Advertisement

GeoJournal

, Volume 82, Issue 3, pp 517–532 | Cite as

Utilizing fuzzy set theory to assure the quality of volunteered geographic information

  • Yingwei Yan
  • Chen-Chieh Feng
  • Yi-Chen Wang
Article

Abstract

This paper presents a fuzzy system to assure the quality of volunteered geographic information (VGI) collected for the purposes of species surveillances. The system uses trust as a proxy of quality. It defines the trust using both the provenance of user expertise and the fitness of geographic context and quantifies it using fuzzy set theory. The system was applied to a specific scenario—VGI-based crop pest surveillance—to demonstrate its usefulness in handling VGI quality. A case study was conducted in Jiangxi province of China, where location-based rice pest surveillance reports generated by the local farmers were collected. A field pest survey was conducted by the local pest management experts to verify the farmer-generated reports, and the survey results were used as ground truth data. The quality of the farmer-generated reports were also assessed through the fuzzy system and compared to the pest survey results. It was observed that the degree to which these two sets of results agreed to each other was satisfactory.

Keywords

Volunteered geographic information Data quality Fuzzy system Species surveillance 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research has been supported by National University of Singapore (NUS); and Singapore National Research Foundation under its Inter-national Research Centre @ Singapore Funding Initiative and administered by the IDM Programme Office through the Centre of Social Media Innovations for Communities (COSMIC).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We declare that there are no real or perceived conflicts of interest involved in the submission and/or publication of this manuscript.

Ethical standards

This research involved human participants (farmers) as volunteers contributing location-based crop pest surveillance reports for evaluating the performance of the proposed approach of VGI quality assurance. Verbal consents of participation were sought from the participants.

