EEO-AGI Scotland Seminar Review : Jamie Pearce, University of Edinburgh : 27th Apr

Complexity and uncertainty in geography of health research: incorporating a ‘life course of place’ perspective – Jamie Pearce

As geographic information specialists we are quite good at considering the implications of space, however the issue of time is somewhat neglected. This was at the centre of the seminar delivered by Professor Jamie Pearce who demonstrated the research benefits of a longitudinal perspective to place, space and health.

Jamie Pearce is a professor of health geography at the University of Edinburgh and is part of the CRESH research group. His work considers social, political and environmental processes affecting social and spatial inequalities in health. His primary argument in this seminar was that these processes are inextricably linked and that local particularites matter in understanding health over time. Life course theory looks at the critical periods of development that contribute to healthy ageing in utero, through childhood into adulthood and older age. It considers the various lifestyle factors and socio-economic factors that can have an impact on health and wellbeing.

Professor Pearce highlighted green space as an environmental factor that has been shown to have a widespread impact on health outcomes in Scotland. This was exemplified through research undertaken by the CRESH team. They have utilised the Lothian Birth Cohort, born in 1936, and surveyed some of those participants over the last decade to investigate the impact of place on public health over time. These results of these surveys have been combined with historical data – including digitising historical maps and boundaries – to understand the environmental factors.

Key findings included that access to green space had a positive impact on both mental health outcomes and also on cognitive ageing. Much of these benefits seem to be derived from childhood experiences and that accumulation of green space throughout life was also significant. It was also found that there was a correlation between high levels of anxiety and the most socially disadvantaged neighbourhoods.

These findings were said to show how the life course of a place can contribute to deeper understanding. It can help establish critical periods and causal relationships over time. It can also demonstrate the role of place in establishing and perpetuating inequalities, showing how historical processes can impact on human lives and who may end up trapped in areas with environmental disadvantages.

Some key limitations were emphasised, both methodological and conceptual. Dealing with time is a well recognised problem for geospatial studies. Often we have to deal with snapshots of places over time which can miss the more subtle and ever evolving nature of places, a challenge that must be faced in CRESH’s research. There are also challenges in dealing with the changing of administrative boundaries of time which can make analysis and the extrapolation of meaning increasingly difficult.

Jamie concluded this fascinating talk by illustrating some opportunities for further study – including aiming to look at a wider set of environmental characteristics and to scale this type of study nationally. The seminar showed that life course theory can have a significant impact on our understanding of space by focussing on the role of time, and of environmental factors at the various stages in life. This can help to offer evidence that can shape key policy decisions in child health, cognitive ageing and environmental inequalities.

Sophie McCallum, MSc in Geographical Information Science


EEO-AGI Scotland Seminar Review : Julie Procter, Greenspace Scotland : 16th Feb

[NB March seminar rescheduled for May (25th); *Next talk*: Fri 27th Apr]

EEO-AGI Scotland Seminar Review: Julie Procter, Greenspace Scotland: 16 February

Friday 16 Feb 2018

For the February edition of the EEO-AGI Scotland Seminar in Edinburgh, we welcomed Julie Procter to the Geography building and were rewarded with an engaging foray into the new OS Greenspace map products and their many applications. Julie is the Chief Executive of Greenspace Scotland, which she has led since it was established in 2002. Though she was hasty to mention to the assembled crowd of geospatial scientists that she was personally no tech expert, her talk provided a refreshing change of perspective as an exploration of the history of the Greenspace Map’s development and the new possibilities afforded by its newest iteration. The title: “Using OS greenspace to transform urban places into people places.”

Julie began by describing the challenges and successes of the original Greenspace map of Scotland, released in 2011. The public benefits of accessible greenspace are directly related to many objectives of the Scottish Government, so there was great interest in developing a resource to manage and display this data, but at the time there was no unified repository for greenspace data. The first release of the Greenspace map solved this issue, but the team quickly realized that keeping it up to date was going to be a monstrous task; this realization led to their partnership with the Ordnance Survey. The OS Open Greenspace map now updates every 6 months, and the OS MasterMap Greenspace Layer for public sector and academic use also includes more categories such as woodlands and private gardens.

After this tour of the history of the greenspace products, Julie decided to give the audience a bit of homework. Distributing post-it notes, she asked us to write down some of our ideas about how we might use the greenspace data while she went on to describe how it’s been used recently by a number of organisations. From local council land use strategies to greenspace network development on regional scales, the public sector has been an important and innovative user thus far of the greenspace data.

As a final theme, Julie covered some big news from the very recently published Third State of Scotland’s Greenspace Report. The new MasterMap Greenspace Layer enabled the production of some eye-opening statistics and figures about the urban greenspace in Scotland. For example, the area of urban greenspace in Scotland is equal to 22 Loch Lomonds, or 1593 square kilometres – enough for one green tennis court per person (of course, it is not currently the plan to convert all of Scotland’s greenspace into tennis courts). These figures are exciting, but Julie reminded us that many of the public benefits of greenspace depend on the quality of that space and whether it is used, and assessing that quality is the next big step for the Ordnance Survey, Scottish Greenspace, and the Scottish Government.

We diligent members of the audience did not forget that we had homework, and nor did Julie. She opened a discussion to follow up on the group’s ideas on potential uses for the greenspace data, which had the excellent benefit of seamlessly transitioning to a question and answer session. Audience engagement was high, particularly as the MSc students had previously used the OS Open Greenspace data for a project and were keen to ask clarifying questions and to share their experiences with the dataset.

Luckily for members of AGI Scotland who did not attend the Edinburgh seminar, Julie also spoke at the organisation’s annual meeting on 27 February, contributing to the theme of GI Applications. It will be exciting to watch for new research and, hopefully, new strides ahead for Scotland’s greenspace that will be enabled by this important resource.

Taylor Willow

(MSc Geographical Information Science at University of Edinburgh)

EEO-AGI Scotland Seminar Review : David Henderson, Ordnance Survey : 26th Jan


Friday 26th Jan 2018

David Henderson
Managing Director, Ordnance Survey Great Britain

The day after Burns Night, David Henderson (Managing Director of OSGB) came to deliver a talk billed as ‘Beyond GB and Geo: National Mapping in Transformation’, kick-starting the 2018 contributions to the EEO-AGI(S) seminar series. With our speaker extolling the virtues of Scotland’s ‘other’ national drink – incidentally available on the night in our Old Library venue at the University of Edinburgh – we took our seats for a wide-ranging overview of the role of the OS in the rapidly changing geospatial industry both nationally and, increasingly, internationally.

Paying loose homage to the famous “The economy, stupid” phrase coined during the successful 1992 Clinton presidential campaign, we were introduced to the reality that, increasingly, now “it’s digital, stupid”. Another key tenet of the Clinton campaign – that a failure to embrace change was not an option – seems to reflect the current reality in the geospatial industry.

To aptly demonstrate this, we were shown the front cover of an edition of The Economist (May 2017, pictured) showing modern day tech giants sitting atop oil rigs. David took issue with the message inside that the “…world’s most valuable resource is no longer oil, but data” due to the conflation of a finite commodity with another – data – that we seek to invest in, curate, maintain and (crucially) re-use.

Notwithstanding this misgiving, we were left in no doubt that now we need to ‘think digitally’. The concept of the ‘Digital Twin’ – rather than ‘mapping’ or ‘geospatial technologies’ – reflects the new reality. And therein lies a dichotomy: the geospatial industry has to simultaneously service current demands while keeping abreast of rapid technological developments and the opportunities arising from them.

The axiomatic ‘Everything happens somewhere’ likely needs no introduction to the GIS enthusiast but remains as valid as ever. The OS has, David argued, spent 225 years ‘trying to simplify the natural complexity of the real world’ – traditionally into map form and – increasingly – into data form. Now, a real paradigm shift is taking place with the tantalising prospect of vastly enhanced capabilities to abstract and model the real world (inside and outside) in near real-time. Encouragingly, now we should think more of outcomes (what can we ask of the data?) rather than outputs (the means of delivering the data) given the ‘data-as-a-platform’ capabilities that now exist. Key outputs from this include so-called Smart Cities, with mention made of Singapore as a city with a highly developed digital infrastructure.

The phrase ‘Digital Twin’ popped up frequently during the talk. So, what is a Digital Twin? And how does this relate to agencies such as the OS tailoring their offerings in a rapidly evolving world? Digital Twins are assets such as devices or buildings that exist both physically and digitally, the concept being that the assets and their operation and maintenance (e.g. planning builds, isolating faults, doing repairs…) are best understood and managed when the assets exist in this twin form. This is inextricably linked to the overarching ‘Internet of Things’ (IoT) phenomenon, where ubiquitous sensors provide frequent updates on, for example, current environmental conditions associated with individual assets. The OS, David argued, is adapting to this rapidly evolving world with its innovation agenda (e.g. OS OpenData and OpenSpace APIs) being made available to developers.

Geospatial data are being exploited nationally and internationally, and the OS has reached out in collaborations worldwide with other agencies to mutual benefit. Governments have their own drivers (economic, environmental, social) with these affecting the focus on certain areas (e.g. issues of land tenure dominating in many developing countries).

In the domestic sphere, the Chancellor Philip Hammond announced in November 2017 the creation of a new Geospatial Commission [1]. Although David jokingly commented that this was possibly the first time the word ‘geospatial’ had been used by a minister in the House of Commons, it is clear the OS sees opportunities in the Government’s stated aim of exploiting its location data – held by various agencies such as the HM Land Registry – to support economic growth.

Internationally, in his role as UK lead in the United Nations Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management (UN-GGIM)[2], David described ongoing collaborative efforts to effectively use geospatial data on national to global scales. Also at the UN level, the Sustainable Development Goals have geospatial at their core; asking for example where the most disadvantaged communities are located is fundamental to taking action.

David mentioned two domestic developments in the OS of particular interest. The first was the OS embracing earth observation (EO) technologies. The new reality is that EO is proving very useful in supervised classification for improved thematic mapping. The OS is well-placed to reference change data derived from EO satellite data to its existing high quality real-world data, especially for documenting change (e.g. in land use).

A further example was OS input into the rollout of 5G technologies, notably in the context of connected and automated vehicles (CAVs). We learned that the propagation of high-frequency signals in 5G is highly sensitive to lines-of-sight. Consequently, a whole host of features of urban micro-geography – ranging from the presence of reflective surfaces to the presence of trees – can affect service quality. Again, with its existing detailed real-world urban mapping the OS hopes to assist in the provision of live data feeds to make the safe use of CAVs a possibility.

David concluded by making mention of the OS and HM Land Registry role in the Geovation Programme [3] (recently crowned Geospatial Hub of the Year) [4] and its pivotal role in assisting tech startups to exploit location and/or property data. The argument was made that the geospatial industry has a key role to play in this Fourth Industrial Revolution, a call echoed elsewhere by other influential players in the geospatial industry such as Google [5].


Dr. Jonathan Henderson [6] works for Information Services at the University of Edinburgh. He graduated from the University of Edinburgh’s MSc in Geographical Information Science in 2016, and is not related to the guest speaker!




EEO-AGI Scotland Seminar Review : Ed Parsons, Google : 1st Dec

Friday 1st December saw a very healthy turnout for the last EEO-AGI seminar of 2017, given by the engaging and convivial Ed Parsons, Google’s Geospatial Technologist and self-professed geographer-in-residence. Having moved from GIS Applications Manager at Autodesk, to Chief Technology Officer for Ordnance Survey, and acting as Executive Fellow at University of Aberdeen and Visiting Professor at UCL, Ed’s career has carved a path in geospatial data management and visualisation. In his current role, he now seeks to evangelise Google’s efforts to improve the world using geospatial data. As he sees it, Google may seem like a giant frightening techno-monster; but Ed is here to act as the friendly geographer conduit.

Ed’s enjoyable talk focused on his near and distant predictions for the future of technology and the use of spatial data. 56% of all mobile Google searches are for local information, and with Google Maps now serving 1 billion users, an incredible portion of the world’s population is involving spatial information in its daily life.  Suddenly the giant techno-monster analogy didn’t seem so far off…

As Ed joked, ‘only idiots do lectures about the future’, but he made a decent effort in presenting megatrends we can no longer ignore. We are coming into a world of urban living, where residents are comfortable with technology and businesses increasingly make successful use of ‘big data’, APIs and web services. Ambient location is now becoming a natural part of life, with the introduction of Google Maps app for iOS in 2007 helping maps transition from static information to dynamic tools for daily tasks. Maps now operate as egocentric, placing the user at the centre of the data. With such capabilities as travel notifications as you walk into a train or bus station, digital assistants like Alexa and Siri, and lights and thermostats that turn on when you reach the vicinity of your house, ‘science fiction technology’ and the use of locational data is becoming part of ordinary life. Indeed, Ed used a quote from Mark Weiser, chief scientist at Xeroc PARC to portray that “the most profound technologies are those that disappear. They weave themselves into the fabric of everyday life until they are indistinguishable from it.” The question of data privacy was raised, and countered with the reassurance that at the heart of ambient location is the freedom to withhold your information. It is very rare nowadays to get lost with locational data at our fingertips, but we must be offered the choice to get lost if we want to.

Voyaging into the world of virtual reality, Ed acknowledged the criticism and the lack of uptake of the Google Glass headwear but highlighted the potential applications and advantages of 3D modelling and user-friendly augmented reality software. The hardware still experiences limitations in true 3D movement, but with the use of SLAM (simultaneous location and mapping) software, photogrammetry techniques are helping to fill in the blanks of indoor mapping and movement in virtual space using just handheld processing power.

Ed next presented a playful analogy of technology over the last three decades as headgear: the hardhats of 1995-2005 (focused on defence, engineering and inexpensive solutions), the fedora and sunglasses of 2005-2015 (mocking hipsters creating a stylish, entertaining and mobile internet) and the robot head of the present (depicting the development of artificial intelligence). Earth Engine, Google’s cloud-based platform for remote sensing image analysis, now offers a fast, free, up-to-date solution to traditionally slow and clunky remote sensing programs. With over 5 petabytes of data available, Ed gave a demo of the platform’s impressive ability to remove clouds from aerial imagery over the UK on-the-fly. As is the way with live demos, a minor snag required Ed to re-log in to his Google account and then perform two-factor authentication, spawning laughter but allowing him to declare the usefulness of this security measure: “I could have been a malicious person trying to steal Ed’s details!”

The tech evangelist finished with some examples of machine learning, with feature recognition in driverless cars, computer-controlled drone racing, landmark recognition from frequent congregations of people sharing their location (“no human was used in the making of this map”), and Global Fishing Watch taking 10TB of ship tracking data and aerial images to identify illegal fishing hotspots. Ed finally thanked everyone who has ever filled in a CAPTCHA, explaining Google’s improvements of street sign and business name photo-recognition by using the training dataset of millions of CAPTCHA answers entered by unwitting humans. Overall, the seminar proved an enjoyable tour of Google and others’ offerings to the progression of geospatial data usage, and where we may see ourselves (and additionally the pitfalls, legalities, and questions of morality we must be aware of) in stepping into a future of machine-and-human harmony.

Freya Muir

(MSc in Geographical Information Science at University of Edinburgh)

EEO-AGI Scotland Seminar Review : Dr. Lauren Biermann : 17th Nov

[NB Next Talk: 2018 Opener – David Henderson, MD OSGB Fri 26th Jan]

On Friday 17th November we were delighted to welcome Dr. Lauren Biermann, Senior Satellite Scientist at the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), for the second in this series of EEO-AGI Scotland seminars, held jointly with the University of Edinburgh’s Hutton Club. Lauren gave us a very engaging seminar entitled ‘Building Bridges to Satellites: how the UK Government is encouraging uptake of remotely sensed data’, in which she talked about her roles as data scientist at Cefas, Marine Lead at Defra’s Earth Observation Centre of Excellence (EO CoE), and Marine Liaison for UK-GEOS, a cross-government Earth Observation service.

