International Journal of Digital Earth

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tjde20

Virtual geo-cyber environments: metaphorical

visualization of virtual cyberspace with
geographical knowledge

Bingchuan Jiang, Xiong You, Ke Li, Tingting Li, Xiao Wang & Dongyu Si

To cite this article: Bingchuan Jiang, Xiong You, Ke Li, Tingting Li, Xiao Wang & Dongyu Si
(2024) Virtual geo-cyber environments: metaphorical visualization of virtual cyberspace
with geographical knowledge, International Journal of Digital Earth, 17:1, 2324959, DOI:
10.1080/17538947.2024.2324959

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2024.2324959

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa

UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis
Group

Published online: 29 Feb 2024.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 847

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tjde20
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH
2024, VOL. 17, NO. 1, 2324959
https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2024.2324959

RESEARCH LETTER

Virtual geo-cyber environments: metaphorical visualization of

virtual cyberspace with geographical knowledge
Bingchuan Jiang , Xiong You, Ke Li, Tingting Li, Xiao Wang and Dongyu Si
Institute of Geospatial Information, Strategic Support Force Information Engineering University, Zhengzhou,
People’s Republic of China

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Cyberspace is a dynamic and complex environment that poses unique Received 6 December 2023
challenges in understanding and managing its intricacies. In this study, Accepted 24 February 2024
we developed a framework for ‘Geo-Cyber’ spatial correlation mapping
KEYWORDS
and expression, leveraging geographical information to enhance the Virtual geographic
understanding of cyberspace. The theory of geographic metaphor is environment; geographical
incorporated into the framework to provide a comprehensive and knowledge; virtual geo-cyber
intuitive approach for comprehending the interplay between environment; cyberspace;
geographic space and cyberspace. The framework enables the geographic metaphor;
modeling and visual expression of geo-cyber correlations using a knowledge graph
layered knowledge-graph representation. To graphically represent the
complex knowledge graph within cyberspace, the framework uses an
‘Object-VirtualObject-Process-Decision’ layered modeling approach,
which facilitates effective navigation and comprehension of the
inherent cyberspace dynamics. Based on the experimental data, we
employed a virtual geo-cyber environment system to demonstrate the
effectiveness of the framework. The application cases include resource
navigation and situational awareness in cyberspace to showcase the
practicality and relevance of the proposed framework. The analysis
indicated that the framework enhances situational awareness, facilitates
effective decision-making, and promotes a holistic comprehension of
the interplay between geography and cyberspace by leveraging
geographic information and incorporating metaphorical cognition,
layered modeling, and visualization techniques.

1. Introduction
Cyberspace, a manmade space built on an information and communication technology (ICT) infra-
structure, (Fang 2018) encompasses the physical space, virtual information space, and knowledge
space, thereby providing support for various activities associated with ICT. Most existing studies
focus on constructing a system for visualizing and expressing cyberspace, emphasizing its connec-
tion and mapping with the geographic space. Cyberspace has gradually emerged as a critical con-
cern for national economic production, military warfare, and national defense security. At present,
various fields are dedicated to modeling, simulating, analyzing, and depicting the complex cyber-
space (Gao et al. 2019; Mohebbi et al. 2020). However, a considerable gap exists between the intan-
gible, intricate, and dynamic nature of cyberspace and its effective expression. This can be primarily
attributed to the limited detection of cyberspace resources and the insufficient description and

CONTACT Xiong You [email protected]

© 2024 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The terms on which this
article has been published allow the posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 B. JIANG ET AL.

visualization of cyberspace information. Unlike the physical world, achieving a comprehensive

