask about the geographic domain, and many routes to building representations that might be used to address those questions, especially when those representations must capture many distinct phenomena in the same framework. Geographers have long used maps as a framework with which to create, store and share representations of the geographic domain. But maps have obvious limitations: they are flat while the geographic domain is curved; they use two spatial dimensions to represent the three spatial dimensions of the domain; they must necessarily focus on static features; unlike numerical data, they are not readily submitted to quantitative analysis; and the scale of a map imposes a constraint on the representation’s level of detail. Today, the move to digital representations has in principle removed many of these limitations. Geographic information systems (GIS) and spatial databases now capture, represent and analyse the information that was previously shown in maps; they include the third spatial dimension; and it is now possible to represent and investigate time-dependent phenomena. Thus, tupu, the concept advanced by Chen Shupeng and the subject of Li’s paper (Li, this volume), is in many ways the guiding principle of today’s spatiotemporal databases. Although there have been very important advances in the capturing of greater detail, spatial and temporal resolution must always remain limited to some degree because of the limitations of our observing systems. Moreover, practice is often slow to adjust to new opportunities, and many of the decisions made in the early days of the digital transition, at a time when computational resources were extremely limited, still have their legacy effects today (Goodchild 2018). Clearly, any general principles that might apply to the geographic domain would be extremely valuable as a basis for digital representation and analytic frameworks, and several are identified in these papers. Many make reference to the principle of spatial dependence, nicely expressed by Tobler (1970) in what he suggested might qualify as a First Law of Geography: nearby things are more similar than distant things. The practice of mapping topography with contours would be impossible without it, as would the practice of dividing the world into areas of approximately uniform characteristics – the regions of regional geography or the polygons of GIS. Anselin (1989) argued that spatial heterogeneity was also a defining principle, a theme pursued by Fotheringham and Sachdeva (this volume) in their discussion of geographically weighted regression (GWR). Jiang (this volume) argues for scaling as a principle, based on the observation that small geographic phenomena tend to be much more abundant than large ones and that abundance is often almost precisely related to size by a power law. Central to all of these discussions is the concept of geographic context, or the tendency for geographical surroundings to influence outcomes. This is one possible basis for the similarity principle advanced by Zhu and Turner (this volume), and for the spatial heterogeneity discussed by Fotheringham and Sachdeva (this volume). Finally, scale and its related\",\"PeriodicalId\":46270,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Annals of GIS\",\"volume\":\"90 1\",\"pages\":\"85 - 87\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Annals of GIS\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/19475683.2022.2030943\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"GEOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of GIS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/19475683.2022.2030943","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"GEOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

地理学和地理信息科学(地理信息科学)都是研究地球表面和近表面无限复杂性的学科,或者我们可以称之为地理领域。许多其他学科也涉及这一领域,包括大多数(如果不是全部的话)社会科学和环境科学,但没有一个学科涉及地理和地理信息科学的普遍性。地理学具有关注整合的悠久传统,探索学科之间存在的联系,以及解决需要跨多个学科扩展知识的问题。因此,邀请讨论地理和地理信息科学的一般原则和分析框架产生了如此多样化的观点,这并不奇怪。显然,人们可能会提出许多关于地理领域的问题,以及许多构建表征的途径,这些表征可能用于解决这些问题,特别是当这些表征必须在同一框架中捕获许多不同的现象时。地理学家长期以来一直使用地图作为创建、存储和共享地理域表示的框架。但地图有明显的局限性:地图是平面的,而地理区域是弯曲的;它们用两个空间维度来表示域的三个空间维度;它们必须专注于静态功能;与数值数据不同,它们不容易进行定量分析;地图的比例尺限制了地图的细节表现。今天,向数字表示的转变原则上已经消除了许多这些限制。地理信息系统和空间数据库现在捕捉、表示和分析以前在地图上显示的信息;它们包括第三空间维度;现在有可能表示和研究与时间有关的现象。因此,图普,由陈树鹏提出的概念和李论文的主题(李,本卷),在许多方面是当今时空数据库的指导原则。尽管在获取更多细节方面取得了非常重要的进展,但由于我们的观测系统的局限性,空间和时间分辨率必须始终在某种程度上受到限制。此外,实践对新机遇的适应往往很慢,在计算资源极其有限的数字转型早期做出的许多决定今天仍然具有遗留影响(Goodchild 2018)。显然,任何可能适用于地理领域的一般原则作为数字表示和分析框架的基础都是非常有价值的,并且在这些论文中确定了一些。许多人提到了空间依赖原则,Tobler(1970)在他所提出的地理第一定律中很好地表达了这一原则:附近的事物比远处的事物更相似。如果没有它,就不可能用等高线绘制地形图,就不可能将世界划分为特征大致一致的区域- -区域地理区域或地理信息系统的多边形。Anselin(1989)认为空间异质性也是一个决定性的原则,这也是Fotheringham和Sachdeva(本卷)在讨论地理加权回归(GWR)时所追求的主题。Jiang(本卷)认为尺度是一种原则,基于这样的观察,即小的地理现象往往比大的地理现象丰富得多,而且丰度通常几乎精确地与幂律大小相关。所有这些讨论的核心是地理环境的概念,或地理环境影响结果的趋势。这是朱和特纳提出的相似性原理(本卷)以及Fotheringham和Sachdeva讨论的空间异质性(本卷)的一个可能基础。最后,规模及其相关
