Advertisement

Information Ecology to Map the Arctic Information Ecosystem

Chapter
Part of the Informed Decisionmaking for Sustainability book series (IDS)

Abstract

Effective governance requires the best available sources of data and information. The Arctic region, society, and research community is complex and operates at multiple scales. As a result, information about the Arctic exists and flows within a complex Arctic Information Ecosystem (AIE). The conceptual framework of Information Ecology can be used to document, understand, and possibly predict the nature and functioning of the AIE. Using a stepped approach, the Mapping the Arctic Data Ecosystem (MADE) project is using Linked Open Data representational models and tools to evaluate the utility of Information Ecology to support real world applications such as contributing to strategy development for the Sustained Arctic Observing Network (SAON) program and enhancing disaster resilience in the Arctic. The non-linear, Information Ecology framework more accurately reflects early views of the AIE and stands as an alternative to currently used, more linear rational-classical strategy development and systems analysis.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors greatly acknowledge the contribution two anonymous reviewers who made constructive and very useful comments on the first draft of this chapter. The engagement of the polar data community in the activities of the Arctic Data Committee and Pan-Arctic Options project is greatly appreciate. We recognize the valuable support of the National Science Foundation through awards 1650228 and 1719540. Brendan Billingsley and Billingsley Custom Software developed the Linked Open Data prototype.

