Virtual Globes reached the mass market in 2005. They created multi-million dollar businesses in a very short time by providing novel ways to explore data geographically. We use the term “Virtual Globes” as the common denominator for technologies offering capabilities to annotate, edit and publish geographic information to a world-wide audience and to visualize information provided by the public and private sectors, as well as by citizens who volunteer new data. Unfortunately, but not surprising for a new trend or paradigm, overlapping terms such as “Virtual Globes”, “Digital Earth”, “Geospatial Web”, “Geoportal” or software specific terms are used heterogeneously. We analyze the terminologies and trends in scientific publications and ask whether these developments serve science and society. While usage can be answered quantitatively, the authors reason from the literature studied that these developments serve to educate the masses and may help to democratize geographic information by extending the producer base. We believe that we can contribute to a better distinction between software centered terms and the generic concept as such. The power of the visual, coupled with the potential of spatial analysis and modeling for public and private purposes raises new issues of reliability, standards, privacy and best practice. This is increasingly addressed in scientific literature but the required body of knowledge is still in its infancy.
References
[1]
Longley, P.A.; Godchild, M.F.; Maguire, D.J.; Rhind, D.W. Geographic Information Systems and Science, 3rd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2001.
[2]
Scholten, H.J.; van de Velde, R.; van Manen, N. Geospatial Technology and the Role of Location in Science; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009.
[3]
Corrigan, J. Qualitative GIS and Emergent Semantics. In The Spatial Humanities: GIS and the Future of Humanities Scholarship; Bodenhamer, D.J., Corrigan, J., Harris, T.M., Eds.; Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN, USA, 2010.
[4]
Strobl, J. GI Science and technology-where next? GIS Dev. 2005, 9, 40–43.
[5]
Sui, D.Z.; Goodchild, M.F. A tetradic analysis of GIS and society using McLuhan’s law of media. Can. Geogr. 2003, 47, 5–17, doi:10.1111/1541-0064.02e08.
[6]
Blaschke, T. Geographische informationssysteme: Vom werkzeug zur methode. Geogr. Z. 2003, 2, 95–114.
[7]
Goodchild, M.F. Commentary: Whither VGI? GeoJournal 2008, 72, 239–244, doi:10.1007/s10708-008-9190-4.
[8]
Elwood, S. Volunteered geographic information: Future research directions motivated by critical, participatory, and feminist GIS. GeoJournal 2008, 72, 173–183, doi:10.1007/s10708-008-9186-0.
[9]
Sui, D.Z. The wikification of GIS and its consequences: Or Angelina Jolie’s new tattoo and the future of GIS. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2008, 32, 1–5.
[10]
Blaschke, T.; Strobl, J. Geographic information science developments. GIS. Sci. 2010, 23, 9–15.
Goodchild, M.F. The validity and usefulness of laws in geographic information science and geography. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2004, 94, 300–303, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.09402008.x.
[13]
Coleman, D.J. The potential and early limitations of volunteered geographic information. Geomatica 2010, 64, 209–219.
[14]
Goodchild, M.F. GIScience, geography, form, and process. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2004, 94, 709–714.
[15]
Butler, D. Virtual globes: The web-wide world. Nature 2006, 439, 776–778, doi:10.1038/439776a.
[16]
Craglia, M.; Goodchild, M. F.; Annoni, A.; Camara, G.; Gould, M.; Kuhn, W.; Mark, D.; Masser, I.; Maguire, D.; Liang, S.; et al. Next-generation digital earth: A position paper from the vespucci initiative for the advancement of geographic information science. Int. J. Spat. Data Infrastruct. Res. 2008, 3, 146–167.
[17]
McLead, B. Mass-market Geo: Emerging trends and standards. In Presented at the CEOS WGISS-22 conference, Annapolis, MD, USA, 12 September 2006.
[18]
Open Geospatial Consortium Homepage. KML (Keyhole Markup Language), Making Location Count. Available online: http://www.opengeospatial.org/standards/kml/ (accessed on 26 November 2010).
[19]
Open Geospatial Consortium Homepage. OGC White Paper. Interoperability and open architectures: An analysis of existing standardisation processes and procedures. Available online: http://www.opengeospatial.org/pressroom/papers (accessed on 15 July 2010).
