Geospatial Technologies and the Geographies of Hope and Fear

Abstract

The geographies of hope and fear are a rich vein of investigation in our discipline. Social theorists have discussed how geospatial technologies (GSTs) are things to be feared. They point to the loss of privacy, to the use of technologies in warfare, and to the growth of surveillance. I explore this understanding and the “evil” side of geospatial technologies, and I present the alternative view—a view of these technologies as harbingers of hope. GSTs have a positive role to play in environmental protection, in health, and in social justice. There is a need for the involvement of more human geographers in technological development in order to allow for critical analyses of the social impacts generated by these technologies. Only by shining the spotlight of critical geographical analyses on development of GSTs, and their uses, can we ensure that technological development is kept on a path of positive development. This addition of the social to the technological is imperative and requires an active role on the part of geographers. Geographers, and geography as a discipline, are well suited to this challenge, and as islands of researchers coalesce into a synergistic “mainland community” of cooperative investigation into GSTs the result will be a well‐woven fabric of socially responsible technology.

Security of geography/geography of security

“…It would be mistaken to dismiss these security concerns as groundless, not least because those who suffer from acts of terror/criminality are usually entirely innocent, often themselves relatively vulnerable and powerless. There is hence warrant for geographers to pursue a cautious engagement with ‘official’ security agendas, and perhaps to deploy geospatial technologies where these might contribute meaningfully to improving safety and reducing fear for insecure communities and populations, wherever they are found (Klinkenberg 2007). That said, there is no doubt that many regard security as a notion overly tainted by these ‘establishment’ (state‐centred, nationalistic, militaristic, policing) agendas, too embroiled within the ongoing fall‐out from 9/11, and too prone to seeing threats (say those to environmental security) as primarily threats not to humanity (or life) in general but rather to specific pockets of humanity set within given regional or national borders (Dalby 2009).…”

Introduction

“…Based on previous research (Dobson and Fisher 2003; Armstrong and Ruggles 2005), we can and should develop a more comprehensive research and education agenda in this area. Hopefully, through these efforts, combined with the powerful technologies we possess, we can move into a future world that is more efficient, equitable, and sustainable and can better cope with the complex geographies of hope and fear (Klinkenberg 2007).…”

Coming of Age in the Geospatial Revolution: The Geographic Self Re-Defined

“…The monitoring capabilities of CCTV cameras have been challenged on the bases of unacceptable intrusiveness and loss of privacy. There is, however, no legal basis for an expectation of privacy in public places and indeed, geospatial technology can remove the possibility of anonymity in public spaces [Klinkenberg, 2007].…”

“…The driving force is the synergy among three sets of ICT. The first set contains computational technologies for generating and manipulating digital geospatial data, GPS and GIS in particular [Klinkenberg, 2007]. The second set gives access through communication technologies: the Internet, cellphones (especially smartphones), and broadband connections (digital subscriber lines [DSL], cable modem, cellular wireless networks, etc.)…”