understanding of cyberspace becomes challenging (Gonçalves 2019), and conveying the cyberspace
environment in a comprehensible manner is essential to enable users to grasp its intricacies and
security landscape.
Cyberspace possesses distinct geographical characteristics that are primarily reflected in the
spatial distribution of material resources within the virtual realm and the close relationship between
online activities and physical geographic space. Geographic cognition and analysis tools, such as
maps (Han, Tsou, and Clarke 2018) and virtual geographic environments (VGEs) are crucial for
understanding cyberspace. In the era of ICT, the concept of spatial objects on maps has expanded
beyond traditional geography and human interactions to encompass information, thereby creating
a ternary spatial domain (Guo et al. 2018; 2021; 2022). Cyberspace mapping involves a combination
of cartographic theories, technologies, and cybergeography (Kwan 2015). Cartographers have
investigated cyberspace maps since the 1970s using concepts such as cybercartography (Taylor
2014), followed by the emergence of concept maps of cyberspace and three-dimensional (3D)
hyperbolic space representations. Dodge and Kitchin (2000) categorized cyberspace maps into
maps in cyberspace, maps of cyberspace, and maps for cyberspace navigation. Gao and Cao
(2021) reported that ‘it is the responsibility of the discipline of cartography to describe cyberspace
based on its development in depth and breadth’ and that ‘maps of cyberspace can serve as a reason-
able extension of the concept of maps in cyberspace.’
VGEs are the latest geographic analysis tools that have evolved from maps and geographic infor-
mation systems (Lin and Chen 2015; Lü et al. 2018; 2019). They present a communication and
expression method that closely resembles natural human interactions, solving complex geographic
problems and facilitating the sharing of geographic data and knowledge (Lin, Zhu, and Chen 2018).
Since the 1990s, VGEs have significantly progressed in studying the interactions between humans
and geographic space, including geographic modeling, virtual visualization, and geographic exper-
iments (Chen et al. 2013; Chen and Lin 2018; He et al. 2023; Lin et al. 2013; Lin, Chen, and Lu 2013;
Lü et al. 2018; MacEachren et al. 1999; Mekni 2018; Yu et al. 2021). As human activities have
extended into the virtual realm of cyberspace (Hu, Luo, and Liu 2018; Liu et al. 2022), new perspec-
tives have been introduced in terms of the interaction between spatial and temporal dimensions.
Furthermore, the development of cyber infrastructure empowers individuals to engage in collabora-
tive process modeling, simulation, and virtual experimentation within the realm of cyberspace
(Chen et al. 2023; Klippel et al. 2021), thereby endowing the Digital Earth (DE) with advanced
analytical capabilities. The virtualization of cyberspace is a major research focus for VGEs, and
the mapping and correlation analysis of the geographic network relationships based on VGEs
are essential for understanding and utilizing cyberspace.
The existing studies focus on VGEs to provide a virtual experimental platform and environment
for studying the ‘human-place’ relationship. Thus far, the research emphasizes the modeling, rep-
resentation, and study of human activities in geographic space. The expansion of the scope of geo-
graphical research from natural and human environments to information environments warrants
the construction of a unified geographic network virtual environment to facilitate research on the
‘human-place-network’ relationship. However, several drawbacks exist in the current research on
VGEs.

(1) Lack of fundamental research on the constituent elements of the network space environment:
As the cyberspace is a relatively unfamiliar space, it may be challenging to understand what it
entails and specifically includes.
(2) Insufficient research on modeling and representation of the network space environment:
Expressing and comprehending sentiment analysis, e-commerce, network security, and social
networks using fixed patterns remain challenging.
(3) Reliance of the research on network-space representation on mapping network-space elements
onto geographic space: The network space environment is portrayed by designing map symbols
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH 3

and mapping techniques. However, several virtual assets in a network space do not contain pre-
cise geographical locations, rendering it difficult to directly represent them on a map. There-
fore, new approaches are required to create unified virtual environments.
(4) Lack of unified expression for the geographic network relationship: As networks and geo-
graphic spaces are intricately related, a unified modeling and representation approach is
required to accurately describe and analyze the relationship and patterns of the ‘human-
place-network’ phenomenon.

Virtual geo-cyber environments (VGCEs) are based on collaborative cyberspace, the Internet of
Things (IoT), and ICT, enabling users to engage in ‘human-in-the-loop’ experiences. VGCEs con-
nect virtual cyberspace with physical geographic space and harmonize reality and virtual spaces,
focusing on human cognition to correlate, process, and share geographic and cyberspace data.
In this study, VGEs, metaphor theory, knowledge graphs, and 3D DE are integrated to construct
a VGCE, which serves as a platform for perceiving, navigating, analyzing, and predicting cyberspace
environments. The contributions of this study can be summarized as follows.

(1) A framework is proposed for modeling and expressing the correlation between physical geo-
graphic space and cyberspace based on the cognitive demands of cyberspace considering the
theories of VGEs and systems science.
(2) A complex knowledge-graph construction method is introduced based on the ‘Object-Virtua-
lObject-Process-Decision’ (OVPD) layer model for cyberspace. Cyberspace is divided into four
layers and represented as a unified complex knowledge graph using the entity-relationship
logic.
(3) A mapping and expression method is presented for the geo-cyber relationship based on meta-
phor theory, enabling the visualization of geographic knowledge constraints within the virtual
cyberspace. Owing to their highly dynamic and boundless nature, the virtual and process
resource layers of cyberspace are intricately connected with, but not limited to, the geographic
space.

