Object structure

Title:

Przestrzeń cyfrowa i internet jako przedmiot zainteresowań w badaniach geograficznych = Digital space and the Internet as the subject of interest of geographical research

Subtitle:

Przegląd Geograficzny T. 91 z. 2 (2019)

Creator:

Janc, Krzysztof. Autor https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1666-2848 -

Publisher:

IGiPZ PAN

Place of publishing:

Warszawa

Date issued/created:

2019

Description:

24 cm

Subject and Keywords:

internet ; digital space ; geography

Abstract:

The development of the Internet drove significant changes in the social and economic functioning of people and spatial units. In the case of geography, the Internet changed its nature as a science about space, by expanding on the available topics and methods of study by which geographers come to know the world. New possibilities were a result, though also challenges, above all in relation to the role in geographical research played by the Internet and digital space (data generated through the use of the Internet). Major developments to the World Wide Web and to the Internet as a whole, as well as new solutions made possible by the latter’s creation combine with phenomena subject to scientific analysis to leave as insufficient previous state-of-the-art research methods in the field of Internet geography. The aim of this article is therefore to identify the main problems with research in digital space. Emphasis is put on relationships between real and digital space from the two complementary perspectives of digital space as a source of information about real space for research and of digital space as the subject of research. Explored first is the way in which digital space furnishes data upon which descriptions of real space can be based. An attempt is then made to discover the nature of digital space in its spatial aspects, with the relationship between digital and real space determined. A literature review further serves as the basis for the presentation of four research topics relating to the geography of the Internet, i.e. digital-divide analysis, issues of the management of socio-economic processes, cyber-balkanisation, and the relationships between real and digital spaces. The digital divide relates to access or skills, as well as to individual motivations and socio-cultural preferences, which can also be observed in the different ways people use the Internet. The digital divide is subject to constant change amid the rapid development of the Internet and the increasing importance of the Web in everyday life. Growing interest in concepts relating to the functionality of various areas in so-called smart cities and smart rural areas arises out of issues of spatial management. Cyber-balkanisation in turn constitutes a fragmentation of the Internet more and more manifested by users as they have increased control over online content. The final research topic, concerned with the relationships between real and digital spaces, is crucial to an understanding of the Internet’s role in geography. The presented areas of research on the Internet and digital space, as well as the research directions referred to, should be treated as a starting point for a broader discussion. In the case of analyses of Internet geography, it is essential for basic terms to be determined and defined. Also of importance is a general determination of the role and importance of the Internet in geography.

References:

