Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
the GeoWeb, which transitioned from highly trained professionals collecting and distributing geo-
graphical information via highly specialised systems to that where non-experts can collect, display
and share geographical information using freely available tools.
Within the Web 2.0 framework, citizens no longer play a passive role of spatial information
consumers but become spatial data creators (Sui, 2008). This marks the evolution away from the
centralised nature of public participation GIS (PPGIS), which were introduced in the 1990s as a way
to increase public involvement in policy making (Schlossberg and Shuford, 2005). However, PPGIS
has a designated central authority in control of the inputs and outcomes. The rise of Web 2.0 and the
neogeographer (Turner, 2006) has blurred the roles of data consumers, communicators and produc-
ers and has thus altered the nature of PPGIS. Unlike traditional PPGIS, the GeoWeb 2.0 challenges
such concepts as now there is no central authority controlling the inputs and outputs.
With relation to spatial data, Web 2.0 has led to a renaissance in geographical information
(Hudson-Smith and Crooks, 2009). This renaissance was fuelled by the immense popularity of
tools like Google Maps, which brought geographical information to many aspects of our modern
life. Geography, especially location, provides a means to index and access information over the
Internet (Craglia et al., 2008; Haklay et al., 2008) and is therefore enmeshed in the very fabric of the
Internet, thus making the GeoWeb ever more important. This renaissance has put a renewed focus
on early work to exploit geographical information present in a variety of online sources such as Web
pages (e.g. Buyukkokten et al., 1999; Gravano et al., 2003). Additionally, the increased amount of
geographical data has also renewed the need to develop spatial data infrastructures (SDIs), such as
the European INSPIRE (2014), to allow for data to be shared).
4.4 ROLE OF CROWDSOURCING AND THE GEOWEB
The GeoWeb has taken a new meaning with the rise of Web 2.0 frameworks and services, which
emphasise user interactivity and user generation of content. Considering the particularities of geo-
spatial content as it relates to the aforementioned six defining themes of Web 2.0, let us consider
individual production and user-generated content, which also results in massive amounts of data.
In the past, the production and collection of geographical data (either primary or secondary) was
often the first and most vital task of any GIS project, with data capture costs often accounting for up
to 85% of the cost of a GIS (Longley et al., 2010). This has been tipped on its head through crowd-
sourcing and volunteered geographic information (VGI).
Here, we define crowdsourcing as a method of data creation where the presence of a large group
of users not centrally organised generates content that is accessible and shareable as Web-based
services (Howe, 2006). The notion of using the crowd is that although a large number of individual
estimates may be incorrect, their average can be closer to the mark than any individual estimate
(Surowiecki, 2004). Some notable Web 2.0 examples include Wikipedia and WikiMapia, the lat-
ter being closely related to that of crowdsourcing of geographical information or VGI (Goodchild,
2007), with citizens acting as sensors, actively collecting and contributing geographical information
(Goodchild, 2007) utilising Web 2.0 technologies. This has led to a reduction in terms of the cost
of collection and compiling of data (such as GPS-enabled devices and online digitisation). This can
be correlated with the emergence of relevant sites that provide services for distributed GIS data
collection, for example, Google Map Maker. Such sites allow people to collect and disseminate geo-
graphical information while bypassing traditional GIS software. Furthermore, through APIs, users
can create bespoke applications to serve such data, for example, through Web mashups. However,
the analysis capabilities of such tools are often limited. One could consider this to be a legacy of GIS
education, in the sense that people often consider GIS simply as a tool for producing and displaying
maps and not the underlying techniques to build such maps. But it also revolves around the purpose
of many map mashups: to display data and not to manipulate it. Another barrier to carrying out
spatial analysis is of course access to dedicated geographical information software (such as ArcGIS
or MapInfo), which was traditionally limited to experts rather than the public at large due to their