The talk started with a brief introduction to EO, and the benefits and limitations of satellite data for marine science. An obvious limitation is that the vertical complexity of the oceans is hidden from satellites, which can only measure the surface layer. Satellite data also suffer from reduced accuracy in more complex waters (including those around the UK), though this problem is beginning to be addressed by improved algorithms.

The benefit of EO that Lauren emphasised was one that I had not thought about before, but seemed obvious when it was pointed out: its ability to tie together observations at different spatial scales, from local to global. She gave the example of coastal water quality: this could be affected by very local processes; by more regional processes such as river runoff; by pollutants being carried onshore by ocean currents; by large-scale oscillations such as El Niño; right up to global climate change. Marine scientists study these processes using in situ measurements and computer modelling, and the satellite data is what ties together these different observations and spatial scales. This is perhaps especially true now that high-resolution satellite imagery is becoming more available, as this allows smaller-scale phenomena to be studied from satellite data. A beautiful example of this was shown in this talk: a Sentinel-2 image of a Black Sea algal bloom, with a single vessel and its wake clearly visible.

Lauren then presented one of the projects that she worked on with Cefas: Tracking North East Atlantic Mackerel with Earth Observation Data (aka Finding NEAM-EO – an acronym of which she can be proud!). This project started some time ago, looking at how EO data could be used to predict mackerel distribution in the North Sea, but was then picked up by policymakers in the run-up to the Brexit vote because of the so-called ‘Mackerel Wars’ [1]. This dispute pitted Britain, Norway and the EU on one side against Iceland and the Faroe Islands on the other. Although it has now been resolved, the situation could become more complicated once Britain leaves the EU. In disputes of this kind, it is vital to know exactly where the fish are: the argument that Iceland and the Faroes put forward for unilaterally increasing their quotas was that mackerel had shifted their range northwards.

In the North Sea, the Finding NEAM-EO project had used in situ data on mackerel distribution taken from acoustic surveys, and related this to variables that could be measured from satellites, such as sea surface temperature (SST) and chlorophyll concentration. The results showed that SST was a very good predictor of mackerel distribution, along with bathymetry.

Cefas were then asked to extend the project to the North East Atlantic, but there was no in situ acoustic data available to validate the predictions made from the EO data. However, it was possible to track the mackerel trawlers, which are required by law to carry Automatic Identification System (AIS) transceivers. Mackerel could be assumed to have been present wherever mackerel ships slowed down to trawl. This idea was adapted from Dr. Biermann’s PhD work, in which she investigated the foraging behaviour of tagged elephant seals in the Southern Ocean. In the North Sea, the hotspots identified from the AIS data agreed well with the acoustic data, showing that this was a valid method for tracking mackerel distribution. In the Atlantic, the hotspots showed the same strong relationship with SST and bathymetry as in the North Sea.

After giving us this great example of how satellite data can be used to inform policy, Lauren turned to her role as Marine Lead at Defra’s EO CoE, which involves convincing UK Government to integrate satellite data into monitoring and policymaking. There was initially some scepticism among senior civil servants about the value of satellite data, perhaps because of a lack of information about the range of satellite products available. Although Defra have become more engaged with EO over the last few years, there are still barriers to its uptake. Satellite data are big and require specialist knowledge and software to analyse, so the main task of the EO CoE is to make the data more accessible and easier to use for policymakers across government.

The first step was to understand which data government agencies needed to do their work effectively. Some of this data, such as NDVI/crop maps, SST and chlorophyll-a, could easily be made available in an accessible form. Other data products are currently in development, and Lauren spent some time talking about her role in each of these.

Firstly, AIS and radar maps are being developed in collaboration with Cranfield University to help government agencies understand the shipping pressures on UK waters. By overlaying radar images taken at different times, areas of high shipping intensity can be identified. Combining the radar data with AIS data could potentially allow automatic classification of vessels into different types (fishing vessels, recreational vessels, etc.). This is important in helping to police Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) – particularly in the Overseas Territories, where the UK’s main MPAs are. The aim is not so much to catch individuals as to understand patterns so that limited resources can be allocated more effectively.

