Theoretical and Methodological Framework for Measuring Physical Co-Presence with Mobile Positioning Databases

  • Erki Saluveer
  • Siiri Silm
  • Rein Ahas
Part of the Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography book series (LNGC)


The objective of current paper is to propose methodological steps for determining the physical co-presence of people using spatio-temporal movement data. Co-presence is the presence of people at the same place at the same time. In spite of the fast developing information and communication technologies the importance of face to face meetings remains high. We assess the probability of people to be at the same place at the same time using passive mobile positioning data with 350 000 randomly selected respondents from Estonia during 10 days in April 2011. We test criteria for finding the best spatial and temporal resolution to discover co-presence from mobile positioning database. Results show that the most suitable space unit for finding co-presence is site of mobile network and time unit is one minute.


co-presence face to face meeting mobile positioning population geography ICT travel behaviour 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahas R, Aasa A, Roose A, Mark Ü, Silm S (2008a) Evaluating passive mobile positioning data for tourism surveys: An Estonian case study. Tourism Management 29(3):469–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allen T (1997) Architecture and Communication Among Product Development Engineers. Sloan School of Management, MIT, Cambridge. 1–35Google Scholar
  3. Calabrese F, Smoreda Z, Blondel VD, Ratti C (2011) The interplay between telecommunications and face-to-face interactions – an initial study using mobile phone data. Presented at CoRRGoogle Scholar
  4. Castells M (1996) The Rise of the Network Society, The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Vol. I. Blackwell, Cambridge, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Couclelis H (2009) Rethinking time geography in the information age. Environment and Planning A 41(7):1556–1575CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crandall DJ, Backstrom L, Cosley D, Suri S, Huttenlocher D, Kleinberg J (2010) Inferring social ties from geographic coincidences. PNAS 107(52):22436–22441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Delafontainea M, Neutensa T, Schwanenb T, van de Weghea N (2011) The impact of opening hours on the equity of individual space–time accessibility. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 35(4):276–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. European Commission Report (2010) Progress report on single European electronic communications market 2009. Scholar
  9. Goffman E (1966) Behaviour in Public Places. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  10. Hägerstrand T (1970) What about people in regional science?. Papers of the Regional Science Association 24:7–21Google Scholar
  11. IJsselsteijn W, Freeman J, Ridder H (2001) Presence: Where Are We?. CyberPsychology & Behavior 4(2):179–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. IJsselsteijn W & Riva G (2003) Being There: The experience of presence in mediated environments. In Riva G, Davide F, IJsselsteijn (Eds) Being There: Concepts, effects and measurement of user presence in synthetic environments. Ios Press, Amsterdam. 3–16Google Scholar
  13. Ito M (2003) Mobiles and the appropriation of place. Receiver. 1–3Google Scholar
  14. Janelle D (1995) Metropolitan expansion, telecommuting and transportation. In Hanson S (Eds) The Geography of Urban Transportation. Guilford Press, New York. 407–434Google Scholar
  15. Kostakos V, O`Neill E, Penn A, Roussos G, Papadongonas D (2010) Brief Encounters: Sensing, Modeling and Visualizing Urban Mobility and Copresence Networks. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 17(1):1–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lawrence J, Payne TR, Roure DD (2006) Co-Presence Communities: Using Pervasive Computing to Support Weak Social Networks. In WETICE 149–156Google Scholar
  17. McLuhan M (1964) Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  18. Milgram S (1977) The Familiar Stranger: An Aspect of Urban Anonymity. In Milgram S (Eds) The Individual in a Social World. Addison-Wesley. 51–53Google Scholar
  19. Miller HJ (2005) Necessary space – time conditions for human interaction. Environment and Planning B 32:381–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Miller HJ (2007) Place-Based versus People-Based Geographic Information Science. Geography Compass 1/3:503–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Urry J (2002) Mobility and Proximity. Sociology 36(2):255–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Urry J (2003) Social networks, travel and talk. British Journal of Sociology 54(2):155–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Urry J, Larsen J, Axhausen K (2007) Networks and tourism. Mobile social life. Annals of Tourism Research 34(1):244–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Silm S, Toomet O, Ahas R (2011) Co-presence as a measure of ethnic segregation. Presented at AAGGoogle Scholar
  25. Yu H & Shaw S-L (2007) Revisiting Hägerstrand`s time-geographic framework for individual activities in the age of instant access. In Miller HJ (Eds) Societies and Cities in the Age of Instatnt Access. Springer. 103–118Google Scholar
  26. Zhao S (2003) Toward a taxonomy of copresence. Presence 12(5):445–455CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Erki Saluveer
    • 1
  • Siiri Silm
    • 2
  • Rein Ahas
    • 2
  1. 1.Positium LBSTartuEstonia
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of TartuTartuEstonia

Personalised recommendations