Persistent challenges in geovisualization – a community perspective

Figures & data

Figure 1. The terminology in geovisualization since computers became commonplace.

Figure 2. Google N grams for ‘cartography’ (top), and other terms featured in Figure 1 (bottom). The rise of geographic visualization roughly corresponds with the fall or the stagnation of the other terms (‘geovisualization’ shows the same pattern).

Figure 3. Participants answered to the survey questions using sticky notes.

Table 1. The workshops in which we collected the data.

Event name	Workshop title and brief scope	# of participants
ICC 2011, Paris, FR	‘Persistent problems in Geovisualization’ – Initiating event. A workshop organized by ICC Geovis and ISPRS Geovis & VR commissions. Participants were mostly (academic) cartographers, science and technology researchers	30
ISPRS 2012, Melbourne, AU	‘Geovisual Analytics’ – ISPRS Geovis & VR commission with invited speakers from ICC. Participants were leaning towards geosciences and technology, including practitioners (participants from government and industry)	15
AutoCarto 2012, Columbus, Ohio, US	‘Use and User Issues’ – Participants were mostly cartographers, some academic, some practitioners	12
ICC 2013, Dresden, DE	Commission meeting of the ‘geovisual analytics’ – this event was advertised during the conference and was open to all conference participants that were interested in geovis commission’s activities. The participants were mostly (academic) cartographers	15

Table 2. The research agenda papers.

Year	Authors	Title and venue	Broad scope
1997	MacEachren & Kraak	Exploratory cartographic visualization: Advancing the agenda Computers & Geosciences	Editorial intended to serve as a benchmark for progress. four use goals identified: explore, analyze, synthesize, present
2001	Fairbairn et al.	Representation and its relationship with cartographic visualization: a research agenda, CaGIS	‘Thorough overview of the nature of cartographic visualization’ – five aspects are discussed: data, form, purpose, users, technologies
2006	Laramee & Kosara	Challenges and Unsolved Problems, Human-Centered Visualization Environments, LNCS	Human-centered, technical, financial, based on literature review and reports of relevant events paper ends listing challenges the authors thinks will be solved/unsolved in 20 years
2007	Andrienko et al.	Geovisual analytics for spatial decision support: Setting the research agenda, IJGIS	Opinions/input from a workshop ‘meant to attract the attention of scientists with relevant expertise and interests to the major challenges requiring multidisciplinary efforts’
2009	Virrantaus et al.	ICA Research Agenda on Cartography and GIScience, CaGIS	‘Documents current research activity in these fields, suggests areas where more intensive or renewed effort is required, and discusses the methods by which some of this research can be undertaken within ICA Commissions’

Figure 4. Research themes as mentioned by all participants in all four workshops. Note that single statements within a category may overlap with more than one category.

Figure 5. Categories that emerged from the analysis of the five research agenda papers re-organized into themes.

Table 3. The research themes that emerged in all five research agenda papers.

Interdisciplinary collaboration (knowledge exchange/transfer)

Theory development

Finding effective (visual) metaphors, representation primitives

Representation/design

Choosing optimal levels of abstraction/ realism

Inclusion/consideration of context, personalization

Representing data quality, metadata, uncertainty

Effective interaction, interface design

Human factors

Understanding human visual and spatial cognition/perception

Understanding interactions between design and cognition/perception

Visualization as a tool for decision-making (does it work, how well does it work)

Collaborative visualization

Evaluation of usability

Evaluating effectiveness and utility

Data

Scalability (also of visualization solutions, not only data)

Data size: high-dimensional data, ‘big data’ (large amounts/multidimensional)

Data filtering

Visualizing time-dependent/temporal data

Visualizing qualitative data

Transforming research into practice

Documenting/understanding the applications of geovisualization

Application-specific visualization solutions vs. ‘universal’ solutions

Link visualization tools and GIS

Matching task, data and visualization (both conceptual and applied implications)

Introducing standards and benchmarks

Advances in technology

New media and associated implications of change

Platform-independent visualization

Figure 6. Synthesized bottom-up and top-down findings on persistent research challenges, categorized based on their relationship to science.

MacEachren, A. M., & Kraak, M.-J. (1997). Exploratory cartographic visualization: Advancing the agenda. Computers & Geosciences, 23(4), 335–343. doi: 10.1016/S0098-3004(97)00018-6

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Fairbairn, D., Andrienko, G., Andrienko, N., Buziek, G., & Dykes, J. (2001). Representation and its relationship with cartographic visualization: A research agenda. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 28(1), 13–28. doi: 10.1559/152304001782174005

 Google Scholar

Laramee, R. S., & Kosara, R. (2006). Challenges and unsolved problems. In A. Kerren, A. Ebert, & J. Meyer (Eds.), Human-Centered visualization environments, LNCS (pp. 213–254). Berlin: Springer.

 Google Scholar

Andrienko, G., Andrienko, N., Jankowski, P., Keim, D., Kraak, M.-J. M. J., Maceachren, A., & Wrobel, S. (2007). Geovisual analytics for spatial decision support: Setting the research agenda. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 21(8), 839–857. doi: 10.1080/13658810701349011

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Virrantaus, K., Fairbairn, D., & Kraak, M.-J. (2009). ICA research agenda on cartography and GIScience. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 36(2), 209–222. doi: 10.1559/152304009788188772

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar