skip to main content
10.1145/3274895.3274973acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesgisConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

A feature set for spatial behavior characterization

Authors Info & Claims
Published:06 November 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Collection of GPS data is becoming a standard experimental method for studies ranging from public health interventions to studying the browsing behavior of large non-human mammals. However, the millions of records collected in these studies do not lend themselves to traditional geographic analysis. Standardized feature sets likely to produce distinct classes or clusters may be a tool that is powerful in both end-use utility and model describability. In this paper we present a feature set drawn from three different mathematical heritages: the convex hull of activity space, the fractal dimension of the recorded GPS traces, and the entropy rate of individual paths. We analyze these features against three human mobility datasets. Taken together these features can distinguish datasets with known demographic or geographic differences, while equating datasets which have similar demography and geography.

References

  1. C Bradford Barber, David P Dobkin, and Hannu Huhdanpaa. 1996. The quickhull algorithm for convex hulls. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software (TOMS) 22, 4 (1996), 469--483. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Ronald N Buliung and Pavlos S Kanaroglou. 2006. A GIS toolkit for exploring geographies of household activity/travel behavior. Journal of Transport Geography 14, 1 (2006), 35--51.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Basile Chaix, Yan Kestens, Camille Perchoux, Noëlla Karusisi, Juan Merlo, and Karima Labadi. 2012. An interactive mapping tool to assess individual mobility patterns in neighborhood studies. American journal of preventive medicine 43, 4 (2012), 440--450.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. John D Corbit and David J Garbary. 1995. Fractal dimension as a quantitative measure of complexity in plant development. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B 262, 1363 (1995), 1--6.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. DJ Coughlin, JR Strickler, and B Sanderson. 1992. Swimming and search behaviour in clownfish, Amphiprion perideraion, larvae. Animal Behaviour 44 (1992), 427--440.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Nathan Eagle and Alex Sandy Pentland. 2006. Reality mining: sensing complex social systems. Personal and ubiquitous computing 10, 4 (2006), 255--268. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Source Economic Geography, Urban Spatial, Systems Jan, Frank E Horton, and David R Reynolds. 2016. Effects of Urban Spatial Structure on Individual Behavior Author (s): Frank E . Horton and David R . Reynolds Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/143224 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, avai. 47, 1 (2016), 36--48.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Reginald G Golledge. 1992. Place recognition and wayfinding: Making sense of space. Geoforum 23, 2 (1992), 199--214.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Mohammad Hashemian, Dylan Knowles, Jonathan Calver, Weicheng Qian, Michael C Bullock, Scott Bell, Regan L Mandryk, Nathaniel Osgood, and Kevin G Stanley. 2012. iEpi: an end to end solution for collecting, conditioning and utilizing epidemiologically relevant data. In Proceedings of the 2nd ACM international workshop on Pervasive Wireless Healthcare. ACM, 3--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Jana A Hirsch, Meghan Winters, Philippa Clarke, and Heather McKay. 2014. Generating GPS activity spaces that shed light upon the mobility habits of older adults: a descriptive analysis. International journal of health geographics 13, 1 (2014), 51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Ethica Data Services Inc. 2018. Ethica Data. Retrieved April 30, 2018 from https://www.ethicadata.com/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Renaud Lopes and Nacim Betrouni. 2009. Fractal and multifractal analysis: a review. Medical image analysis 13, 4 (2009), 634--649.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Pauline C Ng and Steven Henikoff. 2003. SIFT: Predicting amino acid changes that affect protein function. Nucleic acids research 31, 13 (2003), 3812--3814.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Nathaniel D Osgood, Tuhin Paul, Kevin G Stanley, and Weicheng Qian. 2016. A theoretical basis for entropy-scaling effects in human mobility patterns. PloS one 11, 8 (2016), e0161630.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Zachary Patterson and Steven Farber. 2015. Potential Path Areas and Activity Spaces in Application: A Review. Transport Reviews 35, 6 (2015), 679--700.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Tuhin Paul. 2018. LZ entropy rate calculation. Retrieved June 02, 2018 from https://github.com/tuhinpaul/lz_entropy_rateGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Tuhin Paul et al. 2017. Modeling Human Mobility Entropy as a Function of Spatial and Temporal Quantizations. Ph.D. Dissertation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Weicheng Qian, Kevin G Stanley, and Nathaniel D Osgood. 2013. The impact of spatial resolution and representation on human mobility predictability. In International Symposium on Web and Wireless Geographical Information Systems. Springer, 25--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Gavin Smith, Romain Wieser, James Goulding, and Duncan Barrack. 2014. A refined limit on the predictability of human mobility. In Pervasive Computing and Communications (PerCom), 2014 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 88--94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Chaoming Song, Zehui Qu, Nicholas Blumm, and Albert-László Barabási. 2010. Limits of predictability in human mobility. Science 327, 5968 (2010), 1018--1021.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Michael AP Taylor, Jeremy E Woolley, and Rocco Zito. 2000. Integration of the global positioning system and geographical information systems for traffic congestion studies. Transportation Research Part C: Emerging Technologies 8, 1-6 (2000), 257--285.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. A feature set for spatial behavior characterization

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in
      • Published in

        cover image ACM Conferences
        SIGSPATIAL '18: Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGSPATIAL International Conference on Advances in Geographic Information Systems
        November 2018
        655 pages
        ISBN:9781450358897
        DOI:10.1145/3274895

        Copyright © 2018 Owner/Author

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 6 November 2018

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • poster

        Acceptance Rates

        SIGSPATIAL '18 Paper Acceptance Rate30of150submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate220of1,116submissions,20%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader