Wednesday, March 30, 2016
Wednesday, March 23, 2016
Decision Making GIS Software for President.
One
crazy thing I found yesterday was the entire field of "MCDA-GIS" – Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis GIS. Woah. That’s crazy. They have algorithms that do this? I can’t help but have a flash of my
architect friend who, with a look of fear in his eyes said “You are going to
take over the jobs of all these great designers… with computers?” Not only is he afraid of the job loss, but the repercussions of computers making truly impactful decisions for us.
Algorithms that design cities? Now that sounds scary!
This is especially scary for many designers who approach the world through a "creative-human-sticky-complex-organic" process. It sounds like some sort of scene from the Matrix...what could possibly go wrong? But the secret's out, and I am actually excited about it. It’s not that I am a megalomaniac hell-bent on world domination through digital GIS… (though it does sound like a good plot twist)…It’s just that I can see how this type of thing would be so darn useful… AND particularly useful in a participatory process.
In my experience the trickiest parts of a participatory process is having a bunch of people come to your meeting (some of them keen to help, the other half keen to yell at everyone)… and you try to figure out some sort of way that they can contribute. Usually, they discuss, share ideas, maybe we write it down, maybe we have break-out groups, that’s all good. But about three quarters of the way through a meeting the frustration starts to set in. People have given up their time and poured out the knowledge, but the opposing ideas and the conflicting viewpoints start to make the whole thing feel futile. Feeling futile is the last thing anyone needs. That hopelessness and giving-up can single-handedly destroy a participatory process.
To remedy this, the public should be seen (and used) as problem solvers. In my experience, the people I talk to about a project and who want to come out to participate are people of capacity. Also in my experience, those who come with a chip on their shoulder and those who are used to complaining as a mode of interaction, typically transform when they are given tools to solve problems. If instead of soapboxes, people are encouraged to THINK, this can change the dynamic of a meeting. It can also mean that complainers and those who don’t like to actually do anything useful will probably leave. But then that's not a bad thing anyways. Most people are not used to being active agents in the creation of their environment. They are treated like walking opinions and so they just spout out opinions.
For people to be able to problem solve, they need information, and tools. That is where I think simultaneous decision-making GIS software can be useful. As far as I can see this software still requires input. It needs you to give all the opinions and options and criteria. You also need to incorporate maps and spaces and all the information you can. If part of the number crunching can happen then and there and people can see what the results of their contributions are, it can lead to more informed discussion, it can reduce the options down to a couple viable ones that people can choose between. Helping people see some clarity in the muck will go a long way in encouraging participatory processes. I think it will also give groups a clearer vision of how their contributions actually lead to a result. The key is that the process is transparent and one can see how minor choices are affecting the whole.
Smith, Duncan. 2016. “Online Interactive Thematic Mapping: Applications and Techniques for Socio-Economic Research.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 57: 106–17.
Algorithms that design cities? Now that sounds scary!
Malczewski, Jacek, and Claus Rinner. 2015. “Multicriteria Decision Analysis in Geographic Information Science.” In Analysis Methods, 331.
This is especially scary for many designers who approach the world through a "creative-human-sticky-complex-organic" process. It sounds like some sort of scene from the Matrix...what could possibly go wrong? But the secret's out, and I am actually excited about it. It’s not that I am a megalomaniac hell-bent on world domination through digital GIS… (though it does sound like a good plot twist)…It’s just that I can see how this type of thing would be so darn useful… AND particularly useful in a participatory process.
In my experience the trickiest parts of a participatory process is having a bunch of people come to your meeting (some of them keen to help, the other half keen to yell at everyone)… and you try to figure out some sort of way that they can contribute. Usually, they discuss, share ideas, maybe we write it down, maybe we have break-out groups, that’s all good. But about three quarters of the way through a meeting the frustration starts to set in. People have given up their time and poured out the knowledge, but the opposing ideas and the conflicting viewpoints start to make the whole thing feel futile. Feeling futile is the last thing anyone needs. That hopelessness and giving-up can single-handedly destroy a participatory process.
To remedy this, the public should be seen (and used) as problem solvers. In my experience, the people I talk to about a project and who want to come out to participate are people of capacity. Also in my experience, those who come with a chip on their shoulder and those who are used to complaining as a mode of interaction, typically transform when they are given tools to solve problems. If instead of soapboxes, people are encouraged to THINK, this can change the dynamic of a meeting. It can also mean that complainers and those who don’t like to actually do anything useful will probably leave. But then that's not a bad thing anyways. Most people are not used to being active agents in the creation of their environment. They are treated like walking opinions and so they just spout out opinions.
For people to be able to problem solve, they need information, and tools. That is where I think simultaneous decision-making GIS software can be useful. As far as I can see this software still requires input. It needs you to give all the opinions and options and criteria. You also need to incorporate maps and spaces and all the information you can. If part of the number crunching can happen then and there and people can see what the results of their contributions are, it can lead to more informed discussion, it can reduce the options down to a couple viable ones that people can choose between. Helping people see some clarity in the muck will go a long way in encouraging participatory processes. I think it will also give groups a clearer vision of how their contributions actually lead to a result. The key is that the process is transparent and one can see how minor choices are affecting the whole.
Smith, Duncan. 2016. “Online Interactive Thematic Mapping: Applications and Techniques for Socio-Economic Research.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 57: 106–17.