References

  1. Albert R, Barabási A-L (2002) Statistical mechanics of complex networks. Rev Mod Phys 74:47–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ansoff HI (1965) Corporate strategy. Penguin, LondonGoogle Scholar
  3. Arctic Council Secretariat (n.d.) About us – Arctic council [WWW Document]. http://www.arctic-council.org/index.php/en/about-us. Accessed 1 Feb 18
  4. Baker KS, Bowker GC (2007) Information ecology: open system environment for data, memories, and knowing. J Intell Inf Syst 29:127–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barabási AL (2002) Linked: the new science of networks. Perseus Books Group, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Barabasi A-L, Albert R (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286:509–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berkman PA (2015) Institutional simensions of Sustaining Arctic Observing Networks (SAON) 68, 1–11Google Scholar
  8. Berkman PA, Kullerud L, Pope A, Vylegzhanin AN, Young OR (2017) The Arctic science agreement propels science diplomacy (with supplementary materials). Science (80- ) 358, 596–598Google Scholar
  9. Berners-Lee T, Hendler J, Lassila O (2001) The semantic web. Sci Am 284:34–44CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Borgatti SP, Halgin DS (2011) On network theory. Organ Sci 22:1168–1181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Capurro R (1990) Towards an information ecology. In: Wormell I (ed) NORDINFO international seminar “information and quality”. Taylor Graham, Copenhagen, pp 122–139Google Scholar
  12. Chandler AD (1962) Strategy and structure, chapters in the history of the American industrial Enterprise. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Cutter SL, Ismail-Zadeh A, Alcantara-Ayala I, Altan O, Baker DN, Briceno S, Gupta H, Holloway A, Johnston D, McBean GA (2015) Global risks: pool knowledge to stem losses from disasters. Nature 522:277–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Davenport T, Prusak L (1997) Information ecology: mastering the information and knowledge environment. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Demchenko Y, Ngo C, Membrey P (2013) Architecture framework and components for the big data ecosystem. J Syst Netw Eng 1–31Google Scholar
  16. Downes L, Nunes P (2013) Big Bang Disruption. Harv Bus Rev March 44–56Google Scholar
  17. Eddy BG, Hearn B, LutherJE, van Zyll de Jong M, Bowers W, Parsons R, Piercey D, Strickland G, Wheeler B (2014) An information ecology approach to science–policy integration in adaptive management of social-ecological systems. Ecol Soc 19.  https://doi.org/10.5751/ES-06752-190340
  18. Edwards PN, Jackson SJ, Bowker C, Knobel CP (2007) Report of a workshop on “History & theory of infrastructure: lessons for new scientific cyberinfrastructures” January 2007Google Scholar
  19. Eryomin AL (1998) Information ecology – a viewpoint. Int J Environ Stud 54:241–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Finin T, Joshi A, Kolari P, Java A, Kale A, Karandikar A (2008) The information ecology of social media and online communities. AI Mag 29:77–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Forman J, Damschroder L (2007) Qualitative content analysis, Advances in BioethicsGoogle Scholar
  22. Frické M (2009) The knowledge pyramid: a critique of the DIKW hierarchy. J Inf Sci 35(2):131–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Granovetter M (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78:1360–1380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Heath T, Bizer C (2011) Linked data: evolving the web into a global data space. Synth Lect Semant Web Theory Technol 1:1–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Holland JH (2006) Studying complex adaptive systems. J Syst Sci Complex 19:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Iansiti M, Levien R (2004) The keystone advantage: what the new dynamics of business ecosystems mean for strategy, innovation, and sustainability. Harvard Business School Press, BostonGoogle Scholar
  27. IASC (International Arctic Science Committee) (2016) ICARP III- integrating Arctic research- a roadmap for the future. Potsdam, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  28. Issarny V, Bennaceur A, Bromberg Y-D (2011) Middleware-layer connector synthesis : beyond state of the art in middleware interoperability. In: Bernardo M, Issarny V (eds) SFM 2011, lecture notes in computer science 6659. Springer, pp 217–255Google Scholar
  29. Knol M, Arbo P, Duske P, Gerland S, Lamers M, Pavlova O, Sivle AD, Tronstad S (2018) Making the Arctic predictable: the changing information infrastructure of Arctic weather and sea ice services. Polar Geogr 41:279–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Krippendorff K (2004) Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand OaksGoogle Scholar
  31. Lakoff G (1987) Women, fire, and dangerous Thinkgs: what categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lakoff G, Johnson M (2008) Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  33. Larsen J, Fondahl G (2015) Arctic human development report: regional processes and global linkagesGoogle Scholar
  34. Miller JH, Page SE (2007) Complex adaptive systems: an introduction to computational models of social life, Princeton studies in complexity. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  35. Nardi BA, O’Day VL (1999) Information ecologies : using technology with heart. MIT Press, Cambridge, MACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Parsons MA, Fox PA (2013) Is data publication the right metaphor? Data Sci J 12:WDS32–WDS46Google Scholar
  37. Parsons MA, Godøy Ø, LeDrew E, De Bruin TF, Danis B, Tomlinson S, Carlson D (2011) A conceptual framework for managing very diverse data for complex, interdisciplinary science. J Inf Sci 37:555–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Perrault AM (2007) The school as an information ecology: a framework for studying changes in information use. Sch Libr Worldw 13:49–62Google Scholar
  39. Pulsifer PL, Arctic Data Committee (2016). rom data to knowledge for the polar regions: mediating information across scales and knowledge domains. In: 2nd Pan-Arctic options meeting. Pan Arctic Options Project, Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  40. Pulsifer PL, Strawhacker C (2017) Arctic observations, data and society: using systems science and mediation to enhance information flow for sustainability. In: ARCUS Arctic Research Seminar Series. ARCUS, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  41. Pulsifer PL, Taylor DRF (2005) The cartographer as mediator: cartographic representation from shared geographic information. In: Taylor DRF (ed) Cybercartography: theory and practice. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 149–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pulsifer PL, Yarmey L, Godøy Ø, Friddell J, Parsons M, Vincent W, DeBruin T, Manley W, Gaylord A, Hayes A, Nickels S, Tweedie C, Larsen J, Huck J (2014) Towards an international polar data coordination network. Data Sci J 13:94–102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pulsifer PL, Strawhacker C, Johnson N, Berkman PA, Parsons M (2017) Information technologies, their Arctic applications and implications of sharing scientific and indigenous knowledge. In: US global change research program, Office of Science and technology policy, Office of the President of the United States. USGCRP, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  44. Rowley J (2007) The wisdom hierarchy: representations of the DIKW hierarchy. J Inf Sci 33:163–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. SAON (2009) Sustaining Arctic observing networks home PageGoogle Scholar
  46. SAON (2018a) SAON Implementation [WWW Document]. SAON Implement. Plan. https://www.arcticobserving.org/images/pdf/Strategy_and_Implementation/SAON_Implementation_Plan_version_17JUL2018_Status_approved.pdf. Accessed 2 Oct 19
  47. SAON (2018b) Sustaining Arctic observing networks strategy: 2018–2028 [WWW Document]. SAON Strateg. https://www.arcticobserving.org/images/pdf/Strategy_and_Implementation/SAON_Strategy_2018-2028_version_16MAY2018.pdf. Accessed 2 Oct 19
  48. Scott J, Carrington PJ (2011) The SAGE handbook of social network analysis, 1st edn. Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  49. Simoncelli T (2014) Should you be able to patent a human gene? [WWW Document]. TED. https://www.ted.com/talks/tania_simoncelli_should_you_be_able_to_patent_a_human_gene. Accessed 1 Feb 18
  50. Sloan A (1962) My years with general motors. Sedgwick and Jackson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. Star SL, Ruhleder K (1996) The ecology of infrastructure: problems in the implementation of large-scale information systems. Inf Syst Res 7:111–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stepp JR (1999) Prospectus for information ecology. Georg J Ecol Anthropol 3:39–73Google Scholar
  53. Taylor HA (1984) Information ecology and the archives of the 1980s. Archivaria 18:25–38Google Scholar
  54. Thanos C (2014) Mediation : the technological foundation of modern science. Data Sci J 13:88–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Thatcher SMB (2010) National Information Ecology: a new institutional economics perspective on global E-commerce adoption. J Electron Commer Res 11:53–73Google Scholar
  56. Titscher S, Meyer M, Wodak R, Vetter E (2000) Methods of text and discourse analysis. Sage, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  57. Turnbull D (2007) Maps narratives and trails: performativity, hodology and distributed knowledges in complex adaptive systems – an approach to emergent mapping. Geogr Res 45:140–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. UNISDR (2015) Making development sustainable: the future of disaster risk management. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  59. Vaismoradi M, Turunen H, Bondas T (2013) Content analysis and thematic analysis: implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nurs Health Sci 15(3):398–405Google Scholar
  60. Walton N (2017) The internet as a technology-based ecosystem: a new approach to the analysis of business, markets and industries. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wang T, Wang J (2017) The philosophical foundations of informational ecology. Multidiscip Digital Publishing Inst Proc 1(3):151Google Scholar
  62. Wang X, Guo Y, Yang M, Chen Y, Zhang W (2017) Information ecology research: past, present, and future. Inf Technol Manag 18:27–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. White MD, Marsh EE (2006) Content analysis: a flexible methodology. Libr Trends 55:22–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. World Wide Web Consortium (2014) Resource description framework (RDF) [WWW document]. URL http://www.w3.org/RDF/. Accessed 29 Nov 15

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC),University of ColoradoBoulderUSA
  2. 2.Fletcher School of Law and DiplomacyTufts UniversityMedfordUSA
  3. 3.Geomatics and Cartographic Research CentreCarleton UniversityOttawaCanada

Personalised recommendations