|
|
|
“Finally, skip the $15-per-day charge for a personal navigation system, and invest in a $3 map. It’ll get you where you need to go and you’ll have a souvenir as well.”
- Carol McAlice Currie in the (Oregon) Statesman-Journal in an article about saving money on rental cars
Today is Bill Gates’ last day in his current role. He’ll move on to a new chapter working with his foundation. To honor that last day, CTV looks at the predictions made in his 1995 book, The Road Ahead. He has this to say about mapping:
“You’ll be able to jump into a map so you can navigate down a street or through the rooms of a building.”
We are certainly part way there and with the likes of EveryScape and new motion sensing technologies, we are getting closer all the time.
BTW, Hiawatha Bray covered EveryScape in the Boston Globe this week. The opening sentence mentioned Google Maps, so when my Dad pointed it out he said, “there’s another article about Google mapping in the paper.” I wonder if it’s possible to write about new mapping technologies without mentioning the G company?
I’ll just quote Journalism.co.uk: “Now this is a good interactive map.
[The Center for Spatial Studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara is involved in incorporating spatial thinking and analysis into fields of study that range from marine biology to religious studies, and Director Michael Goodchild envisions a future where spatial thinking will be taught in high schools alongside history and algebra.]
“There’s been a democratization of GIS over the past couple of years,” Goodchild said. “It’s reached the point where everyone needs to learn it.”
- Goodchild quoted in “GIS: Cops Favor New Kind of Plotting” in Miller-McClure Magazine
I’m thinking out loud here:
Does that suggest that “if not for GIS and its democratization” there’d not be interest in teaching spatial thinking in schools? Did we have to get quick and powerful (and “flashy”) technologies to “prove” the importance of spatial thinking? Math did ok without computers for quite a long time… and I recall hand-draw “invasion of the life-savers” maps in my population geography class in 1987. Have any other disciplines “needed” computers to “prove their worth?”
Researchers at the Children’s Environmental Health Initiative reported on study of the Toxics Release Inventory Burden Reduction Rule, a law allowing some polluters to avoid reporting on their toxic releases. CEHI researchers found some communities unfairly burdened:
this study suggests that the TRI Burden Reduction Rule has environmental justice implications. We found that facilities that are eligible for reduced reporting are more likely to be located in neighborhoods where the proportion of minority and low income residents is significantly higher than neighborhoods hosting facilities that are still required report detailed information.
The report was published online on June 26, 2008 by the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Science and Technology. It was funded by a grant from the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. You need a subscription to read the entire report, but the CEHI provides some details including what I looked for, maps.
Alas, I was disappointed with the promised “interactive map” which shows a thematic map of the U.S.’ EPA regions. Clicking on a state/regions pops up that regions review document, detailing “the percent minority population, the percent minority population under age 5, and the percent of the population in poverty within a 1, 3, and 5 km buffer around each TRI facility in the U.S.”
The findings apparently contradict an EPA study, though it’s not cited (odd?):
In contrast to EPA’s findings, this study suggests that the TRI Burden Reduction Rule has environmental justice implications.
The implications are stated this way:
This analysis demonstrates that poor and minority communities stand to lose disproportionately more detailed information about chemical releases, leaving them less empowered to advocate for public health or environmental protections in their communities.
This is an important and complex finding. I wish there were clearly ways to explain and illustrate it.