References

  1. Adhikari, B., & Li, J. (2013). Modelling ambiguity in urban planning. Annals of GIS, 19(3), 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-kheder, S., Wang, J., & Shan, J. (2008). Fuzzy inference guided cellular automata urban-growth modelling using multi-temporal satellite images. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 22(11–12), 1271–1293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bishr, M. (2007). Weaving space into the web of trust: An asymmetric spatial trust model for social networks. In Proceedings of the 1st conference on social semantic web, Leipzig, Germany, pp. 35–46.Google Scholar
  4. Bishr, M., & Janowicz, K. (2010). Can we trust information? The case of volunteered geographic information. In Proceedings of the workshop “towards digital earth: Search, discover and share geospatial data” at future internet symposium, Berlin, Germany, pp. 11–16.Google Scholar
  5. Bishr, M., & Mantelas, L. (2008). A trust and reputation model for filtering and classifying knowledge about urban growth. GeoJournal, 72(3), 229–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bordogna, G., Carrara, P., Criscuolo, L., Pepe, M., & Rampini, A. (2014a). A linguistic decision making approach to assess the quality of volunteer geographic information for citizen science. Information Sciences, 258, 312–327. doi: 10.1016/j.ins.2013.07.013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bordogna, G., Carrara, P., Criscuolo, L., Pepe, M., & Rampini, A. (2014b). On predicting and improving the quality of volunteer geographic information projects. International Journal of Digital Earth, 1–22. doi: 10.1080/17538947.2014.976774.
  8. Brando, C., & Bucher, B. (2010). Quality in user generated spatial content: A matter of specifications. In Proceedings of the 13th AGILE international conference on geographic information science, Guimarães, Portugal, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
  9. Caha, J., Tuček, P., Vondráková, A., & Paclíková, L. (2012). Slope analysis of fuzzy surfaces. Transactions in GIS, 16(5), 649–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carnevale, C., Finzi, G., Pisoni, E., & Volta, M. (2009). Neuro-fuzzy and neural network systems for air quality control. Atmospheric Environment, 43(31), 4811–4821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Celino, I. (2013). Human computation VGI provenance: Semantic web-based representation and publishing. IEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing, 51(11), 5137–5144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Chang, E., Thomson, P., Dillon, T., & Hussain, F. (2005). The fuzzy and dynamic nature of trust. In S. Katsikas, J. López, & G. Pernul (Eds.), Trust, privacy, and security in digital business (pp. 161–174). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cinnamon, J., & Schuurman, N. (2013). Confronting the data-divide in a time of spatial turns and volunteered geographic information. GeoJournal, 78(4), 657–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cofta, P. (2007). Confidence, trust and identity. BT Technology Journal, 25(2), 173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Coleman, D. J., Georgiadou, Y., & Labonte, J. (2009). Volunteered geographic information: the nature and motivation of produsers. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 4(1), 332–358.Google Scholar
  16. Deng, Y., & Chang, K. T. (2012). A design framework for event recommendation in novice low-literacy communities. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 6(5), 999–1004.Google Scholar
  17. Devillers, R., Bédard, Y., & Jeansoulin, R. (2005). Multidimensional management of geospatial data quality information for its dynamic use within GIS. Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 71(2), 205–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ester, M., Kriegel, H.-P., Sander, J., & Xu, X. (1996). A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial database with noise. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, Portland, Oregon, USA, pp. 226–231.Google Scholar
  19. Foody, G. M., See, L., Fritz, S., Van der Velde, M., Perger, C., Schill, C., & Boyd, D. S. (2013). Assessing the accuracy of volunteered geographic information arising from multiple contributors to an internet based collaborative project. Transactions in GIS, 17(6), 847–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Gao, S., Li, L., Li, W., Janowicz, K., & Zhang, Y. (2014). Constructing gazetteers from volunteered big geo-data based on Hadoop. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. doi: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2014.02.004.
  21. Girres, J. F., & Touya, G. (2010). Quality assessment of the French OpenStreetMap dataset. Transactions in GIS, 14(4), 435–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodchild, M. F. (2007). Citizens as sensors: The world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69(4), 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Goodchild, M. F. (2009). NeoGeography and the nature of geographic expertise. Journal of Location Based Services, 3(2), 82–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goodchild, M. F., & Li, L. (2012). Assuring the quality of volunteered geographic information. Spatial Statistics, 1, 110–120. doi: 10.1016/j.spasta.2012.03.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Haklay, M. (2010). How good is volunteered geographical information? A comparative study of OpenStreetMap and Ordnance Survey datasets. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(4), 682–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Haklay, M., Basiouka, S., Antoniou, V., & Ather, A. (2010). How many volunteers does it take to map an area well? The validity of Linus' law to volunteered geographic information. The Cartographic Journal, 47(4), 315–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Keßler, C., Janowicz, K., & Bishr, M. (2009). An agenda for the next generation gazetteer: Geographic information contribution and retrieval. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM SIGSPATIAL international conference on advances in geographic information systems, Seattle, Washington, USA, pp. 91–100.Google Scholar