2. Methods
2.1. Overall framework
As illustrated in Figure 1, geographic space achieves the modeling, simulation, and visual represen-
tation of VGEs via the process of ‘geographic space detection → geographic scene digitalization →
geographic scene simulation.’ Related theories and technological systems in this field are relatively
mature and are widely applied in digital cities, geographic environment cognition, virtual geo-
graphic experiments, and autonomous driving.
The extensive research on cyberspace surveying and mapping has led to the establishment of a
technological system encompassing ‘cyberspace detection → cyberspace resources → cyberspace
modeling and expression.’ This system is applied to enhance cyberspace cognition, analyze patterns
of cyberspace behavior, and optimize resource utilization.
The knowledge, approaches, and mature techniques derived from geographic space provide
valuable insights for modeling, understanding, and representing cyberspace. Bridging the gap
between the physical and virtual realms we can offer a more comprehensive understanding of
the interconnectedness and interdependencies between these two spaces.
The important aspects of the framework can be summarized as follows:

(1) Cyberspace surveying encompasses various technologies, such as topology detection, com-
ponent recognition, and analysis of text, audio, video, and websites. It can be broadly categor-
ized into detection channels, platform technology, detection technology, and analysis of
4 B. JIANG ET AL.

Figure 1. Basic framework for modeling and expressing the spatial correlation mapping of geo-cyber spaces.

detection results. Similar to the geodetic triangulation in geographic space, the location detec-
tion of virtual resources, such as servers and Internet protocol (IP) addresses, involves the cal-
culation of positional distances in the cyberspace detection stage. The coordinates of the other
network nodes can be inferred and determined by leveraging the geographic attributes of the
key node IP servers.
(2) Cyberspace resource mapping involves mapping physical resources to geographic space and
virtual resources, such as virtual network characters and virtual communities, to social
space. Cyberspace and geographic space are intertwined because virtual resources in cyber-
space identify relevant mappings in a geographic space. For instance, servers can be mapped
to geographic locations and virtual characters and role accounts can be mapped to specific
areas. Manually built virtual communities and other cyberspaces, such as servers and IP net-
works, also exhibit intricate connections with geographic space.
(3) Cyberspace modeling encompasses complex network modeling and hierarchical modeling, and
cyberspace expression involves mapping and visualization. The modeling and expression of
cyberspace are inspired by geospatial hierarchical modeling, facilitating the hierarchical
classification of cyberspace elements and phenomena. Additionally, virtual reality (VR) and
augmented reality (AR) can be employed to express the correlation and mapping between
cyberspace and VGEs. This approach is essential for analyzing the behavioral patterns and evol-
ution of cyberspace from a geographical perspective.
(4) Based on metaphor theory, the construction of VGCE enables unified modeling and expression
of geographic space and cyberspace, referred to as the unified expression of geo-cyber. This
facilitates a unified correlation between nature, humanity, and the network, providing an
environment for further research on the ternary relationship between humans, space, and
networks.
(5) In terms of the ‘person-geo-cyber’ collaborative computing, the exchange of energy and infor-
mation flow between ‘person-space,’ ‘person-network,’ and ‘space-network’ has expanded the
scope of geographical research into the realm of network space. Collaborative computing
between humans, space, and the network includes three categories: ‘person-space’ information
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH 5

computing, which focuses on human-centered geographical simulation and computation, such

as geographical process simulation and spatiotemporal pattern discovery; ‘person-network’
social computing, which focuses on the social attributes and phenomena of human activities
in network space, such as social network and network behavior computations; and ‘space-net-
work’ information representation, which primarily performs situational analysis and predic-
tions in network space.
(6) In terms of application services, the VGCE provides a collaborative computing platform for
‘person-space-network’ and other applications, including smart cities, simulation, geographic
experiments, machine cognition, intelligent platform experiments, intelligent agent spatial cog-
nition, intelligent-assisted decision-making, and social perception.

This study focuses on the metaphorical representation of geographic cyberspace, the modeling of
the VGCE environment, and foundational applications.

2.2. Complex knowledge network of cyberspace based on OVPD

2.2.1. Basic concepts
Network Coordinate System: The network coordinate system is a scalable scheme for predicting
Internet distances. Each participating node in a network of N nodes obtains a d-dimensional vector
using a few measurements that represent the network coordinates of that node.
Network Distance: The network distance between any two nodes can be predicted using a pre-
defined calculation rule based on their network coordinates. In a system with N network nodes,
measurement complexity is O(N). Network distance is a fundamental measure used to express var-
ious cyberspace elements. The three methods for estimating the network distance are as follows:

(1) Non-coordinate estimation methods: These methods involve the direct measurement of dis-
tances; examples include the IDMaps (Francis et al. 2001), dynamic distance maps (Theilmann
and Rothermel 1999), and Vivaldi (Dabek et al. 2004).
(2) Coordinate estimation methods: These methods map cyberspace to the Euclidean space, repre-
senting network distances as distances between nodes in the Euclidean space; examples include
the GNP algorithm (Ng and Zhang 2002) and the IDES method (Mao, Saul, and Smith 2006).
(3) Network-distance estimation based on high-precision spatiotemporal information: This
method records the distance between network nodes by measuring the time delays between
them. This involves adding a BeiDou receiver to each router and using unified BeiDou time
synchronization to calculate the network node distances (Liu et al. 2016).

Graph. A graph can be defined as a triple G = (V, E, w), where V = {v1 , v2 , · · · , vN } represents
the set of nodes, E = {e1 , e2 , · · · , eM } indicates the set of edges, and w denotes the mapping from
the edge set to the node set, referred to as the association function. The elements vi of V are the
nodes or vertices, and the elements em of E are the edges. The degree of a node refers to the number
of edges connected to that node; in a directed network, the edges associated with a node are directed
and can be classified as out-degree and in-degree.
Attribute Graph. A graph that assigns certain attributes to each node and edge is referred to as
an attribute graph, in which different nodes or edges exhibit different attribute values. For a node set
V = {v1 , v2 , · · · v|V| }, V is represented as VA = {va1 , va2 , · · · va|V| }, where the node identifier is an
attribute of V. The value domain set of VA is LV = Uva[VA Lva ; the attribute set of a node is
VAi = {vai1 , vai2 , · · · vaip }; and the corresponding attribute set of VAi is
LVi = {Lvai1 , Lvai2 , · · · Lvaip }. The node vi is represented as vi (VAi , LVi ), that is,
vi = vi ((vai1 , Lvai1 ), (vai1 , Lvai2 ), · · · (vaip , Lvaip )). For an edge set E = {e1 , e2 , · · · e|E| } with an
attribute set EA = {ea1 , ea2 , · · · ea|EA| } and node attribute (vi , vj ), the value domain set of EA is
E = Uea[EA Lea . If the edge ek (vi , vj ) has both the node attribute (vi , vj )and the attribute(EAk , LEk ),
6 B. JIANG ET AL.

the edge ek is represented as ek ((vi , vj ), Upl), where pl = (EAkl , LEkl ). The set of edges is represented
as E = Uek ((vi , vj ), Upl), and vi and vj are nodes with the attributes vi (VAi , LVi ) and vj (VAj , LVj ),
respectively. Therefore, the attribute graph is denoted as GA = (V(VA, LV), E(EA, LE)).
In a complex cyberspace knowledge graph, each node and edge possesses unique attributes, and
their importance and relationships within the graph may differ. For instance, backbone nodes rep-
resent highly important and influential nodes in a network. They serve as key connectors and are
critical for information transmission and communication. By contrast, general nodes refer to regu-
lar nodes that, although not as prominent, contribute to connecting and transmitting information
in the network.
By examining the attributes and levels of importance associated with the nodes and edges, we can
gain a deeper understanding of the intricate knowledge of networks in cyberspace. This analysis
helps in understanding the relationships between nodes, the pathways through which information
flows, and the overall structure and functionality of the network.

2.2.2. Basic structure of the cyberspace environment

As depicted in Figure 2, cyberspace is highly interconnected with the land, sea, air, and space
domains. The cyberspace environment or the information environment revolves around the use
of information as its primary component. The environment is intricately linked to both natural
and human environments, creating a complex tripartite world. The structure of cyberspace is
often illustrated using the concept of layer, which categorizes the elements and relationships within
this virtual realm (Guo et al. 2021).
From the perspective of cyberspace cognition and utilization, elements of cyberspace can be
divided into several layers.

(1) Physical Resources Layer: This layer encompasses interconnected devices and physical logical
networks that form a network infrastructure. It comprises communication channels, com-
munication facilities, network equipment, electromagnetic devices, and other physical
resources.
(2) Virtual Resources Layer: This layer comprises operating systems, application software, soft-
ware configurations on devices, and logical connections between networked devices. It includes
elements such as IP addresses, operating systems, application software, firewalls, malicious pro-
cesses, various information services, virtual entities, social accounts, network roles, virtual
roles, and virtual information resources, including data and spectrum resources.
(3) Process Resources Layer: This layer involves the activities and patterns of virtual roles within
cyberspace. It encompasses process-related resources, such as cyberspace attacks, defense,
operational and maintenance events, and security-related phenomena.

Figure 2. Model of a cyberspace environment structure.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH 7

(4) Decision Control Layer: This layer primarily focuses on decision-making processes within cyber-
space. It encompasses planning, perception, and other control commands, providing authorization
for supervision and initiating, terminating, modifying, or redirecting network operations.

