Abordagens Práticas de Realidade Virtual, Realidade Aumentada e Interfaces Na...
Espaço contemporâneo diante das mudanças tecnológicas
1. Espaço contemporâneo diante das
mudanças tecnológicas
•Softwares de mapeamento e visitação virtual
•Mash-ups – processos combinatórios via web
•Dispositivos móveis e interação espacial
ECA – USP
CRP0498 / 2015
Prof. Artur Matuck
Augusto M. Romano Espinosa
2. Softwares de Mapeamento
–O que é?
• Geoprocessamento é o conjunto de técnicas e
de conceitos sobre representação
computacional do espaço geográfico.
• SIG é o sistema computacional que materializa
os conceitos do geoprocessamento.
3. Softwares de Mapeamento
• Representação gráfica
– Áreas geográficas
– Transportes - capacidade, rotas de caminhões, rotas alternativas
– Imobiliários – uso, idade, ocupação, durabilidade, estado
– Infra-estrutura – estradas, caminhos, pontes, aeroportos, rios e portos
– Saúde – Localização de pessoas e pontos de atendimento
– Mapas de Impostos – Identificação de proprietários por localização
– Segurança – Delegacias, crimes, prisões, vitimas, rotas de
policiamento
8. Softwares de SIG
Software Licença Plataformas Idiomas disponíveis Página
ArcGIS Software proprietário Windows Inglês Link
GEOMEDIA Software proprietário Windows Inglês Link
GRASS GNU Multiplataforma Inglês Link
gvSIG GNU GPL Multiplataforma Inglês, Espanhol e Chinês Link
iSmart Shareware Multiplataforma / Web Inglês Link
Mapinfo Software proprietário Windows Inglês Link
MapWindow MPL Windows Inglês Link
QGIS GPL Multiplataforma Inglês e Português Link
SAGA GIS GPL Multiplataforma Inglês Link
SPRING Freeware Multiplataforma Português e Inglês Link
TerraView GNU GPL Multiplataforma Português, Espanhol e Inglês Link
Transcad Software proprietário Windows Inglês Link
VisualSIG Software proprietário Windows Português, Espanhol e Inglês Link
9. Softwares de Mapeamento
• Spring
– Nacional, grátis, treinamento INPE
→DADOS CARTOGRÁFICOSDADOS CARTOGRÁFICOS
→ DADOS DE CENSODADOS DE CENSO
→ CADASTRO URBANO E RURALCADASTRO URBANO E RURAL
→ IMAGENS DE SENSORES REMOTOS (Satélites ou Aerotransportados)IMAGENS DE SENSORES REMOTOS (Satélites ou Aerotransportados)
→ REDES DE DADOS GEOGRÁFICOSREDES DE DADOS GEOGRÁFICOS
→ DADOS TEMÁTICOSDADOS TEMÁTICOS
→ MODELOS NUMÉRICOS DE TERRENOMODELOS NUMÉRICOS DE TERRENO
10. Google Maps
• Serviço de pesquisa e visualização de mapas e imagens de
satélite da Terra gratuito na web
• Disponibiliza também imagens de satélite do mundo todo, com possibilidade de
um zoom nas grandes cidades
• Local Business Center, ferramenta que permite com que qualquer empresa faça
seu cadastro e seja então encontrada no Google Maps por qualquer usuário
• Com uma conta Google, é possível destacar as suas próprias rotas, pontos e áreas,
gerar comentários e compartilhar os respectivos links de acesso ao mapa criado
• Google Earth
• Google Maps
• Google Moon
• Google Mars
11. Visitação Virtual
• Sistemas que permitem a visitação virtual de pontos de interesse
– Zpr360
• Empresa que desenvolve visitas virtuais
– Casa Portinari
• Visita virtual à Casa Portinari
– Museu do Louvre
• Visita ao Museu do Louvre
– Visitas virtuais a várias cidades
• Visitas a diversas ciudades
12. Mash-up via Web
• O que é?
– Cultura remix
– Copiar, cortar ou colar
– Colaboração, interação e autoria
• Guy Debord “As idéias se aperfeiçoam. O sentido das
palavras também. O plagiato é necessário”
– Combinação de uma ou mais fontes para
formação de algo novo
20. Spatial Interaction
• Gravity model
• Position models
• Territorial interaction
• Spatial relation
• Social relation
21. Referências
• De Souza, Randolph Aparecido – A estética do
Mash-up
• Grasland, Claude – Spatial Interaction
• Debord, Guy – A sociedade do espetáculo
• Paul A. Longley, Michael F. Goodchild, David J.
Maguire, David W. Rhind Geographic
Information Systems and Science
• SPRING – Sistema de Geoprocessamento INPE
Notas do Editor
1. The spatial interaction and gravity model.A definition quite frequently used in Anglo-Saxon
literature reduces the notion of spatial interaction to the phenomenon of the decrease of flows with
distance. Observation of migrations at the end of the nineteenth century quite early led several
authors to bring to light empirical laws (Ravenstein) which were later related by analogy to laws of
universal gravitation. Gravity models which suppose that the volume of interaction between two
places depends upon the weight of emitting and receiving places and upon the inverse of square of
distance between them (Stewart) may be considered as precursors of a more general theoretical
formalisation of flows, currently gathered under the term ‘spatial interaction models'.
2. Interaction models and position models Whereas strictly speaking, spatial interaction models
concern the study of actual flows that are developing between territorial units during a period of time,
many authors tend to link them with a set of position models (Fustier) which do not describe
relationships between two places, but rather the relative position of a place with respect to other
places. Computation of the potential of a place relies of course on consideration of an assumption of
spatial interaction (a form of decrease in the probability of relationship according to distance), but
fundamentally it constitutes an accessibility measure aimed at assessing the variation of the
amount of relation opportunities as a function of position. Reilly and Huff models, which aim at
determining the theoretical market areas of a set of central places, also belong to the category of
position models, as their purpose is to describe places (belonging to a market area) rather than
directly depicting relationships between places.
3. Spatial interaction and territorial interaction For some time, the first interaction and position
models postulated that there was a simple mathematical relation between the physical remoteness of
places (measured by a continuous metric) and the volume or intensity of relationships which did or
could develop between them. The spatial interaction functions that are most often used to describe
the influence of distance remain the functions with negative power (of Paréto, so-called) and negative
exponential functions. The postulate of unicity of distance introduced in spatial interaction models
and of continuity of the spatial interaction function that describes decrease of relationships with
distance was not questioned until relatively recently. Even if there was a fairly early awareness that
many phenomena were better described by distances expressed in terms of kilometres on a network
, of time or of cost, than by the mere consideration of Euclidian distance, it is apparent that many
authors are reluctant to introduce simultaneously several measures of remoteness into spatial
interaction models. Barrier phenomena, which are in fact an indication of the influence of the
territories to which places belong, were for a long time considered exceptions to the laws of spatial
interaction, and their study was only envisaged in the framework of residuals analysis of those
models. This territorial ‘belonging' may nonetheless be considered to be the expression of a discrete
proximity measure whose simplest expression is a Boolean metric taking the value 0 if two places
belong to the same territorial cell and the value 1 if they are separated by a limit between territorial
cells. The term ‘barrier' or ‘territorial interaction effect' can be defined as the fact that two places
belonging to the same territorial cell have on the average more relations than two places belonging to
two different cells. Territorial interaction appears then as a particular form of spatial interaction more
Spatial interaction
generally defined as the fact that two places spatially close to each other have on the average more
relations than two spatially distant places.
4. Spatial interaction and spatial relation For many authors, the definition of spatial interaction as
the study of the influence of spatial proximity of places on intensity of relations that may develop
between them does not necessarily refer to the study of actual flows (interaction models) or potential
flows (position models). If a general meaning is given to the term relations, the notion of spatial
interaction may also designate the existence of causal relations in space (what happens in a place
exerts an influence on what happens in other places and varies according to their proximity), the
existence of spatial diffusion processes (there is a strong likelihood that an innovation appearing in
a place will propagate toward neighbouring places, whether proximity is measured in a continuous or
a hierarchical manner), or even the existence of spatial autocorrelation forms (i.e., the fact that two
places close to each other bear a closer resemblance than two distant places). Even if logical links
exist between all these fields of analysis (flows can generate diffusion processes that generate
spatial forms that will have effects in return on the intensity of flows, etc.), one might expect such an
extensive definition of spatial interaction to result in its being a synonym for the term ‘spatial
analysis', one could even say of geography as a whole.
5. Spatial interaction and social relation The expression of relations between places that underlies
all proposed definitions of spatial interaction definitely constitutes a central stumbling block, which
largely explains hostile reactions raised in the past and still today against spatial interaction models.
While this notion of relation between places does not cause particular difficulties in the domain of
physical geography, where it may refer to concrete phenomena such as the movement of air masses
or the transfer of a solid load by water courses, this is not true in the domain of human geography
when one claims to describe social phenomena by means of general laws of human behaviour. In
human geography, relations between places, whether these are cities, regions or States, do indeed
often concern social or economic localised aggregates, most of the time heterogeneous, made of
individuals (persons, households, firms,...) which do not have the same income, the same mobility
capabilities, the same information about the possibilities in distant relations. Spatial interaction
models then postulate, most of the time implicitly, a twin hypothesis of the relevance of the
constituted social and economic aggregates and the existence of a standard type of behaviour that
makes it possible to synthesise the behaviour of individuals belonging to these aggregates.
Consequently, spatial interaction models also postulate the hypothesis of the relative independence
of spatial determinants of interaction (location attributes of individuals and groups) with respect to
other social or economic determinants (individual or collective attributes independent of spatial
position). In case this hypothesis is not verified - which is the most frequent case - there is a risk of
attributing to differences in spatial position the effect of other forms of difference of position within
society and to create confusion in the interpretation of phenomena. Rather than considering spatial
interaction phenomena as an exogenous component of social behaviour, it seems on the contrary
more useful to consider that they represent a global resultant that is interesting to view as such. The
most relevant justifications of spatial interaction models are precisely those which demystify the
effect of distance and link its influence to processes that may be economic (Reilly), sociological
(Stouffer) or cognitive (Hägerstrand)