  28. Kuhn, W. (2007). Volunteered geographic information and GIScience. In NCGIA and Vespucci workshop on volunteered geographic information, Santa Barbara, CA, USA, pp. 86–97.Google Scholar
  29. Liu, Y., Yuan, Y., Xiao, D., Zhang, Y., & Hu, J. (2010). A point-set-based approximation for areal objects: A case study of representing localities. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 34(1), 28–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mamdani, E. H. (1974). Application of fuzzy algorithms for control of simple dynamic plant. Proceedings of the Institution of Electrical Engineers, 121(12), 1585–1588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Manca, G., & Curtin, K. (2012). Fuzzy analysis for modeling regional delineation and development: The case of the sardinian mining geopark. Transactions in GIS, 16(1), 55–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maué, P., & Schade, S. (2008). Quality of geographic information patchworks. In Proceedings of the 11th AGILE international conference on geographic information science, Girona, Spain, pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
  33. Negnevitsky, M. (2005). Artificial intelligence: a guide to intelligent systems (2nd ed.). London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
  34. Peterson, D. K., & Pitz, G. F. (1988). Confidence, uncertainty, and the use of information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14(1), 85–92.Google Scholar
  35. Power, C., Simms, A., & White, R. (2001). Hierarchical fuzzy pattern matching for the regional comparison of land use maps. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 15(1), 77–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pulford, B. D. (1996). Overconfidence in human judgement. PhD dissertation. University of Leicester.Google Scholar
  37. Salk, C. F., Sturn, T., See, L., Fritz, S., & Perger, C. (2015). Assessing quality of volunteer crowdsourcing contributions: Lessons from the Cropland Capture game. International Journal of Digital Earth, 1–17. doi: 10.1080/17538947.2015.1039609.
  38. Seeger, C. J. (2008). The role of facilitated volunteered geographic information in the landscape planning and site design process. GeoJournal, 72(3), 199–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sniezek, J. A., & Buckley, T. (1995). Cueing and cognitive conflict in judge-advisor decision making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 62(2), 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sniezek, J. A., & van Swol, L. M. (2001). Trust, confidence, and expertise in a judge-advisor system. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 84(2), 288–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Song, S., Hwang, K., & Macwan, M. (2004). Fuzzy trust integration for security enforcement in grid computing. In H. Jin, G. R. Gao, Z. Xu, & H. Chen (Eds.), Network and parallel computing (pp. 9–21). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Song, W., & Sun, G. (2010). The role of mobile volunteered geographic information in urban management. In Proceedings of the18th international conference on geoinformatics, Beijing, China, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar
  43. Suen, R. C. L., Chang, K. T. T., Wan, M. P.-H., Ng, Y. C., & Tan, B. C. Y. (2014). Interactive experiences designed for agricultural communities. In CHI ‘14 extended abstracts of the conference on human factors in computing systems, Toronto, Canada, pp. 551–554.Google Scholar
  44. Tobler, W. R. (1970). A computer movie simulating urban growth in the Detroit region. Economic Geography, 46, 234–240. doi: 10.2307/143141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Trame, J., & Keßler, C. (2011). Exploring the lineage of volunteered geographic information with heat maps. In Proceedings of GeoViz 2011: Linking geovisualization with spatial analysis and modeling, Hamburg, Gemany.Google Scholar
  46. Tulloch, D. L. (2008). Is VGI participation? From vernal pools to video games. GeoJournal, 72(3), 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. van Exel, M., Dias, E., & Fruijtier, S. (2010). The impact of crowdsourcing on spatial data quality indicators. In Proceedings of the 6th GIScience international conference on geographic information science, Zurich, Switzerland, pp. 1–4.Google Scholar
  48. Viera, A. J., & Garrett, J. M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: The kappa statistic. Family Medicine, 37(5), 360–363.Google Scholar
  49. Yan, H., Zou, Z., & Wang, H. (2010). Adaptive neuro fuzzy inference system for classification of water quality status. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 22(12), 1891–1896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Yongting, C. (1996). Fuzzy quality and analysis on fuzzy probability. Fuzzy Sets and Systems, 83(2), 283–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Yu, Z., & Tsai, J. J. P. (2006). Fuzzy model tuning for intrusion detection systems. In L. T. Yang, H. Jin, J. Ma, & T. Ungerer (Eds.), Autonomic and trusted computing (pp. 193–204). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zadeh, L. A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information and Control, 8(3), 338–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Zhang, Z., Demšar, U., Rantala, J., & Virrantaus, K. (2014). A fuzzy multiple-attribute decision-making modelling for vulnerability analysis on the basis of population information for disaster management. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 28(9), 1922–1939.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Zhu, A., Zhang, G., Wang, W., Xiao, W., Huang, Z., Dunzhu, G., et al. (2015). A citizen data-based approach to predictive mapping of spatial variation of natural phenomena. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 29(10), 1864–1886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Zielstra, D., & Zipf, A. (2010). A comparative study of proprietary geodata and volunteered geographic information for Germany. In Proceedings of the 13th AGILE international conference on geographic information science, Guimarães, Portugal.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geography, 1 Arts LinkNational University of SingaporeSingaporeSingapore

Personalised recommendations