Secondly, Cefas and Plymouth Marine Labs are working to develop the first product from Sentinel-3 data: 300 m resolution maps of suspended particulate matter, which will help to understand changes in turbidity in the North Sea as well as UK coastal waters.

Finally, Lauren talked about a project she worked on for UK-GEOS, which was set up to promote the integrated delivery of EO products across government departments. This project investigated the use of satellite imagery to identify river runoff plumes, and predict the types of pollutant they might contain based on the industrial or agricultural facilities that were upstream. This is very relevant for understanding the causes of fish diseases, and for improving the sustainability of aquaculture. Consumption of farmed fish surpassed that of wild-caught fish for the first time last year, so this is of vital importance to the sustainability and security of our food supply.

After making a good case for the integration of satellite data with policy and giving us many fascinating examples, Dr. Biermann ended her talk with some more general remarks about the importance of sea literacy – not just among scientists and policymakers, but in society as a whole – and of greater collaboration both within government and between government and academia. The future health of our seas and coastlines may depend on it, and I’m sure that some of those present in the audience will want to be involved.

Daniel Stow (MSc Earth Observation & Geoinformation Management)


EEO-AGI Scotland Seminar Review : Dr. Vanessa Lawrence CB : 29th Sept

Starting the new series of EEO-AGI seminars with a bang, we welcomed none other than Dr. Vanessa Lawrence CB, HonFREng, FRGS, FRICS, FCInstCES, FRSGS, CCMI, CGeog. As the longest-serving Director General and CEO of the Ordnance Survey since 1875, she filled the post from 2000 to 2014. Vanessa is currently working internationally as a senior advisor to governments and inter-governmental organisations, including the World Bank and large private sector organisations.

Approximately 65 people crowded in to the Old Library eager to hear the seminar on “Location: Its role in solving issues facing you, our nation and our world”. Vanessa quickly highlighted that “Everything happens somewhere” – a point that would repeat throughout the seminar. We must remember how important location is: “where” underpins all of our daily lives.

In a very personable talk, Vanessa went on to discuss the opportunities and challenges around Geospatial Information (GI), giving numerous personal anecdotes. She gave personal experiences of developing countries in which GI technology is still not accessible by the majority of the population or it is mis-perceived by local Governments, reminding us that not everywhere is like the western world. She also detailed how one billion people live in slums to be near opportunities for work, and 700 million people live on less than $1.9 a day.

Vanessa described how GI can help solve these global issues. There are 17 sustainable development goals at the UN all requiring geospatial data and methods. With examples such as Copernicus, Smart Cities, Uber, machine learning, the hurricane impact on Houston, an Afghanistan greenhouses project, fair coffee crops, mobile phone usage (or lack of usage) maps, the Catapult and catching illegal fishers, Vanessa described the multitude of ways in which Geospatial data can help.

There has been a paradigm shift in how world leaders now understand GI. Flat maps are moving to multidimensional maps and from 2012 to 2016 the use of geospatial data increased four-fold, the number of users increased x75, and the value of geospatial data doubled. The key is the organisational side of GI; proper use requires not only the data and software, but also informed interpretation, and hence there is a huge need for governments and international organisations to create geospatial strategies.

Thankfully the industry is going through huge growth with many people and organisations joining, and Vanessa concluded by reminding us that with worldwide geospatial initiatives, she hopes we can transform the lives of those 700 million people living on less than $1.9 a day.

Martin Ewart

(MSc in Earth Observation at the University of Edinburgh)

[Next Seminar Friday 17th November!]

EEO-AGI Scotland Seminar Review :

The Edinburgh Earth Observatory (EEO) AGI-Scotland seminar series were delighted to host Stephen Cragg, transport planner for Transport Scotland on Friday the 31st of March, 2017. Stephen’s talk formed part of the seminar series’ ‘Future’ theme, in which GI professionals across a range of fields and disciplines examine the pervasive nature of technology, and the ways in which it is changing our world for the better (or for the worse).

The seminar was intriguingly entitled ‘Future Transport: I know where you were last night!”. Steven stated that the title was, in itself, a technique to garner curiosity from among the audience, and a question which he sought to answer in the concluding remarks of his talk.