[20]
Kiehle, C.; Greve, K.; Heier, C. Requirements for next generation spatial data Infrastructures-standardized web based geoprocessing and web service orchestration. Trans. GIS 2007, 11, 819–834.
[21]
Glennon, A. Comments on naive geography, part 2, 2006. Available online: http://geography2.blogspot.com/2006/06/comments-on-naive-geography-part-2.html (accessed on 2 December 2010).
[22]
News from Google—Google Homepage. Introducing Google Earth 5.0, 2009. Available online: http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/20090202earthocean.html (accessed on 26 October 2010).
[23]
Grossner, K.E.; Goodchild, M.F.; Clarke, K.C. Defining a digital earth system. Trans.GIS 2008, 12, 145–160, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9671.2008.01090.x.
[24]
Elmes, G.; Weiner, D.; D’alessandro-Scarpari, C. Digital earth. In International Encyclopedia of Human Geography; Kitchin, R., Thrift, N., Eds.; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 198–204.
[25]
Kienberger, S.; Tiede, D. ArcGIS explorer review: Is this yet another virtual globe? GeoInformatics 2008, 11, 42–47.
[26]
Goodchild, M.F. What does Google Earth mean for the spatial sciences? In Proceedings ofGIS Ireland Conference, Dublin, Ireland, October 13, 2005.
[27]
Colwell, R. The new landscape of science: A geographic portal. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2004, 94, 703–708.
[28]
Wright, D.J.; Goodchild, M.F.; Proctor, J.D. Demystifying the persistent ambiguity of GIS as “Tool” versus “Science”. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 1997, 87, 346–362, doi:10.1111/0004-5608.872057.
[29]
Tiede, D.; Lang, S. Analytical 3D views and virtual globes—scientific results in a familiar spatial context. Int. J. Photogramm. Remote Sens. 2010, 65, 300–307, doi:10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2009.12.002.
[30]
Turner, A.J. Introduction to Neogeography; O’Reilly Press: Sebastopol, CA, USA, 2006.
[31]
Harris, T.M.; Rouse, L.J.; Bergeron, S. The geospatial semantic web, pareto GIS, and the humanities. In The Spatial Humanities: GIS and the Future of Humanities Scholarship; Bodenhamer, D.J., Corrigan, J., Harris, T.M., Eds.; Indiana University Press: Bloomington, IN, USA, 2010; pp. 124–142.
[32]
Kraak, J.M. Why maps matter in GIScience. Cartogr. J. 2003, 43, 82–89, doi:10.1179/000870406X93526.
[33]
Obermeyer, N.J. GIS: The maturation of a profession. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2007, 34, 129–132, doi:10.1559/152304007781002280.
[34]
Barrotta, G.; Cipriano, P.; Pezzi, S.; Zanella, L. Where would you go for mapping services, [NMAs] or Google Maps? Implementing “hackable” user-driven GI services within SDIs. In ESDI: From Inspiration to Implementation, 12th EC and EC GIS Workshop, Innsbruck, Austria, 21–23 June 2006. Fullerton, K., Toth, K., Eds.;
[35]
Onsrud, H.J.; Johnson, J.; Lopez, X. Protecting personal privacy in using geographic information systems. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 1994, 60, 1083–1095.
[36]
Nouwt, S. Reasonable expectations of geo-privacy? SCRIPTed 2008, 5, 375–403, doi:10.2966/scrip.050208.375.
[37]
Obermeyer, N.J.; Pinto, J.K. Managing Geographic Information Systems; The Guildford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1994.
[38]
Taylor, P.J.; Johnston, R. GIS and geography. In Ground Truth; Pickles, J., Ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995; pp. 68–87.
[39]
Schultz, R.B.; Kerski, J.J.; Patterson, T.C. The use of virtual globes as a spatial teaching tool with suggestions for metadata standards. J. Geogr. 2008, 107, 27–34.
[40]
Elwood, S. Geographic information science: New geovisualization technologies—emerging questions and linkages with GIScience research. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2009, 33, 256–263, doi:10.1177/0309132508094076.
[41]
Peter, F.; Unwin, D.J. Re-presenting geographical information systems. In Re-Presenting GIS; Peter, F., Unwin, D.J., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2005; pp. 1–17.
[42]
Radcliffe, S.A. National maps, digitisation and neo-liberal cartographies: Transforming nation-state practices and symbols in postcolonial Ecuador. Trans. Inst. Br. Geogr. 2009, 34, 426–444, doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2009.00359.x.
[43]
Pickles, J. Representations in an electronic age: Geography, GIS and democracy. In Ground Truth. The Social Implications of Geographic Information Systems; Pickles, J., Ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1995; pp. 1–30.
[44]
Ahlqvist, T. A quest for polygon landscapes, or GIS and the condition of epistemology. Fennia 2000, 178, 97–111.
[45]
Schuurman, N. Trouble in the Heartland: GIS and its critics in the 1990s. Prog. Hum.Geogr. 2000, 24, 569–90, doi:10.1191/030913200100189111.
[46]
O’Sullivan, D. Geographic information science: Critical GIS. Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2006, 30, 783–791, doi:10.1177/0309132506071528.
[47]
Pavlovskaya, M. Theorizing with GIS: A tool for critical geographies? Environ. Plan. 2006, 38, 2003–2020, doi:10.1068/a37326.
[48]
Sieber, R. Public participation geographic information systems: A literature review and framework. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2006, 96, 491–507, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00702.x.
[49]
Chainey, S.; Ratcliffe, J.H. GIS and Crime Mapping; John Wiley & Sons: Chichester, UK, 2005.
[50]
Healy, D.J.; Stancioff, A. Development of a Geographic Information System in Support of Poverty Reduction, No. 7113660; World Bank: Montpelier, VT, USA, 2002.
[51]
PPgis.net—Open Forum on Participatory Geographic Information Systems and Technologies Homepage. Available online: http://ppgis.iapad.org (accessed on 3 December 2010).
[52]
Steinmann, R.; Krek, A.; Blaschke, T. Can online map-based applications improve citizen participation? In E-Government: Towards Electronic Democracy; B？hlen, M., Gamper, J., Polasek, W., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2005; pp. 25–35.
[53]
Caron, C.; Roche, S.; Goyer, D.; Jaton, A. GIScience journals ranking and evaluation: An international delphi study. Trans. GIS 2008, 12, 293–321, doi:10.1111/j.1467-9671.2008.01106.x.
[54]
Harvey, F. More than names—digital earth and/or virtual globes? Int. J. Spat. Data Infrastruct. Res. 2009, 4, 111–116.
[55]
Scharl, A. Towards the geospatial web: Media platforms for managing geotagged knowledge repositories. In The Geospatial Web: How Geobrowsers, Social Software and the Web2.0 are Shaping the Network Society; Scharl, A., Tochtermann, K., Eds.; Springer: London, UK, 2007; pp. 3–14.
[56]
Hakley, M.; Singelton, A.; Parker, C. Web mapping 2.0: The neogeography of the GeoWeb. Geogr. Compass 2008, 2, 2011–2039.
[57]
Crutcher, M.; Zook, M. Placemarks and waterlines: Racialized cyberscapes in post-Katrina Google Earth. Geoforum 2009, 40, 523–534, doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.01.003.
[58]
De Longueville, B. Community-based geoportals: The next generation? Concepts and methods for the geospatial Web 2.0. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2010, 34, 299–308, doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2010.04.004.
[59]
Mayall, K.; Hall, G.B. Landscape grammar 1: Spatial grammar theory and landscape planning. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 2005, 32, 895–920.
[60]
Pickles, J. Tool or science? GIS, technoscience and the theoretical turn. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 1997, 87, 363–372, doi:10.1111/0004-5608.00058.
[61]
Aitken, S.C. Public participation, technological discourses and the scale of GIS. In Community Participation and Geographic Information Systems; Craig, W., Harris, T., Weiner, D., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2002; pp. 357–366.
[62]
Schuurman, N. Formalization matters: Critical GIScience and ontology research. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 2006, 96, 726–739, doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00513.x.
[63]
Schuurman, N. Critical GIS: Theorizing an emerging discipline. Cartographica 2001, 36, 1–108.
[64]
Agarwal, P. Ontological considerations in GIScience. Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2005, 19, 501–536, doi:10.1080/13658810500032321.
Sheppard, S.R.J. The ethics of Google Earth: Crossing thresholds from spatial data to landscape visualization. J. Environ. Manag. 2009, 90, 2102–2117, doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.09.012.
