Gender and the GeoWeb: divisions in the production of user-generated cartographic information

Abstract

The GeoWeb presents an opportunity to expand the array of potential contributors describing the earth through digital geographic information. However, the adoption of user-generated geographic information has not been uniform, resulting in an uneven distribution of content and more nuanced digital divides. This paper uses a survey of Internet users to measure the gender divide in the contributions of cartographic information to the Internet and examine the impact of this divide within the context of OpenStreetMap and Google MapMaker. This paper argues that in both publicly available basemaps the gender divide results in men serving as the gatekeepers of local knowledge leading to gendered user-generated representations. As these digital basemaps are reproduced and utilized by almost every mobile application or web-based map, the gender divisions in the creators and content are endlessly reproduced.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Notes

  1. 1.

    Google Earth also describes this project with the Suri on their Outreach page: http://www.google.com/earth/outreach/stories/surui.html.

  2. 2.

    This survey was also distributed in an Italian language version. The Italian survey results are not included here as they are part of another project. However, the results of the Italian survey are consistent with the English version and support the findings presented in this paper.

  3. 3.

    In order of number of survey responses received: United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Canada, Spain, Austria, Argentina, Netherlands, Finland, New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia, Israel, India, Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Mexico, Portugal, Croatia, Estonia, Hungary, Norway, South Africa, Sweden, Brazil, Bulgaria, Chile, Czech Republic, Malaysia, Mauritius, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, Serbia, United Arab Emirates, Zimbabwe.

  4. 4.

    Of the 11 individuals that used the “other” category for their gender, only three completed the survey. As this was not statistically significant at any level, only the results for those classifying themselves as “male” or “female” are provided in this paper.

  5. 5.

    Significance based on a Chi Squared test. Chi-Square compares the frequency of two or more groups to determine the significance of the accuracy between the expected distribution and the observed distribution. Healey (2011) defined Chi-Square as follows: \(x^{2} = \sum {\frac{{(f_{o} - f_{e} )^{2} }}{{f_{e} }}}\) where f o is the observed frequency and f e is the expected frequency.

  6. 6.

    OpenStreetMap.org describes a baby hatch as “A baby hatch is a place where mothers can bring their babies, usually newborn, and leave them anonymously in a safe place to be found and cared for. A baby hatch is also known as ‘safe haven’.”

  7. 7.

    http://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=brothel.

  8. 8.

    See: http://forum.openstreetmap.org/viewtopic.php?id=2614 for more discussion on “Bordelle, Kondomautomaten, Swingerclubs, Strichertreffpunkte” (a German OSM forum on “Brothels condom vending machines, swingerclubs and hustler meeting”).

  9. 9.

    http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/childcare.

  10. 10.

    It should be noted that while a large number of OSM contributors come from German speaking countries this debate is not simply about linguistic differences. “Kindergarten” is a German word but in both German and English speaking countries there are different words that classify the age-range for child-care providers (such as day-care, after-school program, pre-school, nursery or kindergarten in English and Kindertagesstätte, Tagi, Crèche, Kita, Horte, Kinderkrippe, Schulhort, Schülerläden or Kindergarten in German). From http://www.expatica.com/de/education/school/The-ABCs-of-the-German-school-system.html.

  11. 11.

    Unfortunately there is no way to determine the gender of all those who voted on the proposal as only their username is visible and linked to self-made user page with limited demographic information.

  12. 12.

    See http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/childcare for comments and complete voting results.

  13. 13.

    http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Pre-School_(early_childhood_education).

  14. 14.

    http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Proposed_features/Hospice.

  15. 15.

    https://sites.google.com/site/mapyourworldcommunity/map-yourself.

  16. 16.

    This only includes users who volunteered for this site and also agreed “I am okay with Google sharing all of the above information publicly.”

Abbreviations

VGI:

Volunteered geographic information

OSM:

OpenStreetMap

References

  1. Bimber, B. (2000). Measuring the gender gap on the internet. Social Science Quarterly, 81(3), 868–876.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bray, F. (2007). Gender and technology. Annual Review Anthropology, 36, 37–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Cairncross, F. (1997). The death of distance: How the communications revolution will change our lives. Boston: Harvard Business Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Clarke Hayes, C. (2010). Gender codes: Prospects for change. In Gender codes: Why women are leaving computing. Hoboken: Wiley.