All these layers provide a framework for understanding and categorizing the different elements
within cyberspace, enabling the effective utilization and management of the resources and processes
involved.
As different perspectives lead to different understandings of cyberspace, no consensus exists on
their categorization. Owing to the close connection between cyberspace and physical space, cyber-
space must be viewed from a unified perspective. As indicated in Figure 3, the natural space includes
land, ocean, sky, and outer space, each with different network communication devices. These
devices, such as land-, air-, space-, and sea-based sensors, form the IoT network along with servers,
routers, and IP connections, which constitute the foundational network infrastructure in natural
space. Manmade spaces include political, military, economic, social, infrastructural, and informa-
tional elements. Unlike geographic space, cyberspace cannot be categorized based on spatial
domains; however, it maintains a close relationship with geographic space.
In this study, we focused on modeling and expressing virtual and procedural resource layers.
Although virtual resources, such as IP addresses, autonomous system (AS) connections, and virtual
roles, often lack precise geographical locations, they are dependent on servers or programs and can
reflect real-world social roles. Based on geographic space, we explored the correlation and mapping
of ‘humans-land-network’ by analyzing social networks and online public opinion to reflect human
and societal phenomena and patterns.

2.2.3. Complex knowledge graph in cyberspace environment based on OVPD

A knowledge graph is a representation of the human objective world knowledge (Ji et al. 2022), where
different types of knowledge are represented as a triple < Entity, Relationship, Entity > . This is achieved
using techniques such as knowledge extraction, association, and storage. It is a complex semantic net-
work represented as a directed graph of nodes and edges. In the context

of the cyberspace environment,
a knowledge graph can be represented using a 4-tuple model: Concept, Entity, Realtion, Property ,
where Concept denotes conceptual categorization, Entity indicates specific instances, Relation

Figure 3. Diagram of the interweaving relationship among natural space, cyberspace, and human space.
8 B. JIANG ET AL.

represents the set of relations (including ‘concept-entity,’ ‘entity-entity,’ and ‘entity-property’ relations),
and Property denotes the various attributes of the entity.
An OVPD knowledge cognitive model can be constructed to describe the complex and multiple
relationships within the cyberspace environment. This facilitates the construction of a knowledge
graph for the cyberspace environment based on schema and data layers. The schema layer rep-
resents the concepts and the relationships between them and is divided into four categories, namely,
entities, virtual entities, processes, and decisions. Figure 4 depicts the ontology system, partially
constructed based on this model. Basic classes such as CObject, CVirtualObject, CProcess, and
CDecision are constructed during the implementation, and the relationships between these classes
are established, as shown in Figure 5. Furthermore, entities in a cyberspace environment possess
various properties, (TIME, POS, RGN, STA, ACT), indicating time, position, region, status, and
action. For instance, ‘On xx/xx/20xx, the tower server located at address A is running normally’
can be represented as an attribute graph, as follows: (Towerserver, TIME, xx/xx/20xx) (Towerser-
ver, POS, Address A) (Towerserver, STA, Normal). Figure 6 depicts the OVPD knowledge graph.
The cyberspace environment can be represented as a general graph using a knowledge represen-
tation model (Figure 7). The graph exhibits several key characteristics.

(1) Directed Graph: The graph is directed with edges representing the relationships between enti-
ties. These relationships can be types of attachment (e.g. ‘is-a,’ ‘own,’ ‘act-to,’ and ‘use’), circu-
lation (e.g. ‘link,’ ‘flow-in,’ ‘flow-out,’ and ‘passthrough’), or attribute (e.g. ‘has-time,’ ‘has-pos,’
‘has-rgn,’ and ‘has-state’).
(2) Complex Network Characteristics: The graph exhibits complex network characteristics, where the
importance of nodes can be determined by their in-degree and out-degree within a network.
(3) Complex Attribute Graph: Herein, each node represents a cyberspace entity and is associated
with attribute descriptions. For instance, the entity ‘vulnerability’ may include attributes such
as name, type, CNNVD number, risk level, and release time.
(4) Weighted Edges and Attribute Nodes: Different weights are assigned to edges and attribute
nodes to emphasize the importance of temporal and spatial location information in the attri-
bute properties of various elements within a cyberspace environment. These weights reflect the
significance of node–attribute relationships in entities, virtual entities, processes, and decisions.

2.3. Geo-cyber mapping based on metaphor theory

Applying metaphor theory and familiar concepts from geography can help understand the cyber-
space environment. Metaphor (Hartford 1987) is a process of understanding a new phenomenon by
using familiar concepts from previous experiences. Geographic metaphor visualization involves

Figure 4. Cyberspace environment ontology composition.

 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH 9

Figure 5. Example of knowledge representation of cyberspace environment.

Figure 6. Layered knowledge graph of Object-VirtualObject-Process-Decision (OVPD) in cyberspace.

10 B. JIANG ET AL.

Figure 7. Examples of conceptual layers of a complex semantic network for cyberspace environments.

using familiar geographic expressions to metaphorically represent things, events, phenomena, and
their relationships and similarities in non-geographic domains. The metaphorical map is defined as
a spatial text with a synthetic structure generated with a specific intention based on the composition
of map symbols using map language as the carrier. The metaphorical map is used to describe the
network distance (Fabrikant et al. 2004), emotion map (Ma et al. 2020), multi-scale virtual terrain
for hierarchically structured non-location data, and information visualization (Wijayawardena,
Abeysekera, and Maduranga 2023; Xin et al. 2021; Xin, Ai, and Ai 2018), such as distance
model, map projection, feature labeling, and map design (Skupin 2000). Metaphoric maps contrib-
ute to knowledge organization and sharing by matching the ability of humans to perceive space and
environment with the relations linking entities and concepts in the represented domain (Celentano
and Pittarello 2012). Based on the metaphor theory, the cyberspace environment can be represented
as a virtual cyberspace sphere, and the cognitive habits developed in understanding geography can
be applied to understanding cyberspace.
The metaphor mapping of cyberspace includes the following elements, as depicted in Figure 8:

(1) Coordinate Reference: The virtual cyberspace sphere uses a non-Euclidean coordinate system,
such as the graph coordinate systems of Orion and Rigel. This is different from traditional geo-
graphic coordinate systems, such as the centroid and geodetic coordinate systems.
(2) Layers: Similar to maps, the cyberspace environment can be represented using physical, virtual,
process, and decision control layers. This enables a detailed representation of elements within
each layer, similar to the representation of geographic elements, such as residential areas, water
systems, transportation, and vegetation, on a map.
(3) Domain Boundaries: Cyberspace domain boundaries can be compared to boundaries and
national borders in the geographic space. They describe the jurisdiction and influence of differ-
ent entities in the cyberspace environment, similar to the boundaries of countries.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH 11

Figure 8. Metaphorical mapping of geospatial and cyberspace maps.

(4) Layer Zones: The physical, virtual, process, and decision-making resource circles are rep-
resented similar to the atmospheric layers in geographic space. They symbolize different
areas or levels within the cyberspace environment.
(5) Landmarks: In geographic space, a geodetic triangle network is used to represent the positions
of various points (Figure 9). Similarly, in cyberspace, a backbone network is constructed as the
base to identify the positions of various nodes, as indicated in Figure 10. This backbone net-
work follows the triangle inequality concept, which is similar to the geodetic triangle network
used in physical geography.

The application of metaphor theory to represent a cyberspace environment using familiar geo-
graphic concepts has several implications.

Figure 9. Geodetic control network.

12 B. JIANG ET AL.

Figure 10. Network backbone.

(1) Conformity to human cognitive habits: Utilizing metaphorical representations based on geo-
graphic concepts aligns with the human cognitive habits of understanding geographical
environments. This enables individuals to easily comprehend and conceptualize cyberspace.
However, it may introduce cognitive ambiguity owing to the inherent differences between
cyberspace and physical geography.
(2) Unified mapping of cyberspace and geospatial space: The use of metaphorical representations
enables the realization of a unified mapping of cyberspace and geospatial space. This is ben-
eficial for joint operation commanders as they can understand and analyze cyberspace along-
side traditional geospatial information on joint situational awareness maps. This integration
provides a comprehensive view of the operational environment.
(3) Accurate understanding of the cyberspace situation: Incorporating geographical locations into
the representation of cyberspace helps in accurately grasping the cyberspace situation. Consid-
ering the impact of geographical location enables a rapid and precise assessment of the signifi-
cance of situational information associated with actual physical locations. This aids in decision-
making and prioritizing actions in the cyberspace environment.

Overall, the use of metaphor theory to represent cyberspace using geographic concepts
has several advantages, including alignment with cognitive habits, facilitating unified mapping,
and improving situational awareness. However, the generation of potential cognitive ambiguity
from the metaphorical representation of the distinct and complex cyberspace must be
acknowledged.

2.4. Visualization of VCE constrained by geographic knowledge

Figure 11 illustrates the basic process of visualizing a VCE constrained by geographic knowledge,
which includes the following steps.

(1) Representing cyberspace elements. The basic elements of a cyberspace environment are rep-
resented by an attribute graph model. This model is based on an analysis of the composition of
cyberspace elements, ensuring a structured representation of the relationships and attributes of
these elements, as described in Section 2.2.2.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH 13

Figure 11. Visualization of virtual cyber sphere constrained by geographic knowledge.

(2) Acquiring cyberspace knowledge graph. A cyberspace knowledge graph is obtained, which
includes nodes representing various elements in the cyberspace environment and relation-
ships between them, as described in Section 2.2.3. Nodes with geographical attributes and
those with high degrees, yet lacking geographical attributes, are selected as control nodes.
The degree of a node is determined by its weight and the weights of the edges connected
to it.
(3) Embedding control nodes. The selected control nodes are embedded into the Euclidean space
to form a cyberspace coordinate system. The initial positioning of the cyberspace coordinate
system is established by calculating the network coordinates of the control nodes.
(4) Calculating network coordinates. The network distances between the normal nodes (nodes
without geographical attributes) and control nodes are calculated using the network coordi-
nates of control nodes and the in- and out-vectors of normal nodes, thereby determining
the network coordinates of normal nodes in the cyberspace coordinate system.
(5) Calculating geographic coordinates. Using a network distance weighting algorithm, the geo-
graphic coordinates of nodes without geographical attributes are calculated in the geographical
coordinate system. This is based on nodes with geographical attributes that serve as reference
14 B. JIANG ET AL.

points. This step enables the mapping of the cyberspace coordinates to the geographic coordi-
nates of nodes that lack geographical information.
(6) Drawing VCE. A VCE is created based on the geographic coordinates of each node in the geo-
graphical coordinate system. This facilitates the metaphorical visualization of the coordinate
system, layers, and domain elements in the cyberspace environment using familiar geographic
representations.

(1) Selection of control nodes from the cyberspace knowledge graph

The attributes of each node in the cyberspace knowledge graph are evaluated to determine the
control nodes. Control nodes are selected based on two criteria, as indicated in Figure 12: nodes
with geographic location attributes and nodes with high degrees but without geographic location
attributes. The degree of a node is calculated by considering its own weight and the weights of
the edges connected to it. These control nodes serve as reference points for embedding the
cyberspace coordinate system into Euclidean space, enabling accurate visualization and under-
standing of the VCE.

D(vi ) = v(vi ) v(eij )v(vj ) (1)
vj [V

where v denotes the weight; eij indicates the node; and vi and vj represent the edges connected
to the node.
The weight of the edges is assigned when constructing the knowledge graph, as follows:
⎧
⎨ 0.5, edge with geographic location attributes
v(eij ) = 0.5 (2)
⎩ , edge without geographic location attributes; n is the number of edge
n
The weight of a node, indicated as v(vj ), is determined by the number of connected nodes. The
more nodes connected, the higher the weight of the node; for instance, if a node is connected to
five nodes, its weight is five.

(2) Calculation of the coordinates of the control nodes

As indicated in Figure 12, the initial coordinates (UMa , VMa ) of the control nodes are randomly
initialized. Subsequently, the function is used to calculate the NPD and MD values. For each control
node, the CAL_W function is used to calculate the weight matrix va . The coordinates of the control

Figure 12. Selection of control nodes in the cyberspace knowledge graph.

Note: Different fill colors represent different types of network nodes.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH 15

nodes in the coordinate system are determined using the MDCC coordinate calculation method,
which is based on robust discrete matrix decomposition. Coordinate allocation follows the shortest
distance approximation (SODA) algorithm (Cheng et al. 2016), as follows:
 
Un Gn Un Y T
Jn = VnT Y T = (3)
X XVnT Fn

where Gn represents the distance matrix of the control nodes; Dn indicates the distance from a con-
trol node to itself; and X and Y denote the out-vector and in-vector of the nodes, respectively. The
network coordinates of the control nodes can be calculated by iteratively solving this equation and
setting an error function. The out-vector of a node represents the vector pointing from that node to
other nodes, whereas the in-vector represents the vector composed of other nodes pointing to the
node. The matrix representing the out- and in-vectors of all control nodes are denoted as Un and
Vn , respectively (Figure 13).

(3) Coordinates of normal nodes

The network distance between the normal and control nodes is used to determine the network
coordinates of the normal nodes in the cyberspace coordinate system. Similar to Step 2, this step
follows the SODA algorithm. The specific implementation process of this algorithm can be sum-
marized as follows.
For each normal node Vk , N neighboring control nodes are selected as reference nodes to con-
struct a distance matrix based on their network coordinates (Figure 14).

Ua VaT D(in, a)
Qa = (4)
D(out, a) ca

where U and V denote the out and in coordinates of the reference node iM , respectively; D(in, a)
and D(out, a) represent the in and out matrices, respectively; Q represents the distances between all

Figure 13. Calculation of the distance in cyberspace coordinates.

16 B. JIANG ET AL.

Figure 14. Calculation of the distance between the normal and control nodes.

pairs of points in the set formed by node iM and its reference nodes; and ca indicates the distance
between iM and itself, which is typically ca = 0. The matrices U and V are randomly initialized, and
the weight matrix is constructed based on the selected reference node N. The weight matrix of the
normal nodes is obtained, which can be utilized in iterative calculations to determine the network
coordinates of the normal nodes.