1. Ackoff R.L., 1989, From data to wisdom, Journal of Applied Systems Analysis, 16, 1, s. 3-9.
2. Anselin L., Williams S., 2016, Digital neighborhoods, Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 9, 4, s. 305-328. https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2015.1080752
3. Alves Jr.S., 2014, The Internet Balkanization Discourse Backfires, URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2498753 (dostęp 03.02.2018).
4. Ash J., Kitchin R., Leszczynski A., 2018, Digital turn, digital geographies? Progress in Human Geography, 42, 1, s. 25-43. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132516664800
5. Batty M., 2013, Big data, smart cities and city planning, Dialogues in Human Geography, 3, 3, s. 274-279. https://doi.org/10.1177/2043820613513390
6. Benkler Y., Bogactwo sieci. Jak produkcja społeczna zmienia rynki i wolność, Wydawnictwa Akademickie i Profesjonalne, Warszawa.
7. Boos T., 2017, Inhabiting Cyberspace and Emerging Cyberplaces. The Case of Siena, Italy, Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58454-6
8. Brauneis R., Goodman E.P., 2018, Algorithmic transparency for the smart city, Yale Journal of Law & Technology, 20, 2, s. 103-176.
9. Brunn S.D., 1998, The Internet as' the new world' of and for geography: speed, structures, volumes, humility and civility, GeoJournal, 45, 1, s. 5-15. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006803702173
10. Catlett C., Cesario E., Talia D., Vinci A., 2019, Spatio-temporal crime predictions in smart cities: A data-driven approach and experiments, Pervasive and Mobile Computing, 53, 1, s. 62-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmcj.2019.01.003
11. Chojnicki Z., 1999, Podstawy metodologiczne i teoretyczne geografii, Bogucki Wydawnictwo Naukowe, Poznań.
12. Chojnicki Z., Wróbel A., 1977, Geografia jako nauka w dobie rewolucji naukowo-technicznej, Przegląd Geograficzny, XLIX, 2, s. 239-246.
13. Cocchia A., 2014, Smart and Digital City: A Systematic Literature Review, [w:] R. Dameri, C. Rosenthal-Sabroux (red.), Smart City How to Create Public and Economic Value with High Technology in Urban Space, Springer, Cham, s 13-43. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-06160-3_2
14. Cohen J.E., 2007, Cyberspace as/and Space, Columbia Law Review, 107, s. 210-256.
15. Crutcher M., Zook M., 2009, Placemarks and waterlines: Racialized cyberscapes in post-Katrina Google Earth, Geoforum, 40, 4, s. 523-534. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geoforum.2009.01.003
16. van Deursen A.J., Helsper E.J., 2015, The third-level digital divide: who benefits most from being online? [w:] L. Robinson, S.R. Cotten, J. Schulz, T.M. Hale, A. Williams (red.), Communication and Information Technologies Annual 10, Emerald Publishing, Bingley, s. 29-52. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2050-206020150000010002
17. DiMaggio P., Hargittai E., 2001, From the 'digital divide' to 'digital inequality': Studying Internet use as penetration increases, Center for Arts and Cultural Policy Studies Working Paper, 15, Princeton University, Princeton.
18. Dinis G., Costa C., Pacheco O., 2017, Similarities and correlation between resident tourist overnights and Google Trends information in Portugal and its tourism regions, Tourism & Management Studies, 13, 3, s. 15-22. https://doi.org/10.18089/tms.2017.13302
19. Di Pietro F., Spagnoletti P., Prencipe A., 2019, Fundraising across digital divide: Evidences from charity crowdfunding, [w:] A. Lazazzara, R. Nacamulli, C. Rossignoli, S. Za (red.), Organizing for Digital Innovation. At the Interface Between Social Media, Human Behavior and Inclusion, Springer, Cham, s. 111-124. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90500-6_9
20. Doan A., Ramakrishnan R., Halevy A.Y., 2011, Crowdsourcing systems on the world-wide web, Communications of the ACM, 54, 4, s. 86-96. https://doi.org/10.1145/1924421.1924442
21. Dodge M., Kitchin R., 2001, Mapping cyberspace, Routledge, Londyn.
22. Dodge M., Kitchin R., 2004, Flying Through Code/Space: the Real Virtuality of Air Travel, Environment and Planning A, 36, 2, s. 195-211. https://doi.org/10.1068/a3698
23. Dodge M., Zook M., 2009, Internet-based Measurement, [w:] R. Kitchin, N. Thrift (red.), International Encyclopedia of Human Geography, Elsevier, Oxford, s. 569-579. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-008044910-4.00457-0
24. Floridi L., 2007, A look into the future impact of ICT on our lives, The Information Society, 23, 1, s. 59-64. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240601059094