  5. Clendenning, A. (2007). Tribe and Google Earth team to support Amazon forests. New York Times. June 19.

  6. Cohen, N. (2011). Define gender gap? Look up Wikipedia’s contributor list. The New York Times, 31, A1.

  7. Corneliussen, H. (2010). Cultural perceptions of computers in Norway 1980–2007: From “anybody” Via “Male Experts” to “Everybody”. In Gender codes: Why women are leaving computing. Hoboken: Wiley.

  8. Crampton, J. W. (2003). The political mapping of cyberspace. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Crutcher, M., & Zook, M. (2009). Placemarks and waterlines: Racialized cyberscapes in post-Katrina Google Earth. Geoforum, 40(4), 523–534.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Elwood, S. (2008). Volunteered geographic information: Future research directions motivated by critical, participatory, and feminist GIS. GeoJournal, 72(3–4), 173–183.

  11. Elwood, S. (2010). Geographic information science: Emerging research on the societal implications of the geospatial web. Progress in Human Geography, 34(3), 349–357.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Elwood, S., & Leszczynski, A. (2011). Privacy, reconsidered: New representations, data practices, and the GeoWeb. Geoforum, 42(1), 6–15.

    Google Scholar 

  13. England, K. (1996). Who will mind the baby? Geographies of childcare and working mothers. Routledge.

  14. Epstein, J. (2007). Google to harness satellite power for Amazon Tribe. New York: San Francisco Chronicle.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fisher, A., & Margolis, J. (2002). Unlocking the clubhouse: The Carnegie Mellon experience. ACM SIGCSE Bulletin, 34(2), 79–83.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gilbert, M. R., Masucci, M. M., Homoko, C., & Bove, A. A. (2008). Theorizing the Digital Divide: Information and communication technology use frameworks among poor women using a telemedicine system. Geoforum, 39(2), 912–925.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gilbertson, S. (2012). iPhoto for iOS abandons Google Maps in favor of OpenStreetMap. Wired Magazine.

  18. Goodchild, M. F. (2007). Citizens as sensors: The world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69(4), 211–221.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Goodchild, M. F. (2008). Commentary: Whither VGI? GeoJournal, 72(3–4), 239–244.

  20. Graham, M. (2010). Neogeography and the palimpsests of place: Web 2.0 and the Construction of a Virtual Earth. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 101(4), 422–436.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Haklay, M. (2010). How good is volunteered geographical information? A comparative study of OpenStreetMap and Ordnance Survey datasets. Environment and Planning. B, Planning & Design, 37(4), 682.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Haklay, M. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Haklay, M., Singleton, A., & Parker, C. (2008). Web mapping 2.0: The neogeography of the GeoWeb. Geography Compass, 2(6), 2011–2039.

  24. Hampton, K. (2011). Social networking sites and our lives. Pew Internet & American Life Project.

  25. Haraway, D. (1988). Situated knowledges: The science question in feminism and the privilege of partial perspective. Feminist studies, 14(3), 575–599.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Haraway, D. (1991). Simians, cyborgs, and women: The reinvention of nature. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Hardy, Q. (2012). Facing fees, some sites are Bypassing Google Maps. New York Times.

  28. Harley, J. B. (1989). Deconstructing the map. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization, 26(2), 1–20.

  29. Healey, J. F. (2011). Statistics: A tool for social research. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Imhof, M., Vollmeyer, R., & Beierlein, C. (2007). Computer use and the gender gap: The issue of access, use, motivation, and performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(6), 2823–2837.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Jackson, L. A., Ervin, K. S., Gardner, P. D., & Schmitt, N. (2001). Gender and the Internet: Women communicating and men searching. Sex Roles, 44(5–6), 363–379.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Jeffreys, S. (2008). Keeping women down and out: The strip club boom and the reinforcement of male dominance. Signs, 34(1), 151–173.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Kwan, M. P. (1999a). Gender and individual access to urban opportunities: A study using space-time measures. Professional Geographer, 51(2), 210–227.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Kwan, M. P. (1999b). Gender, the home-work link, and space-time patterns of nonemployment activities. Economic Geography, 75(4), 370–394.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Kwan, M. P. (2002). Is GIS for women? Reflections on the critical discourse in the 1990s. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 9(3), 271–279.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Lam, S. T. K., Uduwage, A., Dong, Z., Sen, S., Musicant, D. R., Loren, T., et al. (2011). WP: Clubhouse? An exploration of Wikipedia’s gender imbalance (pp. 1–10). ACM.

