20.02.2025“Geography has shed its old-fashioned image”

Magdalena Seebauer

The bookshelves are already pretty empty when I meet Robert Weibel in his office at the end of January. His time as Professor of Geographical Information Science is coming to an end. "My wife is a librarian, she taught me how to screen out things efficiently", he says with a laugh. He points to the recycling container, which is once again full to the brim. "The fact that we can now store so much in digital form is a blessing", says someone in whose professional and academic life digitalisation has fundamentally changed the subject of geography.

An incredible amount has happened since the 1980s, when you were a student and geographic information science still in its infancy. Back then, you were initially processing data on punch cards - now AI is shaping our everyday lives. When you look back: Is there a single event that has particularly influenced or driven this development?

Robert Weibel: This was probably the discontinuation of the so-called Selective Availability in May 2000 by an executive order of US President Bill Clinton. Until then, accurate GPS data had been reserved for military use only; the signals were artificially distorted for civilian use. The fact that accurate GPS data was suddenly available to everyone was a powerful driver for technological development. And also for research – in geographic information science as well as in remote sensing.

Just think about how many applications now use GPS! I can't imagine the smartphone being developed just as a mere phone. Crucially for geography: If you use Google Maps, Uber or Strava today, you also have to deal with geographic space. As a result, geography has entered everyone's life through the back door and has been able to shed its old-fashioned image.

In addition to all the commercial applications, the boost to research was immense. It was suddenly possible to equip study participants, vehicles or even wild animals with a location sensor relatively easily and cheaply. This opened up many new possibilities that had previously been unthinkable. But it also had other consequences.

Which ones?

We were seen as naive technocrats. Terry Jordan, then president of the American Association of Geographers, described GIS in a president's column as “easily justified but non-intellectual expertise”. We were accused of a positivist approach that neglected social contexts and ethical issues. And that the new technological capabilities were not sufficiently reflected at an epistemological level.

In addition, GIS began to gain a foothold in research and teaching in geography departments worldwide in the 1990s. GIUZ was the first department in continental Europe to establish a chair specifically for GIS in 1981, taking a leading role. When some expand, others feel squeezed. In the years that followed, there was an intense debate within geography about how technology affects society – and vice versa. One result was that GIS ceased to stand for Geographic Information Systems and became Geographic Information Science. This put science, not just technology, at the centre.

This critical debate, but also issues such as access to information and inequality, have led to new links with the social sciences. Disciplines such as history, sociology and linguistics have discovered the importance of space for their research. And previously under-represented groups have been included in surveys. Many citizen science projects have also become possible. It became clear that technology should not be used for its own sake, but to add value to society. This led to a fruitful, interdisciplinary interaction.

And what happened with the advent of big data in the 2000s? 

Suddenly, huge amounts of data were available. It came about almost by itself – from mobile phone data, commuter movements, social media and many other sources. Scientific use was often only the second or third use of such data.

This carries the risk of unreflected research. And it raises a lot of ethical questions. Can we use all these data? Who is allowed to – and under what conditions? Simply anonymising tracking data is not enough. It is relatively easy to deduce where a person lives and works. If that person also posts geo-referenced images on social media, it is easy to reconstruct their daily routine.  Ultimately, there is always a trade-off as to how far the data must be degraded to protect privacy, yet still be able to answer certain research questions.

Where do we stand today?

The general conditions are changing rapidly. At the same time, the pace of technological development is extremely fast. The digital divide still exists. In the past, it was mainly the difference in access to the internet, which in turn was strongly dependent on technical and socio-economic factors. Today, those who are familiar with artificial intelligence techniques are playing in the premier league. How that alone has changed our teaching and research!

And executive orders from a US president are also changing the framework massively today, as we are seeing almost every minute. And they could have an even more dramatic impact on our daily lives and our research. This is a worrying development.

You mentioned teaching – you have guided many students over the years. What has been most important to you?

I wanted to give the students an insight into what goes on in the “real world”. I took them to GIS companies and to the relevant offices in the cantonal and federal administration. Of course, we also gave many examples in the lectures and exercises. But the immediacy of being 'in the field' is simply different – just like in other geographical sub-disciplines, when glaciologists take students to glaciers or human geographers visit international organisations.

The interest was always mutual. The companies wanted to present their internships, and the students got a first-hand impression of what awaits them in professional life – and that they are welcome in the industry. I like to see where our GIS graduates are today. It gives me the feeling that I have made a significant impact.

What’s next for you?

I will continue to work on research projects at the UZH Healthy Longevity Centre. The centre focuses on research and innovation in the field of healthy longevity – through a holistic approach. Essentially, it's about how we can grow old in a physically and mentally healthy way. To do this, gerontologists, psychologists and economists – as well as geographers – work together on an interdisciplinary basis.

Much of my work will be that of a postdoc: I'll be analysing data, programming and much more – I'm really looking forward to it! In our MOASIS project, we are investigating how mobility, activity and social interactions affect well-being and mental performance. We now have longitudinal data from a fairly large sample of test subjects over six years. I am curious to see what comes out of this! I will also continue to supervise three PhD candidates and work on other, smaller projects, for example with the Department of Sport, Exercise and Health at the University of Basel.

You have rowed in the UZH professors’ boat for many years. How will your sporting career continue?

The plan is to row on the lake early in the morning more often again. But I'll leave the racing to the younger ones. I took part in the UNI-POLY rowing regatta on the Limmat more than fifteen times, thirteen of them as the stroke. That was cool! The professors' boat is one of the few “committees” that operates outside the official structures of UZH – and has enabled a lot of exciting dialogue across faculty boundaries!