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Commentary: general principles and analytical frameworks in geography and GIScience
Geography and GIScience (geographic information science) are both concerned as disciplines with the infinite complexity of the surface and near-surface of the Earth, or what we might call the geographic domain. Many other disciplines also concern themselves with this domain, including most if not all of the social and environmental sciences, but none do so with the generality of geography and GIScience. Geography has a long tradition of concern with integration, with exploring the links that exist between disciplines and with problems whose solution requires knowledge that extends across many disciplines. It is not surprising, therefore, that an invitation to address the general principles and analytical frameworks in geography and GIScience has generated such a diversity of perspectives. There are clearly many questions one might ask about the geographic domain, and many routes to building representations that might be used to address those questions, especially when those representations must capture many distinct phenomena in the same framework. Geographers have long used maps as a framework with which to create, store and share representations of the geographic domain. But maps have obvious limitations: they are flat while the geographic domain is curved; they use two spatial dimensions to represent the three spatial dimensions of the domain; they must necessarily focus on static features; unlike numerical data, they are not readily submitted to quantitative analysis; and the scale of a map imposes a constraint on the representation’s level of detail. Today, the move to digital representations has in principle removed many of these limitations. Geographic information systems (GIS) and spatial databases now capture, represent and analyse the information that was previously shown in maps; they include the third spatial dimension; and it is now possible to represent and investigate time-dependent phenomena. Thus, tupu, the concept advanced by Chen Shupeng and the subject of Li’s paper (Li, this volume), is in many ways the guiding principle of today’s spatiotemporal databases. Although there have been very important advances in the capturing of greater detail, spatial and temporal resolution must always remain limited to some degree because of the limitations of our observing systems. Moreover, practice is often slow to adjust to new opportunities, and many of the decisions made in the early days of the digital transition, at a time when computational resources were extremely limited, still have their legacy effects today (Goodchild 2018). Clearly, any general principles that might apply to the geographic domain would be extremely valuable as a basis for digital representation and analytic frameworks, and several are identified in these papers. Many make reference to the principle of spatial dependence, nicely expressed by Tobler (1970) in what he suggested might qualify as a First Law of Geography: nearby things are more similar than distant things. The practice of mapping topography with contours would be impossible without it, as would the practice of dividing the world into areas of approximately uniform characteristics – the regions of regional geography or the polygons of GIS. Anselin (1989) argued that spatial heterogeneity was also a defining principle, a theme pursued by Fotheringham and Sachdeva (this volume) in their discussion of geographically weighted regression (GWR). Jiang (this volume) argues for scaling as a principle, based on the observation that small geographic phenomena tend to be much more abundant than large ones and that abundance is often almost precisely related to size by a power law. Central to all of these discussions is the concept of geographic context, or the tendency for geographical surroundings to influence outcomes. This is one possible basis for the similarity principle advanced by Zhu and Turner (this volume), and for the spatial heterogeneity discussed by Fotheringham and Sachdeva (this volume). Finally, scale and its related
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of GIS
Annals of GIS Multiple-
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
2.00%
发文量
31
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信