Geographical Structures in the Internet

  • Aharon KellermanEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Geography book series (BRIEFSGEOGRAPHY)


A basic element in the geographical study of terrestrial space is the ordering and division of this space, focusing mostly on the notions of ground, place, regions, and boundaries. This chapter will attempt to explore the possible extension of these concepts to Internet space, as well. More particularly, the possibility of viewing Internet screens as ground will be discussed, side by side with the potential application of other structural geographical notions to the Internet. Thus, the possible division of websites into regions will be elaborated, maybe via the suffix of their URL addresses, presenting countries or economic sectors. By the same token, the possible existence of boundaries in the most flexible and fluid Internet will be explored. The analysis of place over the Internet has been developed along the four perspectives proposed for real space: the neo-Marxist; the humanist; the feminist; and the performative.


Ground Place Regions Boundaries 


  1. Abler, R., Adams, J. S., & Gould, P. (1971). Spatial organization: The geographer’s view of the world. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  2. Agnew, J. A. (2011). Space and place. In J. A. Agnew & D. N. Livingstone (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of geographical knowledge (pp. 316–360). London: SAGE.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amin, A. (2002). Spatialities of globalization. Environment and Planning A, 34, 385–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Augé, M. (2000). Non-places: Introduction to an anthropology of supermodernity (J. Howe Trans.). London: Verso.Google Scholar
  5. Bolter, J. D., & Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Bruckman, A. (1996). Finding one’s own in cyberspace. Technology Review Magazine, January.
  7. Burghardt, A. F. (1996). Boundaries: Setting limits to political areas. In C. Earle, K. Mathewson, & M. S. Kenzer (Eds.), Concepts in human geography (pp. 213–230). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  8. Butler, J. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  9. Castells, M. (1998). End of millennium. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  10. Collyer, M. (2003). Are there national borders in cyberspace? Geography, 88, 348–356.Google Scholar
  11. Craine, J. (2009). Virtualizing Los Angeles: Pierre Levy, The Shield, and GeoJournal, 74, 235–243.
  12. DomainState (2015). Domain name registrar stats.
  13. Everard, J. (2000). Virtual states: The internet and the boundaries of the nation-state. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. Feingold, M. (2004). The newtonian moment: Isaac newton and the making of modern culture. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Gold, J. R. (1980). An introduction to behavioural geography. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Graham, M., de Sabbata, S., & Zook, M. A. (2015). Towards a study of information geographies: (im)mutable augmentations and a mapping of the geographies of information. Geo: Geography and Environment, 2, 88–105.Google Scholar
  17. Harvey, D. (1989). The condition of postmodernity. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. Harvey, D. (1993). From space to place and back again: Reflections on the condition of postmodernity. In J. Bird, B. Curtis, T. Putnaman, G. Robertson, & L. Tickner (Eds.), Mapping the futures: Local cultures, global change (pp. 3–29). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Kellerman, A. (2002). The Internet on earth: A geography of information. London, New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  20. Kellerman, A. (2014). The Internet as second action space. London, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Kwan, M.-P. (2001). Cyberspatial cognition and individual access to information: The behavioral foundation of cybergeography. Environment and Planning B, 28, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lefebvre, H. (1991). The production of space. In D. Nicholson-Smith (Trans.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  23. Li, N., & Kirkup, G. (2007). Gender and cultural differences in Internet use: A study of China and the UK. Computers & Education, 48, 301–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Livingstone, D. N. (2007). Science, site and speech: Scientific knowledge and the spaces of rhetoric. History of the Human Sciences, 20, 71–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Massey, D. (1994). Space, place, and gender. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  26. McDowell, (1993). Space, place and gender relations: Part I. Feminist empiricism and the geography of social relations. Progress in Human Geography, 17, 157–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Merrifield, A. (1993). Place and space: A Lefebvrian reconciliation. Transactions of the British Institute of Geographers, 18, 516–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Milgram, S. (1970). The experience of living in cities. Science, 167, 1461–1468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Miller, S., & Pupedis, G. (2002). Spatial interface design for the web—A question of usability. Cartography, 31, 119–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Moss, P., & Falconer Al-Hindi, K. (Eds.). (2008). Feminisms in geography: Rethinking space, place and knowledges. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  31. OED (Oxford English Dictionary) (2015). Place.
  32. Open/Learn (2015). Organizations and management accounting. The Open University.
  33. Rainie, L., & Wellman, B. (2012). Networked: The new social operating system. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  34. Relph, E. (1976). Place and placelessness. London: Pion.Google Scholar
  35. Rodríguez-Molina, M. A., Frías-Jamilena, D. M., & Castañeda-García, J. A. (2015). The contribution of website design to the generation of tourist destination image: The moderating effect of involvement. Tourism Management, 47, 303–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sack, R. D. (1997). Homo geographicus. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Seamon, D. (2012). Place, place identity, and phenomenology: A triadic interpretation based on J.G. Bennet’s systematics. In H. Casakin & F. Bernardo (Eds.), The role of place identity in the perception, understanding, and design of built environments (pp. 3–21). Oak Park, IL: Bentham Science Publishers.Google Scholar
  38. Smith, J. M. (1996). Ramifications of region and senses of place. In C. Earle, K. Mathewson, & M. S. Kenzer (Eds.), Concepts in human geography (pp. 189–211). Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  39. Soja, E. W. (1989). Postmodern geographies: The reassertion of space in critical social theory. London: Verso.Google Scholar
  40. Terlouw, K. (2011). The geography of regional websites: Regional representations and regional structure. Geoforum, 42, 578–591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Thrift, N. (1996). Spatial formations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  42. Thrift, N. (1999). Steps to an ecology of place. In D. Massey, J. Allen, & P. Sarre (Eds.), Human Geography today (pp. 295–321). Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  43. Warf, B. (2013). Global geographies of the Internet. Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Weinberger, D. (2002). Small pieces loosely joined {a unified theory of the web}. Cambridge, MA: Perseus.Google Scholar
  45. Weiser, E. B. (2000). Gender differences in Internet use patterns and Internet application preferences: A two-sample comparison. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 3, 167–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilken, R. (2007). The haunting affect of place in the discourse of the virtual. Ethics, Place and Environment, 10, 49–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wilson, M. I. (2001). Location, location, location: The geography of the problem. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 28, 59–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wilson, M. I., Kellerman, A., & Corey, K. E. (2013). Global information society: Knowledge, mobility and technology. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.Google Scholar
  49. Wroblewski, L. (2004). Visual simplicity vs. information density. LUKEW.
  50. Zook, M. A. (2007). Mapping DigiPlace: Geocoded Internet data and the representation of place. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 34, 466–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HaifaHaifaIsrael

Personalised recommendations