25. Förster T., Mainka A., 2015, Metropolises in the Twittersphere: An Informetric Investigation of Informational Flows and Networks, ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information, 4, 4, s. 1894-1912. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi4041894
26. Gadziński J., 2017, Wykorzystanie telefonów komórkowych w badaniach zachowań transportowych ludności, Prace Komisji Geografii Komunikacji PTG, 20, 4, s. 7-19.
27. Gao J., 2018, Aesthetics and Art. Traditional and Contemporary China in a Comparative Perspective, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg.
28. García-Palomares J.C., Gutiérrez J., Mínguez C., 2015, Identification of tourist hot spots based on social networks: A comparative analysis of European metropolises using photo-sharing services and GIS, Applied Geography, 63, s. 408-417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.08.002
29. Goldsmith J., Wu T., 2006, Who controls the Internet? Illusions of a borderless world, Oxford University Press, Oxford. https://doi.org/10.1108/sd.2007.05623kae.001
30. Gonçalves B., Sánchez D., 2015, Learning Spanish dialects through Twitter, arXiv, arXiv: 1511.04970.
31. Goodchild M.F., 2007, Citizens as Voluntary Sensors: Spatial Data Infrastructure in the World of Web 2.0, International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2, s. 24-32.
32. Graham M., 2013, Geography/Internet: Ethereal Alternate Dimensions of Cyberspace or Grounded Augmented Realities?, The Geographical Journal, 179, 2, s. 177-182. https://doi.org/10.1111/geoj.12009
33. Graham M., 2013, The virtual dimension, [w:] M. Acuto, W Steel (red.), Global City Challenges: Debating a Concept, Improving the Practice, Palgrave Macmillan, Londyn, s. 117-139. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137286871_8
34. Graham M., Zook M., 2013, Augmented Realities and Uneven Geographies: Exploring the Geolinguistic Contours of the Web, Environment and Planning A, 45, 1, s. 77-99. https://doi.org/10.1068/a44674
35. Graham M., Zook M., Boulton A., 2013, Augmented reality in urban places: contested content and the duplicity of code, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38, 3, s. 464-479. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00539.x
36. Hawelka B., Sitko I., Beinat E., Sobolevsky S., Kazakopoulos P., Ratti C., 2014, Geo-located Twitter as proxy for global mobility patterns, Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 41, 3, s. 260-271. https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2014.890072
37. Hargittai E., Jennrich K., 2016, The online participation divide, [w:] M. Lloyd, L.A Friedland (red.), The communication crisis in America, and how to fix it, Palgrave Macmillan, New York, s. 199-213. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-94925-0_13
38. Ilnicki D., Janc K., 2009, Topology, nodality and space of internet flows, Acta Universitatis Palackianae Olomucensis - Geographica, 40, 2, s. 15-26.
39. Janc K., 2016, A Global Approach to the Spatial Diversity and Dynamics of Internet Domains, Geographical Review, 106, 4, s. 567-587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1931-0846.2016.12197.x
40. Janc K. 2017, Geografia internetu, Rozprawy Naukowe Instytutu Geografii i Rozwoju Regionalnego, 41, Instytut Geografii i Rozwoju Regionalnego, Uniwersytet Wrocławski, Wrocław.
41. Jemielniak D., 2018, Socjologia 2.0: o potrzebie łączenia Big Data z etnografią cyfrową, wyzwaniach jakościowej socjologii cyfrowej i systematyzacji pojęć, Studia Socjologiczne, 2, 229, s. 7-29.
42. Jemielniak D., 2019, Socjologia internetu, WN Scholar, Warszawa.
43. Jones P., Layard A., Speed C., Lorne C., 2015, MapLocal: use of smartphones for crowdsourced planning, Planning Practice & Research, 30, 3, s. 322-336. https://doi.org/10.1080/02697459.2015.1052940
44. Kalin J., Frith J., 2016, Wearing the city: Memory p (a) laces, smartphones, and the rhetorical invention of embodied space, Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 46, 3, s. 222-235. https://doi.org/10.1080/02773945.2016.1171692
45. Kellerman A., 2016, Geographic Interpretations of the Internet, Springer, Cham.
46. Kellerman A., Thomas L., 2002, The internet on earth: A geography of information, John Wiley & Sons, Nowy Jork.
47. Kinsley S., 2014, The Matter of 'Virtual' Geographies, Progress in Human Geography, 38, 3, s. 364-384. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132513506270
48. Kitchin R., 2014, The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism, GeoJournal, 79, 1, s. 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-013-9516-8
49. Kozak J., 2013, Jerzy Bański: Jaka geografia? - uwarunkowania i spojrzenie w przyszłość: głos w dyskusji, Przegląd Geograficzny, 85, 3, s. 455-461. https://doi.org/10.7163/PrzG.2013.3.7