  37. Lawson, V. (2007). Geographies of care and responsibility. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 97(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Liff, S., Shepherd, A., Wajcman, J., Rice, R., & Hargittai, E. (2004). An evolving gender digital divide? OII Internet Issue Brief.

  39. McLafferty, S. L. (2002). Mapping women’s worlds: Knowledge, power and the bounds of GIS. Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography, 9(3), 263–269.

    Google Scholar 

  40. McLafferty, S. (2005). Women and GIS: Geospatial technologies and feminist geographies. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization, 40(4), 37–45.

  41. Miller, C. C. (2006). A beast in the field: The Google Maps mashup as GIS/2. Cartographica: The International Journal for Geographic Information and Geovisualization, 41(3),187–199.

  42. Negroponte, N. (1995). Being digital. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ono, H., & Zavodny, M. (2003). Gender and the Internet*. Social Science Quarterly, 84(1), 111–121.

    Google Scholar 

  44. OReilly, T. (2007). What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html.

  45. Parker, B. (2006). Constructing community through maps? Power and praxis in community mapping. The Professional Geographer, 58(4), 470–484.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Pavlovskaya, M. E. (2002). Mapping urban change and changing GIS: Other views of economic restructuring. Gender, Place & Culture, 9(3), 281–289.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Pavlovskaya, M., & Martin, K. S. (2007). Feminism and geographic information systems: From a missing object to a mapping subject. Geography Compass, 1(3), 583–606.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Pratt, G. (2003). Valuing childcare: Troubles in suburbia. Antipode, 35(3), 581–602.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Reel, M. (2007). Awaiting internet access, remote Brazilian tribes debate its promise, Peril. The Washington post.

  50. Ritzer, G., & Jurgenson, N. (2010). Production, consumption, prosumption: The nature of capitalism in the age of the digital “prosumer”. Journal of Consumer Culture, 10(1), 13–36.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Rocheleau, D., Thomas-Slayter, B., & Edmunds, D. (1995). Gendered resource mapping: Focusing on women’s spaces in the landscape. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 18(4), 62–68.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Sheppard, E., Couclelis, H., Graham, S., Harrington, J. W., & Onsrud, H. (1999). Geographies of the information society. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 13(8), 797–823.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Sørensen, K. H. (2002). Love, duty and the S-curve: An overview of some current literature on gender and ICT. Digital divides and inclusion measures. A review of literature and statistical trends on gender and ICT, STS report.

  54. Tulloch, D. L. (2007). Many, many maps: Empowerment and online participatory mapping. First Monday, 12(2). http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/viewArticle/1620.

  55. Tulloch, D. L. (2008). Is VGI participation? From vernal pools to video games. GeoJournal, 72(3–4), 161–171.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Ustinova, A. (2008). Google breaks Amazon tribe’s isolation. San Francisco Chronicle.

  57. Wasserman, I. M., & Richmond Abbott, M. (2005). Gender and the Internet: Causes of variation in access, level, and scope of use. Social Science Quarterly, 86(1), 252–270.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Zickuhr, K., & Smith, A. (2010). 4% of Online Americans use location-based services. Pew Internet & American Life Project.

  59. Zook, M. A., & Graham, M. (2007). From cyberspace to DigiPlace: Visibility in an age of information and mobility. In H. J. Miller (Ed.), Societies and cities in the age of instant access (pp. 231–244). London: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Zook, M., Graham, M., Shelton, T., & Gorman, S. (2010). Volunteered geographic information and crowdsourcing disaster relief: A case study of the Haitian earthquake. World Medical & Health Policy, 2(2), 7–33.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to extend my gratitude to Antonella Rondinone for her assistance with the survey. Matthew Zook, Matthew Wilson and Agnieszka Leszczynski contributed excellent ideas that improved the manuscript.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monica Stephens.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Stephens, M. Gender and the GeoWeb: divisions in the production of user-generated cartographic information. GeoJournal 78, 981–996 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10708-013-9492-z

Download citation

Keywords

  • GeoWeb
  • Volunteered geographic information
  • VGI
  • Prosumer
  • OpenStreetMap (OSM)
  • Google maps
  • User-generated content
  • Gender