Late in 2020, we announced the creation of CARTO’s Scientific Committee to double down on our efforts to make the work of Spatial Data Scientists more productive and to help spatial analysis continue to improve the world as we know it.
One of the areas of collaboration between CARTO and our Scientific Committee is the organization of scientific workshops to discuss specific issues on Spatial Data Science and propose possible solutions and applications. This June, we held the first scientific workshop, “Towards building fair and inclusive human mobility models”.
On June 17th 2021, CARTO’s Data team, the members of our Scientific Committee, and their respective teams at MIT, the University of Chicago’s Center for Spatial Data Science, University of Liverpool, Barcelona Supercomputing Center, and Microsoft, joined together to discuss issues involving human mobility data including:
Additionally, in order to widen the discussion to include insights from industry experts, we drew on the highly valuable participation of members of the Data Science teams at SafeGraph, Unacast, and Vodafone, who also shared their perspectives on these topics.
During this last year, human mobility data has come to prominence due to the COVID-19 pandemic and a lot of research work has been published in areas such as community transmission risks in different contexts, effectiveness and impact of social distance policies, or analyses of business recovery across sectors and territories.
Prior to the pandemic, mobile phone data was already being used in sectors such as urban planning, footfall, census estimates, behavioral science, tourism, and marketing, among others. Although the value of analysing patterns from this type of data are clear (always in an anonymized, aggregated, and regulatory-compliant manner), there is still a lot of ground to be covered in our understanding of the different biases present in the raw data and how we can adjust for them to ensure the representativeness and fairness of the derived models and insights. Additionally, there is an important and necessary open debate, which is still in its early days, on how this data should be gathered and used in a way that protects privacy.
Biases in the underlying data can have real and tangible effects on people, companies, and planners. In his presentation, Jamie Saxon of the University of Chicago, reviewed some potential practical impacts of data bias, as illustrated below. For example, policies related to reducing the risk of COVID transmission have typically relied on human mobility data to estimate occupancy and associated risk. However it is often unclear how many people each device count, in a coffee shop, a gym, or a park, truly represents. Therefore Jamie shared alternative strategies for measuring ground-truth of human activity in parks and roadways.
Location data can always be made more reliable and representative through multiple data streams. Though often costly, it is critical for the location data community to continue to develop and integrate multiple privacy-preserving measures of activity.
In this context, human mobility data refers to data built by analysing the location of groups of mobile handheld devices across space and time. Typically this is achieved by looking at location events that are either measured for a telecommunication company’s cell network or captured by mobile apps. By default, the raw data are obtained in ways that have well-known intrinsic biases. In his presentation, Prof. Esteban Moro from MIT and UC3M reviewed the multiple biases that need to be accounted for when analysing location-based service (LBS) data, as illustrated in the image below. These biases span four dimensions:
All industry participants agreed that bias compensation is one of their top priorities and something they have already been adjusting for when building their data products. However, given what little is known about the people who make up the sample (by design) and the very limited ground truth data that is available in order to correct biases, this still remains an important research challenge to work on.
During the workshop different approaches for bias alleviation were shared and discussed among academic and industry participants. Examples included:
It is also important to identify the limits of mobility data and understand which applications it is best suited for to support unbiased decision-making.
As adoption of this data for advanced analytics has grown in recent years, so have society’s concerns about privacy protection and ethics around the use of this data. New regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in Europe and California’s Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA) in the US have emerged and mobile phone manufacturers are implementing new privacy changes in their operating systems. However, there is still an open debate on the trade-offs and how to balance the legitimate privacy concerns of individuals and the positive societal value of allowing the use of the data for analytics purposes. As we have seen more clearly during this pandemic, we believe there is still a lot of value in using this data for applications that do good to our society and could allow for better and fairer public policies as well as being an enabler for progress.
In this context, several ideas were put on the table for further discussion and investigation:
We are hoping to convene a broader conversation not only between academia and industry players but also with regulators and administrations. Census Bureau data can also serve as a paradigm for how to aggregate individual and sensitive data for analysis. We encourage academic and industry organizations to continue researching key aggregated metrics that will provide the most value to our society and find ways to generate them without compromising the individual right for privacy.
Over the past years, many of the extreme weather events that occured around the world are known to be worsened by man-induced climate change through green-house gas emissio...Spatial Data
Please fill out the below form and we'll be in touch real soon.