Advertisement

Personal Activity Centres and Geosocial Data Analysis: Combining Big Data with Small Data

  • Colin Robertson
  • Rob Feick
  • Martin Sykora
  • Ketan Shankardass
  • Krystelle Shaughnessy
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)

Abstract

Understanding how people move and interact within urban settings has been greatly facilitated by the expansion of personal computing and mobile studies. Geosocial data derived from social media applications have the potential to both document how large segments of urban populations move about and use space, as well as how they interact with their environments. In this paper we examine spatial and temporal clustering of individuals’ geosocial messages as a way to derive personal activity centres for a subset of Twitter users in the City of Toronto. We compare the two types of clustering, and for a subset of users, compare to actual self-reported activity centres. Our analysis reveals that home locations were detected within 500 m for up to 53% of users using simple spatial clustering methods based on a sample of 16 users. Work locations were detected within 500 m for 33% of users. Additionally, we find that the broader pattern of geosocial footprints indicated that 35% of users have only one activity centre, 30% have two activity centres, and 14% have three activity centres. Tweets about environment were more likely sent from locations other than work and home, and when not directed to another user. These findings indicate activity centres defined from Twitter do relate to general spatial activities, but the limited degree of spatial variability on an individual level limits the applications of geosocial footprints for more detailed analyses of movement patterns in the city.

Keywords

Geosocial Personal activity centres Clustering Spatial analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge our study participants as well as the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada for funding this research.

References

  1. Batty M, Axhausen KW, Giannotti F, Pozdnoukhov A, Bazzani A, Wachowicz M et al (2012) Smart cities of the future. Eur Phys J Spec Top 214(1):481–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boyd D (2014) It’s complicated: the social lives of networked teens. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  3. Crampton JW, Graham M, Poorthuis A, Shelton T, Stephens M, Wilson MW, Zook M (2013) Beyond the geotag: situating “big data” and leveraging the potential of the geoweb. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 40(2):130–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ester M, Kriegel HP, Sander J, Xu X (1996) A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. In: Kdd, vol 96, no 34, pp 226–231Google Scholar
  5. Golledge RG, Stimson RJ (1997) Spatial behavior: a geographic perspective. Guilford PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Goodchild MF (2007) Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 69:211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Haklay M (2010) How good is volunteered geographical information? A comparative study of OpenStreetMap and Ordnance Survey datasets. Environ Plan Des B 37:682–703CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hickman P (2013) “Third places” and social interaction in deprived neighbourhoods in Great Britain. J Hous Built Environ 28(2):221–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hollenstein L, Purves R (2013) Exploring place through user-generated content: using Flickr tags to describe city cores. J Spat Inf Sci 1(January):21–48Google Scholar
  10. Huang Q, Cao G, Wang C (2014) From where do tweets originate?: a GIS approach for user location inference. In: Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Workshop on Location-Based Social Networks, ACM, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  11. Huang Q, Wong DWS (2016) Activity patterns, socioeconomic status and urban spatial structure: what can social media data tell us? Int J Geogr Inf Sci 30:1873–1898CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kitchin R (2014) The real-time city? Big data and smart urbanism. GeoJournal 79(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Li L, Goodchild MF, Xu B (2013) Spatial, temporal, and socioeconomic patterns in the use of Twitter and Flickr. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 40:61–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Meilă M (2007) Comparing clusterings—an information based distance. J Multivar Anal 98(5):873–895CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Miller HJ (2010) The data avalanche is here. Shouldn’t we be digging? J Reg Sci 50(1):181–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Miller HJ, Goodchild MF (2015) Data-driven geography. GeoJournal 80(4):449–461CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mitchell L, Frank MR, Harris KD, Dodds PS, Danforth CM (2013) The geography of happiness: connecting twitter sentiment and expression, demographics, and objective characteristics of place. PLoS ONE 8(5):e64417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Morstatter F, Pfeffer J, Liu H, Carley KM (2013) Is the sample good enough? Comparing data from Twitter’s streaming API with Twitter’s firehose. arXiv preprint arXiv:1306.5204
  19. Oldenburg R, Brissett D (1982) The third place. Qual Soc 5(4):265–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Poorthuis A, Zook M, Shelton T, Graham M, Stephens M (2016) Using geotagged digital social data in geographic research. In: Clifford N, French S, Cope M, Gillespie T (eds) Key methods in geography. Sage, London, pp 248–269Google Scholar
  21. Robertson C, Feick R (2015) Bumps and bruises in the digital skins of cities: unevenly distributed user-generated content across US urban areas. Cartogr Geogr Inf Sci 1–18Google Scholar
  22. Soukup C (2006) Computer-mediated communication as a virtual third place: building Oldenburg’s great good places on the world wide web. New Media Soc 8(3):421–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Steinkuehler CA, Williams D (2006) Where everybody knows your (screen) name: online games as “third places”. J Comput-Mediat Commun 11(4):885–909CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sykora MD, Robertson C, Shankardass K, Feick R, Shaughnessy K, Coates B, Lawrence H, Jackson T (2015) Stresscapes: validating linkages between place and stress expression on social media. Published by CEUR Workshop ProceedingsGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Colin Robertson
    • 1
  • Rob Feick
    • 2
  • Martin Sykora
    • 3
  • Ketan Shankardass
    • 4
  • Krystelle Shaughnessy
    • 5
  1. 1.Department of Geography and Environmental StudiesWilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada
  2. 2.School of PlanningUniversity of WaterlooWaterlooCanada
  3. 3.Centre for Information Management, School of Business and EconomicsLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK
  4. 4.Department of Health SciencesWilfrid Laurier UniversityWaterlooCanada
  5. 5.Department of PsychologyUniversity of OttawaOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations