Share This Article:

An Empirical Investigation of Common Sense of Land Use from a Statistical Approach

Abstract Full-Text HTML Download Download as PDF (Size:382KB) PP. 105-111
DOI: 10.4236/jgis.2012.42014    3,983 Downloads   6,454 Views  
Author(s)    Leave a comment

ABSTRACT

Recently, ontological study has been one of the key concerns of geographic information science, a number of studies have been conducted in both of philosophical and knowledge engineering approach. Some studies pointed out the importance of human cognition and social context for development of ontologies. This paper presents empirical investigation of common sense of land use categories for development of suitable ontologies for each cultural or speech communities. Distinctions and characteristics in perceiving land use categories were described by a psychological method that was submitted to Japanese graduate and undergraduate students. In addition the results were analyzed using corresponddence analysis, a statistical technique for categorical data. This analysis serves to clarify the dominant determining factors for land use categories.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Cite this paper

Y. Hanashima, "An Empirical Investigation of Common Sense of Land Use from a Statistical Approach," Journal of Geographic Information System, Vol. 4 No. 2, 2012, pp. 105-111. doi: 10.4236/jgis.2012.42014.

References

[1] P. D. Donato, “Geospatial Semantics: A Critical Review,” Proceedings of 10th International Conference on Computational Science and Its Applications (ICCSA), Fukuoka, 23-26 March 2010, pp. 528-544. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-12156-2_40
[2] J. Brodeur, Y. Bedard, G. Edwards and B. Moulin, “Revisiting the Concept of Geospatial Data Interoperability within the Scope of Human Communication Processes,” Transactions in GIS, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2003, pp. 243-265. doi:10.1111/1467-9671.00143
[3] N. Guarino, “Formal Ontology, Conceptual Analysis and Knowledge Representation,” International Journal of Human and Computer Studies, Vol. 43, No. 5-6, 1995, pp. 625-640. doi:10.1006/ijhc.1995.1066
[4] P. Agarwal, “Ontological Consideration in GIScience,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 19, No. 5, 2005, pp. 501-536. doi:10.1080/13658810500032321
[5] N. Schuurman, “Formalization Matters: Critical GIS and Ontology Research,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 96, No. 4, 2006, pp. 726-739. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00513.x
[6] J. Brodeur, Y. Bédard, G. Edwards and B. Moulin, “Revisiting the Concept of Geospatial Data Interoperability within the Scope of Human Communication Processes,” Transactions in GIS, Vol. 7, No. 2, 2003, pp. 243-265. doi:10.1111/1467-9671.00143
[7] F. T. Fonseca, M. J. Egenhofer, P. Agouris and G. Camara, “Using Ontologies for Integrated Geographic Information System,” Transactions in GIS, Vol. 6, No. 3, 2002, pp. 231-257. doi:10.1111/1467-9671.00109
[8] D. M. Mark and A. G. Turk, “Landscape Categories in Yindjibarndi: Ontology, Environment, and Language,” Proceedings of 03’ Conference on Spatial Information Theory, Ittingen, 24-28 September 2003, pp. 28-45. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-39923-0_3
[9] D. M. Mark, A. G. Turk and D. Stea, “Progress on Yindjibarndi Ethnophysiography,” Proceedings of 07’ Conference on Spatial Information Theory, Melbourne, 2007, pp. 1-19. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-74788-8_1
[10] D. M. Mark, B. Smith and B. Tversky, “Ontology and Geographic Objects: An Empirical Study of Cognitive Categorization,” Proceedings of 99’ Conference on Spatial Information Theory, Hamburg, 25-29 August 1999, pp. 283-298. doi:10.1007/3-540-48384-5_19
[11] B. Smith and D. M. Mark, “Geographical Categories: An Ontological Investigation,” International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 15, No. 7, 2001, pp. 591-612. doi:10.1080/13658810110061199
[12] A. Frank, “Multi-Cultural Aspect of Spatial Knowledge,” Proceedings of 3rd International Conference on Geospatial Semantics, Mexico City, 3-4 December 2009, pp. 1-8. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-10436-7_1
[13] N. Schuurman, “Formalization Matters: Critical GIS and Ontology Research,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, Vol. 96, No. 4, 2006, pp. 726-739. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.2006.00513.x
[14] M. M. Spiegel and N. Yamori, “Dterminations of Voluntary Bank Disclosure: Evidence from Japanese Shinkin,” CESifo Working Paper, No. 1135, 2004, p. 39. http://www.cesifo-group.de/portal/page/portal/ifoHome/b-publ/b3publwp/_wp_by_number?p_number=1135.
[15] FAO, “Land Cover Classification System (LCCS): Classification Concept and User Manual,” FAO, Rome. 2000.
[16] L. Doey and J. Kurta, “Correspondence Analysis Applied to Psychological Research,” Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, Vol. 7, No. 1, 2011, pp. 5-14.
[17] O. Nenadi and M. Greenacre, “Correspondence Analysis in R, with Two- and Three-Dimensional Graphics: The ca Package,” Journal of Statistical Software, Vol. 20, No. 3, 2007. http://www.jstatsoft.org/v20/i03
[18] P. M. Yelland, “An Introduction to Correspondence Analysis,” The Mathematica Journal, Vol. 12, 2010. http://www.mathematica-journal.com/2010/09/an-introduction-to-correspondence-analysis/
[19] M. Greenacre, “Correspondence Analysis in Practice,” Academic Press, London, 1993.
[20] M. J. Egenhofer and D. M. Mark, “Na?ve Geography,” Proceedings of 95’ Conference on Spatial Information Theory, Semmering, 21-23 September 1995, pp. 1-15. doi:10.1007/3-540-60392-1_1
[21] B. Jiang and X. Yao, “Location-Based Services and GIS in Perspective,” Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, Vol. 30, No. 6, 2006, pp. 712-725. doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2006.02.003

  
comments powered by Disqus

Copyright © 2018 by authors and Scientific Research Publishing Inc.

Creative Commons License

This work and the related PDF file are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.