Skip to main content

An Ontological Framework for Spatial Socioeconomic Units

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Practice of Spatial Analysis
  • 975 Accesses

Abstract

Spatial units often serve as reference to socioeconomic phenomena constituting what is known as spatial socioeconomic units (SSEUs). SSEUs find a wide application in geography. This chapter presents the development of an ontological framework for the systematic definition of SSEUs on the basis of their properties, and particularly the spatial ones. Special attention is paid to the most common case of SSEUs, i.e., administrative units. SSEUs defined based on this framework can be effectively compared not only at the class level but also at the instance level. Furthermore, the restructuring of SSEUs and their unification into larger ones is greatly facilitated by the proposed property-based definition.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • ADL. (2002). Alexandria digital library feature type thesaurus. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California. Retrieved from http://legacy.alexandria.ucsb.edu/gazetteer/FeatureTypes/ver070302/index.htm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burrough, P. A., & Frank, A. U. (Eds.). (1996). Geographic objects with indeterminate boundaries, European Science Foundation, GISdata Series, 2. London and Bristol: CRC Press, Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Couclelis, H. (1996). Typology of geographic entities with Ill-defined boundaries. In P. A. Burrough & A. U. Frank (Eds.), Geographic objects with indeterminate boundaries (pp. 45–56). London and Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale, P. F. (1976). Cadastral surveys within the commonwealth. London: HMSO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dale, P. F., & McLaughlin, J. D. (1999). Land administration. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Darra, A. (2009). A framework for the determination and comparison of socioeconomic units. Ph.D. thesis (in Greek), National Technical University of Athens.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickson, S. (2008). The power of postcodes, Simon blogs about e-government, online news and politics. Retrieved from http://puffbox.com/2008/06/23/the-power-of-postcodes/.

  • EUROBOUNDARIES. (2006). State of the Art of National Boundaries, Analysis and Open Issues, EuroBoundaries Project—WP2 Scope and Strategy. Retrieved from http://www.eurogeographics.org/eng/documents/EB_StateOfArt_QuestionnaireAnalysis_v14.pdf.

  • Fleck, M. M. (1996). The topology of boundaries. Artificial Intelligence, 80, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frank, A. U., Raper, J., & Cheylan, J.-P. (Eds.). (2001). Life and motion of socio-economic units (GISDATA 8). Taylor and Francis: London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ganter, B., & Wille, R. (1999). Formal concept analysis. Mathematical foundations. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • GAUL. (2006). The Global Administrative Unit Layers (GAUL). Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/GIEWS/ENGLISH/shortnews/GAUL1.pdf/.

  • GBHGIS. (2012). Administrative Units Typology, A Vision of Britain through Time, Great Britain Historical Geographical Information System, University of Portsmouth. Retrieved from http://www.visionofbritain.org.uk/expertsearch#tab04.

  • Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition, 5(2), 199–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hall, P. (2000). Urban renaissance/new urbanism. Journal of the American Planning Association, 66(4), 359–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hansen, M. H. (Ed.). (2000). A comparative study of thirty city-state cultures: An investigation (Vol. 21). The Royal Danish Academy of Sciences and Letters, 636p.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbard, P. (2006). City, series: Key ideas in geography. London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • IBRU. (2018). Boundary links, Centre for Borders Research, International Boundaries Research Unit, Durham University. Retrieved from https://www.dur.ac.uk/ibru/resources/links/index.php?cat=55.

  • International Electoral Standards. (2002). Guidelines for reviewing the legal framework of elections Chapter 4. Boundary Delimitation, Districting Or Defining Boundaries Of Electoral Units, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, Publications Office, SE 103 34 Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved from http://aceproject.org/ero-en/topics/election-integrity/UNPAN016077.pdf/at_download/file

  • Kim, S., Iglesias-Sucasas, M., & Viollier, V. (2013). The FAO geopolitical ontology: A reference for country-based information. Journal of Agricultural & Food Information, 14(1), 50–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kohonen, T. (1995). Self-organizing maps. Series in information sciences (Vol. 30, 2nd ed.). Heidelberg: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal, J. B., & Wish M. (1978). Multidimensional Scaling. Sage University Paper series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, number 07–011. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn, W., & Blumenthal, B. (1996). Spatialization: Spatial metaphors for user interfaces. In A. U. Frank (Ed.), Geoinfo series, 8. Vienna, Austria: Department of Geoinformation, TU Vienna.

    Google Scholar 

  • LILP. (2008). Defining the Region, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • López-Pellicer, F. J., Florczyk, A. J., Lacasta, J., Zarazaga-Soria, F. J., & Muro-Medrano, P. R. (2008). Administrative units, an ontological perspective. In I.-Y. Song et al. (Eds.), ER Workshops 2008, LNCS 5232 (pp. 354–363). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • MAINE.gov. (2010). School Administrative Reorganization, Maine Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.maine.gov/education/reorg/reorgnarrative120410.pdf.

  • Maynard, J. (2016). Τhe Boundary Problems web site. Retrieved from http://www.boundary-problems.co.uk/boundary-problems/frontpage.html.

  • Monmonier, M. (2001). Bushmanders and Bullwinkles: How politicians manipulate electronic maps and census data to win elections. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Protégé. (2016). A free, open-source ontology editor and framework for building intelligent systems. Protégé resource supported by grant LM007885 from the United States National Library of Medicine. Retrieved from http://protege.stanford.edu/

  • QVIZ. (2008). Administrative Unit Ontology Report and Schema D3.2, Deliverable IST STREP Project Number: 032518: Query and context based visualization of time-spatial cultural dynamics, UmeÃ¥ University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raper, J., Rhind, D., & Shepherd, J. (1992). Postal codes: The new geography. Harlow: Longman.

    Google Scholar 

  • SABE. (2004). SABE—Seamless Administrative Boundaries of Europe. Retrieved from http://www.cartographic.com/TEMP/Samples/Euro%20Global%20Map///SABE2004.PDF.

  • Sassen, S. (2005). The global city: Introducing a concept. Brown Journal of World Affairs, XI(2), 27–43. http://www.saskiasassen.com/pdfs/publications/the-global-city-brown.pdf.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skupin, A., & Buttenfield, B. P. (1997). Spatial metaphors for display of information spaces. In: Proceedings, AUTO-CARTO 13, Seattle, WA, Apr. 7–10. pp. 116–125.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. (1997). Boundaries: An essay in mereotopology. In L. E. Hahn (Ed.), The Philosophy of Roderick M. Chisholm (pp. 533–561). Chicago/La Salle, IL: Open Court.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. (1999). Agglomerations. COSIT 1999, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 1661, pp. 267–282). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B., & Varzi, A. (1997). The formal ontology of boundaries. The Electronic Journal of Analytic Philosophy, 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B., & Varzi, A. (2000). Fiat and bona fide boundaries. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 60(2), 401–420.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • STATCAN. (2007). Census metropolitan area (CMA) and census agglomeration (CA), Statistics Canada. Retrieved from http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/ref/dict/geo009-eng.cfm.

  • Weintraub, R. (2004). On sharp boundaries for vague terms. Synthese, 138(2), 233–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marinos Kavouras .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Darra, A., Kavouras, M. (2019). An Ontological Framework for Spatial Socioeconomic Units. In: Briassoulis, H., Kavroudakis, D., Soulakellis, N. (eds) The Practice of Spatial Analysis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89806-3_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics