How does one define a geographical information system (GIS)?

Is it the sum of its parts

or the context in which it is used? Most people in the field, or associated with users of a
GIS, will immediately say that a GIS is a tool that can be used to answer questions that
are linked in some way to where things occur on the earth’s surface. By typing “gis as a
tool” into an internet search engine such as Google (www.google.com), it can be seen
that such a concept seems to have wide ranging support from individuals involved is
quite distinct fields of study. Wright et al. (1997) found that respondents to an online
forum held various views on what GIS is; but, the view of GIS as a tool was prevalent
throughout the discussion period.

Existing definitions of a GIS are mostly centered on the software and hardware
components that go into its makeup (ESRI n.d.; Malaysia GIS 2006; Chapter 1 Definition
of GIS 2004; GeoPlan 1999; Art-What is a GIS 1996; Foote and Lynch 1995; Cowen
1997; Goodchild 1997; Al-Husaini 1997; Worboys and Duckham 2004, p.1). Over time
this centric view started to be expanded and definitions started to include references to
the people responsible for its creation and operation (Malaysia GIS 2006, Foote and
Lynch 1995; Chrisman 2002, pp. 12-13; Chrisman 1999). As the capabilities of
computer components increased and software was developed to take advantage of these
advances, the role of GIS became an integral part of data exploration and research in
various, distinct fields of science.

Given the dichotomy outlined above the concept of what is or what should be included in
a definition of GIS has been placed on two diverging paths. The first path includes all the
technology, software and hardware, users, and the context in which a GIS is used. This
we will call the tools of GIS and is what is commonly referred to as a Geographic
Information System. The second path emphasizes the scientific research and knowledge
that goes into the creation of the tool. This second path is what Goodchild (1992) was
referring to when he coined the phrase “Geographical Information Science” (GISci).
Gold (2006) referred to this dichotomy as “the domain of the discipline (“the Science”)
and the domain of the technology (“the System”).” This dichotomy was also recognized,
not only by the practitioners of GIS and GISci; but, also in what was being taught in
educational institutions where we have “research with GIS and research about GIS”
comprising the two streams available (Brown et al 2004 p.363).

At this point in time no single definition will be able to encompass what is a GIS and to
what extent GISci should be incorporated into such a definition. This leads to the need
for two separate definitions one for GIS and one for GISci. GIS can be defined as:

“A process for the organization of spatial data collection, including predefined

attributes, the filtering and storage of this data, the analysis of stored data within the
limitations imposed by collection procedures used, and the output of conclusions based
on predefined objectives or questions. The establishment of a GIS involves the use of
trained personnel and the use of project specific hardware and software.”

1
In contrast GISci can be defined as:

“The development of theories and techniques for the handling of spatial data, the
development of new technologies and software, the development of new models and
statistics for the analysis of spatial data, and research into the implementation of GIS
and associated societal impacts”

To establish the reasons for this dichotomy one most look at the emergence of the first
GIS how the field of spatial data management has evolved into the systems we currently
have available. The current system of map overlays can be credited to Ian L. McHarg
who created what we can the call the analog GIS (Estella 2004). His system of recording
different environmental features onto acetate overlays went on to become the digital
layers we use today. This set the foundations for development of a GIS and advances in
technology would allow it to become a reality.

A comprehensive timeline of the progression of GIS development can be seen in Longley

et al. (2005 pp. 19-21), beginning with the establishment of the first digital GIS by Roger
Tomlinson known as the Canadian Geographic Information System. Longley et al
(2005) went on to sub-divide this timeline into 3 distinct periods. The first, “The Era of
Innovation” deals mainly with the development of the first GIS. This was a period of
developing the necessary databases and the automation of paper based and time
consuming excises such as the output of paper maps. The second, “The Era of
Commercialization”, saw a movement away from stand alone GIS and the development
of the desktop GIS. It also saw the development of distributed databases and the
utilization of the internet for the distribution of geographical data. Also during this
period it was realized, that an academic field of study related to the science of GIS may
be warranted (Mark 2003 p. 2). The third and final division specified by Longley et al
(2005) was “The Era of Exploration” which brought GIS to the masses and the provision
by governments of large quantities of geographical data with increases in resolution and
applicability as technology advances.

This progression was made possible, mainly by advances in technology, but to a greater
extent, the realization of the potential for GIS as a tool in a wide variety of disciplines. It
was this adoption by academic fields outside of geography that provided the greatest
incentive for the advancement of tools and techniques in the field of GIS. Figure 1 gives
a simplified graphic representation of the interplay between GIS, GISci and its varied
users. From the diagram in can be seen that GIS and GISci do not exist in isolation and
instead are tied into a two way flow of information within nested feedback loops. These
feedback loops are required if GIS designers and scientists are to be expected to meet the
needs of current and future users.

It is this interdisciplinary nature of GIS that creates the need for GISci. The creators of
the technology and software that goes into the makeup of current GIS can not be
conversant in the academic background knowledge that forms the basis for all the
academic disciplines that currently use GIS. There will always be requirements within a

2
given discipline that can only be conceived of by users in those fields. This requirement
was identified by Goodchild (1992), but he alluded that GISci most remain as the
overseer of development.

The interdisciplinary nature of GIS has allowed it to evolve into what is commonly
referred to as an integrating technology (Sui 2004). No longer can GIS be seen has an
extension of the geographic field of study; but, instead as a support tool that allows for
the collection, storage and analysis of geographic data collected as part of research
activities occurring in those academic fields that have accepted the technology. It is now
the responsibility of GISci to insure the tools (GIS) are designed and implemented based
on sound scientific research.

Mathematics
And Geographical
Statistics Sciences

Social Computer
Life Sciences Geosciences Business Sciences Communications
Sciences

GIScience

Software

GIS

Output

Figure 1: Diagram of the Connection between GIS, GISci and Its Users.
Digital Paper Based Digital Paper Based
Graphics
How has GIS evolved to the level of Graphics
sophistication we seeText
today and how Text
has this created
the need for a new science of GIS? To answer these question one has to look at the
reasoning behind the creation of the first GIS and how its dependence on technology
allowed it to progress. As with the introduction of any new technology, its implications
for society and the need to overcome various technical issues arising from its use creates
the requirement for an institution that will lead and direct its development (Gold 1989
pp8-18).

GIS in North American had it beginnings with the creation of the Canadian Geographic
Information System (CGIS) in 1963. The need for an inventory of natural resources and
the fact that it was tedious and difficult to measure area by hand from maps was the
driving force for the development of this GIS (Longley et al 2005 pp.16-17). This system
was developed by Roger Tomlinson who introduced the term GIS. This first GIS was

3
made possible by advances in computing technology in the late 50’s and early 60’s. This
first system did not have the ability for the automated production of maps (Goodchild and
Haining 2004).

With the development of plotters and scanners in the 1960’s and corresponding advances
in software additional GIS started to appear. These included a system developed in the
US to assist in conducting the 1970 census and the development of automated map
production in the UK and other European counties.

Before the appearance of the first GIS the statistical foundation for the analysis of spatial
data was being laid. During the 40’s and 50’s techniques for the analysis of time series in
spatial data, the testing of spatial autocorrelation, methods to represent certain types of
spatial data, tests for models significances and goodness of fit, and tests for determining
the spatial randomness of spatial point data.(Goodchild and Haining 2004). This was
followed in the 60’s by the development of “kriging” based on work by D.G. Krige
which formed the basis for many of the future geostatistical extensions found in current
GIS software packages.

These advances were also supported by the advances in remote sensing that owe its origin
to the launch of the first military satellites in the 1950’s. Film based cameras started to
record images of the earth surface at this time, to be replaced in the 60’s and 70’s be
digital image processing. Also in the 50’s a uniform system for measuring location was
also developed to support the intercontinental ballistic missile program (Longley et al
2005). The potential for the use of remote sensing to record features of the earth surface
was realized at this time and it became an integral component of GIS.

These two components, in combination with the evolution of databases from tabular to
relational formats along with advances and miniaturization of computer technology,
allowed for the next major jump in the GIS technology. The creation of integrated
software for handling geographic information, which took place in the 70’s, now led to
the creation of standalone software packages in the 80’s by such companies as ESRI,
IDRSIS and MAPINFO. This allowed individual government departments or firms the
opportunity to access this technology and the era of application diversification began
(Goodchild and Haining 2004).

This diversification, during the 80’s created the need for GIS to evolve into an integrating
system (Chrisman 1992 p. 11). Integration was seen as a necessary step by the
manufactures of Arc/Info and by release 5.0 it had incorporated the ability to handle
spatial data or files stored in the large variety of formats now in use (Dangermond 1988).
It was this diversification and rapid advancement that caught the eye of academia and the
first books on the subject started to appear and discussion began on the educational
aspects of this emerging field. It was this process that led to the next major evolutionary
leap for GIS.

The idea that there may be a science behind GIS came in the 80’s but the introduction of
Geographical Information Science by Goodchild (1992) was the origin of the dichotomy

4
we currently see in geographical data handling (Mark 2003 p.3). This is the point where
the tool (GIS) and the science (GISci) that supports GIS took separate paths. Academia
was now free to research areas that were not tied to the actual development of the tools,
such as representation and cognitive science and societal impacts of GIS derived
information. During this period we see the development of task specific tools, usually in
the form of extensions for popular GIS desktop software. The availability of spatial data
was also increased during this period by the proliferation of the internet and the
sponsoring by governments for the creation of spatial data clearing houses. Data quality
increased substantially during this period with the introduction of GPS technology and
the availability of satellite images with ever increasing resolution.

The current stage in the evolution of GIS has seen a maturation of the tool and the
opportunity for academics to concern themselves with the philosophical aspects and
societal impacts of the technology. Research is now becoming focused on discipline
specific issues and how to expand the tool to encompass all aspects of spatial data,
especially time. The availability of spatial data sets to the general public has also
increased and web based systems developed for dissemination of this information. It also
saw the evolution of public online map services, such as Mapquest (www.mapquest.com)
which was launched in 1996, into integrated services such as Google Earth
(www.earth.google.com), which combined not only access to maps but also satellite
imagery and the ability to produce 3D models of geographic features (Tang and Selwood
2002).

How has this evolution affected the view of GIS experts over time? To answer this
question we will compare the views expressed by Goodchild (1992) to those expressed
by Gold (2006). Both have been involved in the GIS field for extended periods and have
contributed to its evolution. Their views are not presented as those reflected by all
practitioners in the field but does show how the focus on outstanding issues have shifted
over time and in some cases have remained the same.

The fact that Goodchild (1992) identified the need for the creation of a field of study
centered on Geographical Information Science indicates the level of advancement in GIS
up to 1992. This being said, a review of his article will show that most of the issues and
concerns he identified were centered of the system which he felt could form the basis for
the science (Goodchild 1992). By 2006 most of these issues have been dealt with (i.e. 3D
visualization, loss of higher data structure during transfer, incorporation of spatial
analysis techniques into GIS, etc.) and were not mentioned by Gold (2006), or in the case
of visualization only to indicate that some of the concerns have been addressed. Gold
(2006) also does not deal with the need for GISci but treats it as an established entity and
proceeds to establish boundaries of the field of study.

Several areas of interest identified by both Goodchild (1992) and Gold (2006) still have
not been addressed within the 14 years between publications of the articles. The
incorporation of time and change into GIS has not been adequately dealt with during the
intervening period. Such incorporation raises issues of topology and connectedness that
must be addressed before a suitable technique could be developed.

5
The most striking impression one is left with after reading the articles by Goodchild
(1992) and Gold (2006) is the change in where GIS/GISci is placed in relation to other
disciplines and fields of study. Goodchild (1992) took a centric view as indicated by the
statement “As issues that arise within the context of GIS, they are not of major concern in
other disciplines.” He did go on to say that “However, problems that are specific to the
application of GIS in a particular field clearly need to be addressed in the context of that
field, and with the benefit of its expertise.” From this one gets the impression that
Goodchild (1992) saw GISci as the institution responsible for addressing issues and
where needed, utilizing expertise from other disciplines or fields of study.

Gold (2006) has taken this view a step further and identifies the need for integration with
other disciplines in order to answer questions and advance GISci. He also recognizes that
GISci is not restricted to a stand alone institution and that “GI Scientists really must start
attempting to learn from more rapidly advancing disciplines, or else be left even further
behind.” This represents a substantial shift in viewpoint and one that may be necessary
for the continued existence of GISci. Gold (2006) was acutely aware of this, especially
so when he considered the challenge of incorporating change in GIS which led to the
following statement “Managing change in the world model is becoming an increasingly
important issue, which means that GI Science is expanding into (or being taken over by)
other disciplines, e. g. hydrology.”

The overriding conclusion one must reach after a review of the Goodchild (1992) and
Gold (2006) articles and a taking into consideration how GIS has evolved since its
creation, is that we are now left with two distinct entities, the tool (GIS) and the science
(GISci). With the acceptance of GISci, the academics have been freed to pursue areas of
research not related to the extension or maintenance of the system, such as how to
incorporate the new science into current educational institutions. Virranttaus (2001)
speaks at length about the failure of educational institutions to fulfill their role,
specifically the lack of advancement in spatial statistics and the impact it is having on
GIS.

This essay provides justification for the definition of both GIS and GISci, as stated above.
It also supports what was included under each definition. Will we ever be able to
develop a combined definition for both GIS and GISci? At this point in time it seems
doubtful and the division will only become greater as the creators of the system become
separated form the users, on both the academic and technical level.

Reference List

6
Al-Husaini, A. H. (1997) Using Gis in Real Estate Transactions [Internet] GIS/GPS
Conference '97 Proceedings. Available from:
<http://www.gisqatar.org.qa/conf97/links/g2.html> [Accessed 25 October 2006].

Art-What is a GIS? (1996) What is a Geographic Information System? [Internet] The

Floodplain Management Web Site. Available from:
<http://www.floodplain.org/jan39.htm> [Accessed 25 October 2006].