50. Lenormand M., Tugores A., Colet P., Ramasco J.J., 2014, Tweets on the road, PloS One, 9, 8, e105407. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0105407
51. Leszczynski A., 2015, Spatial Media/tion, Progress in Human Geography, 39, 6, s 729-751. https://doi.org/10.1177/0309132514558443
52. Leszczynski A., Crampton J., 2016, Introduction: Spatial big data and everyday life, Big Data & Society, 3, 2, s. 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053951716661366
53. Lobato R., 2017, Streaming services and the changing global geography of television [w:] B. Warf (red.), Handbook on Geographies of Technology, Edward Elgar, Cheltenham, s. 178-192. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781785361166.00020
54. Longley P.A., Adnan M., 2016, Geo-temporal Twitter demographics, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 30, 2, s. 369-389. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2015.1089441
55. Majewska J., Napierała T., Adamiak M., 2016, Wykorzystanie nowych technologii i informacji do opisu przestrzeni turystycznej, Folia Turistica, 41, s. 309-339.
56. Malecki E.J., 2014, Connecting the fragments: Looking at the connected city in 2050, Applied Geography, 49, 1, s. 12-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2013.09.004
57. Malecki E.J., 2017, Real people, virtual places, and the spaces in between, Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 58, s. 3-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seps.2016.10.008
58. Masik G., Studzińska D., 2018, Ewolucja koncepcji i badania miasta inteligentnego, Przegląd Geograficzny, 90, 4, s. 557-571. https://doi.org/10.7163/PrzG.2018.4.2
59. Mayer-Schönberger V., Cukier K., 2017, Big data. Rewolucja, która zmieni nasze myślenie, pracę i życie, MT Biznes, Warszawa.
60. Miller H.J., Goodchild M.F., 2015, Data-driven geography, GeoJournal, 80, 4, s. 449-461. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-014-9602-6
61. Nacher A., 2011, Geomedia-między mediami a lokalizacją, [w:] P. Celiński (red.), Kulturowe kody technologii cyfrowych, Wydawnictwo WSPA, Lublin, s. 197-208.
62. Naldi L., Nilsson P., Westlund H., Wixe S., 2015, What is smart rural development, Journal of Rural Studies, 40, s. 90-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2015.06.006
63. Park S., Lee J., Song W., 2017, Short-term forecasting of Japanese tourist inflow to South Korea using Google trends data, Journal of Travel & Tourism Marketing, 34, 3, s. 357-368. https://doi.org/10.1080/10548408.2016.1170651
64. Rabari C., Storper M., 2015, The digital skin of cities: urban theory and research in the age of the sensored and metered city, ubiquitous computing and big data, Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 8, 1, s. 27-42. https://doi.org/10.1093/cjres/rsu021
65. Retkiewicz W., 2013, Cyberprzestrzeń w geograficznych badaniach środowiska człowieka, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź.
66. Retkiewicz W., 2014, Internet jako nowy przedmiot w badaniach geograficznych, [w:] W. Maik, K. Rembowska, A. Suliborski (red.), Podstawowe idee i koncepcje w geografii 8, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź, s. 155-163.
67. Rzeszewski M., 2015, Cyberpejzaż miasta w trakcie megawydarzenia: Poznań, Euro 2012 i Twitter, Studia Regionalne i Lokalne, 1, 59, s. 123-137.
68. Segev E., 2018, Googling the World: Global and Regional Information Flows in Google Trends, International Journal of Communication, 12, 19, s. 2232-2250.
69. Shelton T., Poorthuis A., Zook M., 2015, Social media and the city: Rethinking urban socio-spatial inequality using user-generated geographic information, Landscape and Urban Planning, 142, s. 198-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2015.02.020
70. Shelton T., 2016, Spatialities of data: mapping social media 'beyond the geotag', GeoJournal, 82, 4, s. 721-734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-016-9713-3
71. Śleszyński P., 2016, Spór o polską geografię: diagnoza, ocena i propozycje naprawy, [w:] A. Suliborski (red.), Stan, perspektywy i strategia rozwoju geografii społeczno-ekonomicznej w najbliższych latach (do 2030 r.). Dyskusja międzypokoleniowa, Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, Łódź, s. 133-156.
73. Stefanidis A., Cotnoir A., Croitoru A., Crooks A., Rice M., Radzikowski J., 2013, Demarcating new boundaries: mapping virtual polycentric communities through social media content, Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 40, 2, s. 116-129. https://doi.org/10.1080/15230406.2013.776211
74. Sui D.Z., 2004, The media and the messages of location-based services (LBS): Death of distance or the revenge of geography?, Geographic Information Sciences, 10, 2, s. 166-174. https://doi.org/10.1080/10824000409480668