Sui, D.Z. Terrae incognitae and limits of computation: Whither GIScience? Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 2001, 25, 529–533, doi:10.1016/S0198-9715(01)00027-8.
[69]
Warf, B.; Arias, S. Introduction: the reinsertion of space into the social sciences and humanities. In The Spatial Turn. Interdisciplinary Perspectives; Warf, B., Arias, S., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 1–10.
[70]
Hudson-Smith, A.; Crooks, A.; Gibin, M.; Milton, R.; Batty, M. NeoGeography and Web 2.0: Concepts, tools and applications. J. Locat. Based Serv. 2009, 3, 118–145, doi:10.1080/17489720902950366.
[71]
Wood, D. The Power of Maps; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 1992.
[72]
Crampton, J.W.; Krygier, J. An introduction to critical cartography. ACME Int. E-J. Crit. Geogr 2006, 4, 11–33.
[73]
Slocum, T.A.; Egbert, S.L. Cartographic data display. In Geographic Information Systems: The Microcomputer and Modern Cartography; Taylor, D.R.F., Ed.; Pergamon Press: Oxford, UK, 1991; pp. 167–199.
[74]
Boonstra, O.W.A. No place in history—Geo-ICT and historical science. In Geospatial Technology and the Role of Location in Science; Scholten, H.J., van de Velde, R., van Manen, N., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2009; pp. 87–101.
[75]
Goodchild, M.F.; Janelle, D.G. Toward critical spatial thinking in the social sciences and humanities. GeoJournal 2009, 75, 2–13.
[76]
Warf, B.; Arias, S. Introduction: the reinsertion of space into the social sciences and humanities. In The Spatial Turn. Interdisciplinary Perspectives; Warf, B., Arias, S., Eds.; Routledge: Abingdon, Oxford, UK, 2009; pp. 1–10.
[77]
Weiser, M. The computer for the twenty-first century. Sci. Am. 1991, 9, 94–104, doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0991-94.
[78]
Hilty, L.; Behrendt, S.; Binswanger, M.; Bruinink, A.; Erdmann, L.; Fr？hlich, J.; K？hler, A.; Kuster, N.; Som, C.; Würtenberger, F. The Precautionary Principle in the Information Society. Effects of Pervasive Computing on Health and Environment, TA-SWISS, TA 46e/2005; Report of the Centre for Technology Assessment (TA-SWISS): Bern, Switzerland, 2005.
[79]
Gewin, V. Mapping opportunities. Nature 2005, 427, 376–377.
[80]
Lever, J.A. Unintended consequences of the global positioning system. Syst. Eng. 2004, 7, 217–228.
[81]
Beresford, A.R.; Stajano, F. Location privacy in pervasive computing. Pervasive Comput. 2003, 1, 46–55.
[82]
Torrens, P.M. Geography and computational social science. GeoJournal 2010, 75, 133–148.
Armstrong, M.P.; Ruggles, A.J. Geographic information technologies and personal privacy. Cartographica 2005, 40, 63–73, doi:10.3138/RU65-81R3-0W75-8V21.
[85]
Virrantaus, K.; Fairbain, D.; Kraak, M.J. ICA research agenda on geography and geographic information science. Cartographica 2009, 44, 45–55.
[86]
Ren, F.; Kwan, M.P. The impact of the Internet on human activity-travel patterns: Analysis of gender differences using multi-group structural equation models. J. Transp. Geogr. 2009, 17, 440–450.
Rouse, L.J.; Bergeron, S.J.; Harris, T.M. Participating in the Geospatial Web: Collaborative mapping, social networks and participatory GIS. In The Geospatial Web. How Geobrowsers, Social Software and the Web2.0 are Shaping the Network Society; Scharl, A., Tochtermann, K., Eds.; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2007; pp. 153–158.
[89]
Fischer, F. We are excited about maps—they are excited about maps! Tele Atlas feeds and makes use of neogeographers. GeoInformatics 2008, 7, 10–13.
[90]
McGee, M. Nicaragua Raids Costa Rica, Blames Google Maps, 2010. Available online: http://searchengineland.com/nicaragua-raids-costa-rica-blames-google-maps-54885 (accessed on 3 December 2010).
