Where is the event taking place?

The study days are being held in Bordeaux, FRA.

What is the primary focus of the study days?

The event focuses on the infrastructures, practices, and political issues surrounding the geonumerization of the world.

What kind of topics will be discussed?

Discussions will cover technical infrastructures, practical applications, and the political and ethical challenges arising from the widespread use of geonumerical data.

Geonumerization of the World: Infrastructures, Practices and Political Issues – Study Days

Name: Geonumerization of the World: Infrastructures, Practices and Political Issues – Study Days
Start: 2026-10-06T00:00:00Z
End: 2026-10-08T00:00:00Z
Location: Bordeaux

Oct 6–8, 2026Bordeaux, FranceIn-person

Registration open

The "Geonumerization of the World: Infrastructures, Practices and Political Issues – Study Days" event, held in Bordeaux, FRA, focuses on the multifaceted impact of the increasing digitization and quantification of geographical information. This gathering brings together researchers to explore how the collection, processing, and application of geonumerical data are reshaping our understanding of space, governance, and societal structures. It delves into the technical infrastructures that underpin this phenomenon, the practical applications across various sectors, and the significant political and ethical challenges that arise from such widespread datafication.

Committees & topics

Topics
Geonumerization: The Digital Transformation of Spatial Knowledge · Digital Devices and the Production of Space · Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Spatial Governance · Algorithmic Black Boxes in Spatial Decision-Making · Digital Sovereignty and Control over Geospatial Infrastructures · Spatial Data: Production, Governance, and Open Access · Artificial Intelligence and Spatial Data · Critical Approaches to Digital Technology

Why it matters

The geonumerization of the world represents a profound shift in how societies interact with and manage their physical and digital environments. From urban planning and resource management to national security and humanitarian aid, the ability to collect, analyze, and interpret vast quantities of geospatial data offers unprecedented opportunities for efficiency and insight. However, this transformation also introduces complex challenges related to data privacy, surveillance, algorithmic bias, and the potential for digital divides.

Understanding these dynamics is crucial for policymakers, technologists, and citizens alike. The event's focus on infrastructures highlights the foundational elements that enable this data-driven world, while its attention to practices uncovers the diverse ways geonumerical data is being utilized and integrated into daily life. Critically, the political issues component addresses the power structures, regulatory frameworks, and ethical considerations that must be navigated to ensure that geonumerization serves the public good rather than exacerbating existing inequalities or creating new forms of control. This interdisciplinary approach is essential for developing informed strategies to harness the benefits of geonumerization while mitigating its risks.

How to prepare

Delegates preparing for discussions on geonumerization should first familiarize themselves with the technical underpinnings of geospatial data collection and analysis. This includes understanding the various sensors, platforms, and computational methods used to generate and process geographical information. A solid grasp of these technical aspects will enable more informed participation in discussions about infrastructure and practical applications.

Furthermore, it is vital to consider the political and ethical dimensions of geonumerization. This involves examining questions of data ownership, access, and control, as well as the implications for privacy and civil liberties. Delegates should explore how different national contexts and regulatory frameworks, such as those in FRA, are addressing these challenges. Engaging with concepts like "data governance" and "cross-border data transfer" from the Model Diplomat glossary will be particularly beneficial. Analyzing case studies where geonumerical data has been used for both beneficial and problematic purposes can provide valuable insights for developing nuanced policy recommendations. Understanding the perspectives of various stakeholders, including governments, corporations, and civil society organizations, is key to a comprehensive approach, as outlined in the Model Diplomat lesson on "what-is-stakeholder-mapping".

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 3 countries stand on the core issues in play. Click through for the full country profile.

France

A key player in developing and regulating geospatial data technologies, balancing innovation with privacy concerns.

Role in topic

As the host nation, FRA is a significant contributor to research and policy discussions surrounding geonumerization. Its academic institutions and government agencies are actively involved in developing advanced geospatial technologies and exploring their societal implications. FRA often advocates for robust data protection frameworks and ethical guidelines in the use of geographical data, reflecting a broader European emphasis on privacy and digital rights. The event in Bordeaux underscores FRA's commitment to fostering international dialogue on these critical issues.

United States

A global leader in geospatial technology development and commercialization, often prioritizing innovation and economic growth.

Role in topic

The USA is at the forefront of geospatial technology innovation, with numerous private companies and government agencies driving advancements in satellite imagery, GPS, and geographic information systems (GIS). Its approach often emphasizes the commercial potential of geonumerical data and its applications in defense, intelligence, and various industries. While promoting innovation, the USA also grapples with significant debates around data privacy, surveillance, and the ethical use of location-based information, often balancing these concerns with national security interests.

China

A rapidly advancing power in geospatial technology, with significant state-led investment and extensive data collection for governance.

Role in topic

CHN has made substantial investments in developing its own geospatial infrastructure, including satellite navigation systems and remote sensing capabilities. The country utilizes geonumerical data extensively for urban planning, infrastructure development, environmental monitoring, and social governance. CHN's approach is often characterized by a strong state role in data collection and application, raising international discussions about data privacy, surveillance, and the potential for dual-use technologies. Its rapid technological progress in this field makes it a crucial actor in global geonumerization trends.

Topics & background

The background behind each topic and the actors that shape it.

Geonumerization: The Digital Transformation of Spatial Knowledge

Geonumerization refers to the broad process by which spaces, territories, and spatial practices are rendered into digital data and mediated by computational infrastructures. Its roots lie in the post-1960s quantitative revolution in geography, the development of satellite remote sensing during the Cold War (notably the US Landsat program launched in 1972), and the gradual digitization of cartography by national mapping agencies such as the USGS, IGN (France), and Ordnance Survey (UK). The 1990s diffusion of GPS for civilian use, followed by the launch of Google Earth (2005) and the rise of smartphones, accelerated the integration of geolocation into everyday life. Today geonumerization touches urban planning, logistics, agriculture, defense, environmental monitoring, and platform economies. It raises political questions about who produces, owns, and governs spatial data; how digital intermediaries reshape sovereignty over territory; and how computational representations of space privilege certain forms of knowledge over local or indigenous ones. The field also intersects with debates on surveillance, climate adaptation, and the geopolitics of cloud infrastructure.

Key players

Digital Devices and the Production of Space

Smartphones, connected sensors, GPS receivers, wearables, and IoT devices have become ubiquitous mediators of spatial experience. Since the opening of GPS to civilian use in 2000 and the launch of the iPhone in 2007, location-aware devices have transformed mobility, navigation, retail, and social interaction. Platforms such as Uber, Waze, Strava, and Pokémon Go have demonstrated how device-mediated geolocation reconfigures urban flows, labor, and leisure. These devices do not merely record space; they actively produce it by generating data flows that feed predictive models, dynamic pricing, and algorithmic routing. Critical geographers and STS scholars have shown how device ecosystems concentrate spatial intelligence in a small number of platforms, raise privacy concerns (illustrated by the 2018 Strava heatmap exposure of military bases), and create new inequalities between connected and disconnected populations. Regulatory responses include the EU's GDPR and Digital Markets Act, and ongoing debates over location data brokerage in the United States.

Key players

Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Spatial Governance

Geographic Information Systems emerged in the 1960s with the Canada Geographic Information System developed by Roger Tomlinson and matured with the founding of Esri (1969) and the diffusion of ArcGIS in the 1990s. GIS combine geospatial databases, analytical tools, and cartographic visualization to support land management, public health, defense, transportation, and environmental policy. Open-source alternatives such as QGIS, GRASS, and PostGIS, alongside open data standards from the Open Geospatial Consortium, have broadened access but not displaced commercial dominance. GIS are now embedded in public administration worldwide, from cadastres and zoning to epidemic response (as demonstrated during COVID-19) and military targeting. Their political stakes include the standardization of categories used to describe territory, the asymmetric capacities of states and municipalities to deploy them, and the dependence of many public administrations on a small number of foreign vendors. INSPIRE in the EU and national spatial data infrastructure programs in the US, India, and elsewhere illustrate the institutionalization of GIS as instruments of governance.

Key players

Algorithmic Black Boxes in Spatial Decision-Making

The term "black box" describes algorithmic systems whose internal logic is opaque to users, regulators, and often even their designers. In spatial domains, black-box algorithms increasingly shape routing (Google Maps, Waze), predictive policing (PredPol, HunchLab), real estate valuation (Zillow's Zestimate), credit and insurance decisions tied to geography, and platform-mediated labor allocation. Frank Pasquale's The Black Box Society (2015) and subsequent work by Cathy O'Neil, Virginia Eubanks, and others have documented how these systems can reproduce and amplify spatial inequalities. Political responses include the EU AI Act (2024), New York City's Local Law 144 on automated employment decisions, and ongoing debates at the OECD and Council of Europe on algorithmic transparency. Core controversies concern trade-secret protections versus public auditability, the feasibility of "explainable AI," and the responsibility of states when public services are delivered through proprietary algorithmic systems. The territorial dimension — how algorithmic decisions concretely redistribute resources, attention, and risk across neighborhoods and regions — is increasingly central to critical scholarship.