Brown, D.G., G. Elmes, K.K. Kemp, S. Macey, and D. Mark. (2004) Geographic
Information Systems. In Geography in America at the Dawn of the 21st Century.
G.L. Gaile and C.J. Willmott, eds., Oxford University Press, pp. 353-375.

Chapter 1 Definition of GIS (2004) [Internet] Available from:

<http://www.profc.udec.cl/~gabriel/tutoriales/giswb/vol1/cp1/cp1-1.htm> [Accessed 25
October 2006].

Chrisman, N. R., 2002, Exploring Geographic Information Systems (2nd Ed.). John
Wiley&Sons,Inc. 305 p.

Chrisman, N. R. 1999, What Does 'GIS' Mean?, Transactions in GIS, 3(2), pp. 175-186.

Cowen, D. (1997) UNIT 1 - WHAT IS GIS? [Internet] The NCGIA Core Curriculum in
GIScience. Available from:
<http://www.geog.ubc.ca/courses/klink/gis.notes/ncgia/u01.html> [Accessed 25 October
2006].

Dangermond, J. 1988, Trends in GIS and comments, Computers, Environment and Urban
Systems, 12(3), pp. 137-159.

ESRI (n.d.) What is GIS? [Internet], Available from:

<http://www.cmrpc.org/Downloads/GIS_What_is_GIS.pdf> [Accessed 25 October
2006].

Estella 2004, Brief History of Geographical Information Systems [Internet] University of

Missouri-Rolla. Available from: <http://web.umr.edu/~rogersda/gis/History of GIS.pdf>
[Accessed 25 October 2006].

Foote, K.E. and Lynch, M. (1995) Geographic Information Systems as an Integrating

Technology: Context, Concepts, and Definitions [Internet] Geographer's Craft
Project, Department of Geography, University of Colorado at Boulder. Available
from: <http://www.colorado.edu/geography/gcraft/notes/intro/intro.bak14>
[Accessed 25 October 2006].

GeoPlan (1999) Definition of a GIS [Internet], GeoPlan Center. Available from:

<http://www.geoplan.ufl.edu/giseducation/gisdefinition.html> [Accessed 25 October
2006].

7
Gold, C. M. 1989, Geographic Information Systems in Canadian Geography:
Opportunities and Problems, R. Vogelsang, ed., Institut fur Kanada-Studien, Augsburg,
Germany, pp. 8-18.

Gold, C. M. 2006, What is GIS and What is Not?, Transactions in GIS, 10(4), pp. 505-
519.

Goodchild, M. F. 1992, Geographical information science. International Journal of

Geographical Information Systems, 6(1), pp. 31-45.

Goodchild, M. F. (1997) Unit 002 - What is Geographic Information Science? [Internet]

NCGIA Core Curriculum in Geographic Information Science. Available from:
<http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/education/curricula/giscc/units/u002/> [Accessed 25
October 2006].

Goodchild, M. F. & Haining, R. P. 2004, GIS and spatial data analysis: Converging
perspectives, Papers in Regional Science, 83(1), pp. 363-385.

Longley, P.A., Goodchild, M.F., Maguire, D.J., and David, W.R. 2005. Geographic
Information Systems and Sciences, John Wiley & Sons

Malaysia GIS (2006) GIS Definition [Internet], Malaysia GIS. Available from:
<http://www.malaysiagis.com/what_is_gis/definition/index.cfm> [Accessed 25 October
2006].

Mark D. M. (2003) Geographic Information Science: Defining the Field. In M.

Duckham, M. Goodchild, and M. Worboys, editors, Foundations of Geographic
Information Science, pp. 1-15. Taylor & Francis, London and New York.

Wright, D. J., Goodchild, M. F., and Proctor, J. D. 1997, "Demystifying the Persistent
Ambiguity of GIS as 'Tool' versus 'Science'", Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 87(2), pp. 346-362.

Sui, D. Z. 2004, GIS, Cartography, and the "Third Culture: Geographic Imaginations in
the Computer Age", The Professional Geographer, 56(1), pp. 62-72.

Tang W. S. M. and Selwood J. R. (2002) The Development and Impact of Web-based

Geographic Information Services [Internet], GISDevelopment.net. Available from:
<http://www.gisdevelopment.net/technology/gis/mi03002pf.htm> [Accessed 29 October
2006].

Worboys, M.F. and Duckham, M. (2004) GIS: A Computing Perspective, Second Edition,
CRC Press.

Virrantaus, K. (2001) From GIS to Geographic Information Science in University

Education, Proceedings International Conference on Spatial Information for Sustainable

8
Development, October 2-5, 2001, Nairobi, Kenya.