Friday, March 18, 2016
Mapping (A little freewriting)
Mapping in Architecture is an interesting thing. I have become increasingly aware of how much interest there is in GIS. I feel like the whole concept of space and data and how to analyze this kind of data has just ballooned in so many disciplines. I did a speech competition this week and I was surprised at how many students knew about GIS mapping from other departments. I love meeting people from completely different knowledge sets, who are doing very similar things to me. I get this "hive" feeling about being human and about learning as a species.
Anyways, I am pretty sure the internet and GPS and the rise of ridiculous amounts of data from phones has led to an increased interest in GIS. It's like the world is flooded with spatial data suddenly and people are fishing through, trying to make some sense of it. I first became interested in mapping when I did the behavioral mapping project. I did not use GIS or GPS data, instead I just gathered it myself through observation. I then digitized it and that's when I started to realize how and why there is a whole world of digital mapping that I have been ignorant about.
Lately I have been thinking about why and how this interest has affected architecture and I am pretty sure the reason that the flood gates of GIS data analysis has yet to hit architecture in a profound way is because the GPS data is not specific enough to apply to a building. GPS data has about a 30m error factor that makes it hard to determine exactly where a person is in a building. This makes data collection from phones, etc difficult. Often architects approach the mapping process in site analysis and site selection - where the scale is larger, but once you get down to analyzing the building it is less common. This may have something to do with the lack of research in this area due to less available data sets.
What I currently think is interesting is how the spatial data makes its way to inform a design. I actually don't think we are there yet with software or with intuitive design processes where we can take spatial data and systematically explain the best way to use it. Its really hard to look at a bunch of dots on a map and figure out what it is telling you about a place...But I believe that's where the key lies for future research and discovery. Its also where other disciplines can really help/inform architecture. So much work in spatial data analysis has been a part of ecology and urban planning and though architecture may not use digital collection tools, it is possible to collect analogue data that can be digitized, and in the end, use the same analysis methods.
Statistical spatial data analysis is pretty complicated and way out of my knowledge set, but I am pretty interested in learning more.
Leach, Darcy K. 2016. “When Freedom Is Not an Endless Meeting: A New Look at Efficiency in Consensus-Based Decision Making.” The Sociological Quarterly 57 (1): 36–70.
Nyerges, Timothy. 2005. “Scaling-up as a Grand Challenge for Public Participation GIS.” Directions Magazine.
Voss, Angi, Ivan Denisovich, Peter Gatalsky, Kiriakos Gavouchidis, Andreas Klotz, Stefanie Roeder, and Hans Voss. 2004. “Evolution of a Participatory GIS.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 28 (6): 635–51.
"The results of the experiments demonstrated that a variety of computational and
visual tools is needed to support different decision making styles"(Gennady, 2003)
Anyways, I am pretty sure the internet and GPS and the rise of ridiculous amounts of data from phones has led to an increased interest in GIS. It's like the world is flooded with spatial data suddenly and people are fishing through, trying to make some sense of it. I first became interested in mapping when I did the behavioral mapping project. I did not use GIS or GPS data, instead I just gathered it myself through observation. I then digitized it and that's when I started to realize how and why there is a whole world of digital mapping that I have been ignorant about.
"Participatory spatial planning and decision making requires a combination of software
tools for group decision support, individual decision support and geographic analysis and
presentation."(Voss, 2004)
"The analytic component provides technical information that ensures broad-based, competent perspectives. GIS has provided technical information in such processes as maps can represent changes in landscapes.The deliberative component provides an opportunity to givevoice to choices about values, alternatives and recommendations." (Nyerges, 2005)
What I currently think is interesting is how the spatial data makes its way to inform a design. I actually don't think we are there yet with software or with intuitive design processes where we can take spatial data and systematically explain the best way to use it. Its really hard to look at a bunch of dots on a map and figure out what it is telling you about a place...But I believe that's where the key lies for future research and discovery. Its also where other disciplines can really help/inform architecture. So much work in spatial data analysis has been a part of ecology and urban planning and though architecture may not use digital collection tools, it is possible to collect analogue data that can be digitized, and in the end, use the same analysis methods.
"The first thing one discovers on closer inspection of the literature is that the supposed
inefficiency of consensus-based decision making has not been empirically demonstrated." (Leach, 2016)
Statistical spatial data analysis is pretty complicated and way out of my knowledge set, but I am pretty interested in learning more.
References
Gennady, Andrienko, Andrienko Natalia, and Jankowski Piotr. 2003. “Building Spatial Decision Support Tools for Individuals and Groups.” Journal of Decision Systems 12 (2): 193–208.Leach, Darcy K. 2016. “When Freedom Is Not an Endless Meeting: A New Look at Efficiency in Consensus-Based Decision Making.” The Sociological Quarterly 57 (1): 36–70.
Nyerges, Timothy. 2005. “Scaling-up as a Grand Challenge for Public Participation GIS.” Directions Magazine.
Voss, Angi, Ivan Denisovich, Peter Gatalsky, Kiriakos Gavouchidis, Andreas Klotz, Stefanie Roeder, and Hans Voss. 2004. “Evolution of a Participatory GIS.” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 28 (6): 635–51.
Friday, March 4, 2016
PGIS, PPGIS and CoPPGIS - mapping by the people!
For more info see here:
Brown, Greg, and Marketta Kytt?? 2014. “Key Issues and Research Priorities for Public Participation GIS (PPGIS): A Synthesis Based on Empirical Research.” Applied Geography.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)