Key players

Digital Sovereignty and Control over Geospatial Infrastructures

Digital sovereignty refers to the capacity of states (and sometimes regions or communities) to exercise autonomous control over digital infrastructures, data, and standards. The concept gained traction after the 2013 Snowden revelations, which exposed the dependence of European and other states on US-controlled networks and cloud services. It has since become central to EU industrial policy (GAIA-X, the Data Act, the Chips Act), Chinese cyberspace doctrine, Russian RuNet legislation, and Indian data localization debates. In the geospatial domain, sovereignty concerns include reliance on foreign satellite navigation (prompting the development of Galileo, BeiDou, GLONASS, NavIC), control over high-resolution Earth observation, the location of cloud servers hosting cadastral and administrative data, and the dominance of a few foreign mapping platforms. Tensions persist between sovereignty claims, interoperability needs, and the open-data movement, as well as between state sovereignty and the digital self-determination of indigenous peoples and local communities.

Key players

Spatial Data: Production, Governance, and Open Access

Spatial data — vector, raster, and increasingly real-time sensor streams — have become a strategic resource for governments, firms, and civil society. Their production has been transformed by satellite constellations (Sentinel, Planet, Maxar, Starlink), crowdsourcing (OpenStreetMap, launched in 2004), connected vehicles, and mobile phones. Governance frameworks include the EU's INSPIRE Directive (2007), the Open Geospatial Consortium standards, national geospatial strategies, and the UN's Integrated Geospatial Information Framework adopted in 2018. Key debates concern the balance between open data and commercial exclusivity, the quality and political bias of crowdsourced maps, the privacy implications of granular mobility data, and the asymmetries between data-rich and data-poor states. The use of spatial data in disaster response, humanitarian action, climate monitoring (notably via Copernicus), and conflict documentation (such as Bellingcat's open-source investigations) illustrates both the public-interest potential and the dual-use risks of spatial data ecosystems.

Key players

Artificial Intelligence and Spatial Data

The integration of machine learning with spatial data — sometimes called GeoAI — has accelerated since the mid-2010s with the diffusion of deep learning applied to satellite imagery, LiDAR, and trajectory data. Applications range from automated land-cover classification (used by Copernicus and Microsoft's Planetary Computer) to deforestation monitoring, urban change detection, traffic prediction, precision agriculture, and military intelligence. Large foundation models for Earth observation, such as IBM-NASA's Prithvi and Clay, are now extending generative AI techniques to geospatial domains. Political and ethical issues include the reliability of model outputs in high-stakes decisions, biases in training data (often over-representing wealthy regions), the environmental footprint of training large models, and the dual-use risks for surveillance and targeting. International debates link GeoAI to the broader AI governance agenda — including the EU AI Act, the 2023 Bletchley Declaration, and UNESCO's 2021 Recommendation on the Ethics of AI — but spatial specificities remain insufficiently addressed.

Key players

Critical Approaches to Digital Technology

Critical scholarship on digital technology draws on traditions including science and technology studies (STS), critical geography, political economy of communication, feminist and decolonial thought, and surveillance studies. Foundational works — from Donna Haraway's situated knowledges to Shoshana Zuboff's analysis of surveillance capitalism, Ruha Benjamin's race after technology, and critical cartography from Brian Harley to Jeremy Crampton — interrogate the power relations embedded in code, data, and infrastructure. Critical GIS, which emerged in the 1990s, specifically questioned the epistemological assumptions of computerized cartography. In the context of geonumerization, critical approaches examine how digital infrastructures naturalize particular ways of seeing and governing space, how they extract value from users and territories, how they reshape labor and citizenship, and how alternative imaginaries — counter-mapping, data commons, indigenous data sovereignty, low-tech and degrowth perspectives — might be cultivated. These debates increasingly inform policy through standards on algorithmic impact assessment, participatory design, and digital rights.

Key players