75. Szpunar M., 2016, Humanistyka cyfrowa a socjologia cyfrowa. Nowy paradygmat badań naukowych, Zarządzanie w Kulturze, 17, 4, s. 355-369.
76. Tranos E., 2013, The geography of the internet: Cities, regions and internet infrastructure in Europe, Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781953372
77. Tsou M.H., Kim I.H., Wandersee S., Lusher D., An L., Spitzberg B., Gupta D., Gawron J.M., Smith J., Yang J.-A., Han S.Y., 2014, Mapping ideas from cyberspace to realspace: visualizing the spatial context of keywords from web page search results, International Journal of Digital Earth, 7, 4, s. 316-335. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2013.781240
78. Wang Q., Taylor J.E., 2016, Process Map for Urban-Human Mobility and Civil Infrastructure Data Collection Using Geosocial Networking Platforms, Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 30, 2, s. 04015004. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)cp.1943-5487.0000469
79. Warf B., 2011, Geographies of global Internet censorship, GeoJournal, 76, 1, s. 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-010-9393-3
80. Warf B. 2013, Global Geographies of the Internet, Springer, Dortrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1245-4
81. Warf B., 2018, Digital divides in the twenty-first century United States, [w:] T. Felgenhauer, K. Gäbler (red.), Geographies of Digital Culture, Routledge, Nowy Jork, s. 115-130. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315302959-8
82. Wójcik M. (red.), 2018, Inteligentny rozwój obszarów wiejskich (smart rural development): koncepcja, wymiary, metody, Global Point, Łódź.
83. Wu A.X., Taneja H., 2016, Reimagining internet geographies: A user-centric ethnological mapping of the world wide web, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 21, 3, s. 230-246. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12157
84. Vicéns-Feliberty M.A., Ricketts C.F., 2016, An analysis of Puerto Rican interest to migrate to the United States using Google trends, The Journal of Developing Areas, 50, 2, s. 411-430. https://doi.org/10.1353/jda.2016.0090
85. Visvizi A., Lytras M., 2018, It's Not a Fad: Smart Cities and Smart Villages Research in European and Global Contexts, Sustainbility, 10, 8, 2727. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082727
86. Vlahogianni E.I., Kepaptsoglou K., Tsetsos V., Karlaftis M.G., 2016, A real-time parking prediction system for smart cities, Journal of Intelligent Transportation Systems, 20, 2, s. 192-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/15472450.2015.1037955
87. van der Zeeuw A., van Deursen A.J., Jansen G., 2019, Inequalities in the social use of the Internet of things: A capital and skills perspective, New Media & Society, online first. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818821067
88. Zhang G., Jacob E., 2012, Reconceptualizing cyberspace: "Real" places in digital space, The International Journal of Science in Society, 3, 2, s. 91-102. https://doi.org/10.18848/1836-6236/CGP/v03i02/51318
89. Zimmermann S., 2007, Media geographies: Always part of the game, Aether: The Journal of Media Geography, 1, s. 59-62.
90. Zook M.A., 2006, The geographies of the Internet, Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, 40, 1, s. 53-78. https://doi.org/10.1002/aris.1440400109
91. Zook M.A., Graham M., 2007, Mapping DigiPlace: geocoded Internet data and the representation of place, Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34, 3, s. 466-482. https://doi.org/10.1068/b3311

Relation:

Przegląd Geograficzny

Volume:

91

Issue:

2

Start page:

21

End page:

37

Resource Type:

Article

Format:

File size 0,4 MB ; application/octet-stream

Resource Identifier:

2300-8466 (on-line) ; 10.7163/PrzG.2019.2.2

Source:

CBGiOS. IGiPZ PAN, sygn.: Cz.181, Cz.3136, Cz.4187 ; click here to follow the link

Language:

pol

Language of abstract:

eng

Rights:

Creative Commons Attribution BY 4.0 license

Terms of use:

Copyright-protected material. [CC BY 4.0] May be used within the scope specified in Creative Commons Attribution BY 4.0 license, full text available at: ; -

Digitizing institution:

Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization of the Polish Academy of Sciences

Original in:

Central Library of Geography and Environmental Protection. Institute of Geography and Spatial Organization PAS

Projects co-financed by:

Operational Program Digital Poland, 2014-2020, Measure 2.3: Digital accessibility and usefulness of public sector information; funds from the European Regional Development Fund and national co-financing from the state budget.