Steven amusingly began his discussions on the premise that he knew his left from his right, but not necessarily his east from his west, setting the scene for a spatially-minded audience. He followed-up by outlining in turn, the range of high profile transport projects in which he has been involved in, including The Queensferry Crossing, the completion of the M74 south of Glasgow (near Auchenshuggle Bridge no less), Edinburgh-Glasgow rail improvements, and the dualling of the A9.

He noted that his involvement in such projects were at the earliest stages of development, the one who posed the question: ‘do we really need this? What is the business case?’ With such an emphasis on the business case, Stephen argued that he needed to understand who was going to use such large-scale transport projects, why would they use it, and crucially where were they going from and where were they going to?

With this context in mind, Steven turned his attention to how such information could be uncovered. He spoke of his frustrations with the transport-limited nature of the questions posed in the census, with the only gauge being the address of the participant’s workplace for which he/she travels to. He then turned his attention to the Scottish Household Survey through which participants were asked to provide a travel diary, but he noted its limitations in scope, with only 15,000 annual participants extrapolated to a population of over 5 million. He estimated that a discussion with a driver costs Transport Scotland around £10, and noted that there are around 4 billion personal journeys in Scotland annually, ultimately totally a rather expensive endeavour.

With such expense associated with traditional surveying, Steven then posed the question: “can I tap into a whole range of remote monitoring systems?” By remote monitoring systems, Steven was referring to Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), Bluetooth Detection (BD), and Mobile Phone Tracking (MPT).

Firstly, ANPR was discussed in relation to the collection of journey time data, their “raison d’etre”. Steven noted that while ANPR sensors were not installed for his purposes, he wondered could he tap into their data, and commandeer said data for his benefit. Secondly, BD installed by Transport Scotland, again for journey time data, could he tap into this data? Finally, MPT based on the context of your mobile phone knowing where it is, and by extension knowing where you are. Steven did not believe that your mobile phone could be used to track you to the finest level of detail, but instead within a larger ‘cell’ as governed by a mobile phone tower’s coverage.

Steven then turned his attention to the common challenges associated with accessing data for purposes beyond which it was originally collected for. Steven found it surprising that he was unable to simply access data from speed cameras as a transport planner for Transport Scotland, and noted that Home Office-style approval would be required for such access. In contrast, mobile phone data is becoming increasingly available in terms of the selling of ‘movement data’. Steven then sparked an interesting discussion with regards to the ways in which we can translate number plate data, speed data, and movement data, into people data, more personalised to the individual(s) concerned.

The inherent bias prevalent in such data was discussed in terms of those people who have access to modern technology and those that do not. For example, the data would be skewed to those people who own a modern smartphone, but how do we account for those people that do not?

Steven then asked “what does location actually mean?” Through that, he discussed issues of geographical scale, so how precise does the location have to be? Street-level data, neighbourhood data, city data, national data, and so on? This question becomes more acute when considering the urban-rural divide, and the issues of data coverage. This related to the disentanglement of data in the context of assessing a ‘stop’ in a journey from A to B. Was this ‘break’ in movement simply due to lack of adequate sensor coverage, or was it a genuine detour, and if so why, where, and for how long?

Steven then turned his attention to the ‘bread and butter’ of a transport planner, journey purpose. He argued that this was key due to the fact that the responses of travellers to the decisions and interventions taken by the likes of himself, depended upon the purpose of the journey they were making. He spoke of longitudinal monitoring as a means to determine journey purpose in which repeated journeys recorded via a smart device could provide indications of places of work, study, residence, and so on.

Drawing to a close, Steven considered issues related to privacy and the ethics of third-party data selling. He interestingly asked the audience if they regarded a car registration plate to be personal, private data, to which a mixed response was provided by the audience. The key issue of data linkage was Steven’s final point, with the collected data being aggregated with other data sources to construct a movement profile of the individual. For that reason, Steven argued that a car registration plate could indeed be considered personal, private data.

Steven ended his thought-provoking seminar arguing that while he doesn’t know where I was as an individual last night, he could know where we were as an audience last night on a larger, aggregate level.

Blair JH Bell
MSc. Geographical Information Science
The University of Edinburgh