(4) Calculation of the geographical coordinates of a node

After obtaining the network coordinates of the control and normal nodes, the shortest distance
between any pair of nodes can be calculated using the formula for inner product space distance.
For instance, for nodes vi and vj , Equations (5) and (6) represent the distances from node vi to
node vj and from node vj to node vi , respectively:
L(vi , vj ) = Uvi · Vvj (5)

L(vj , vi ) = Uvj · Vvi (6)

L(vi , vj ) represents the distance from node vi to node vj ; Uvi denotes the out-coordinate of node
vi ; and Uvj indicates the in-coordinate of node vj . These are the network coordinates of the
nodes.
The distance between the control nodes with accurate geographical coordinates and other nodes
can be calculated using Equations (7), (8) and (9). Based on the weighted average of the network
distances between control nodes with accurate geographical coordinates and nodes with unknown
geographical coordinates, the relative geographical coordinates of the latter can be determined as
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH 17

follows:
Uj
Lj = Li + · Li (7)
D
Vj
Bj = Bi + · Bi (8)
D
Zj = Zi + s · Zi (9)
where (Li , Bi , Zi ) represents the geographical coordinates (known) of nodes with accurate geo-
graphical locations; and (Lj , Bj , Zj ) denotes the geographical coordinates (unknown) of nodes with-
out accurate geographical locations. The Z value of the geographical coordinates is calculated based
on the range of the spatial domain to which the network node belongs using a random number σ.
To avoid excessive disturbance, we considered 0 < σ < 1.0.

3. Application prototype
3.1. Experimental data and platforms
The experimental data were collected via cyberspace mapping, encompassing the domain name sys-
tem (DNS), AS, topo-scamper, topo-routeviews, topo-asnlinks, and topo-asns data; Table 1 sum-
marizes the specific details. A visualization framework was constructed using Cesium and
Three.js. This interactive visualization framework combines the VGE and virtual cyberspace sphere
to facilitate cyberspace analysis.

3.2. VGCE
3.2.1. Visualization of multi-layer knowledge networks in cyberspace
Based on the OVPD model, a network spatial knowledge graph was formed using the experimental
data (Figure 15(a)). A force-directed graph model algorithm was employed to calculate the gravita-
tional and repulsive forces, enabling the movement of nodes to new positions based on these net
forces. Figure 15(b) illustrates the resulting graph layout in the complex network environment.
This visualization of a multilayer knowledge graph in cyberspace offers an intuitive understanding
of the overall scenario, including the presence of attacks and defense nodes. However, accurately
determining the distribution and specificity of cyberspace resources poses a challenge, and it
may be difficult for users to rapidly comprehend cyberspace. Although this approach enables cyber-
space visualization, the existing methods for network coordinate systems and distance measure-
ments in cyberspace hinder its direct mapping to geographic space. Consequently, the obtained

Table 1. Details of the experimental data.

Data type Description Format
DNS DNS data: includes ISO codes, domain levels, and information related to countries/regions JSON
associated with the domain names.
AS Asset data; includes IP addresses, timestamps, hostnames, ports, protocols, and other information. JSON
topo-scamper Network probing data: includes the starting IP of the network trace, the destination IP, and a list of JSON
the IPs it passes through.
topo-routeviews Network topology data: includes routing tables, AS paths, and link states, among other information. JSON
topo-asnlinks Autonomous system topology data: includes the starting and ending nodes of links, as well as JSON
information about the number of routing paths.
topo-asns Autonomous system connectivity data: includes AS numbers, names, latitudes, longitudes, and AS JSON
numbers of starting and ending nodes.
18 B. JIANG ET AL.

Figure 15. Visualization of a cyberspace knowledge graph. (a) Different colors represent the example nodes from different cyber-
space resource layers. The association between different cyberspace resource layers is realized based on the relationships
between entities. (b) Two-dimensional (2D) node-link visualization of a cyberspace knowledge graph, including 1000 nodes
and 722 edges. All nodes are displayed on a single map.

visualization results do not offer an intuitive understanding of the distribution of cyberspace based
on geographical locations.

3.2.2. Visualization of VCE

Visualization of the virtual cyberspace sphere closely resembles the visualization of a 3D virtual Earth.
According to the expression method for a VGE, the process involves ‘determining the coordinate sys-
tem reference → constructing the control network → calculating the coordinates of cyberspace nodes
→ drawing the 3D sphere.’ This enables the mapping and representation of the cyberspace environ-
ment, which combines virtual and real aspects without a fixed boundary, on a 3D virtual sphere. The
nodes with geographic locations and those with higher degrees (Figure 16(a)) are filtered, and the

Figure 16. Selection of key nodes and visualization of a three-dimensional (3D) virtual cyberspace environment. (a) The deep
blue nodes include geographical information, whereas the light blue nodes exhibit high degrees without geographical infor-
mation. (b) Nodes without geographical information are assigned values based on distance calculations and visualized in a
3D scene.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH 19

resulting visualization is depicted in Figure 16(b). The network coordinates of both the control and
normal nodes were calculated using the cyberspace coordinate system. By leveraging the geographical
coordinates of the control nodes with known locations, the geographical coordinates of the other net-
work nodes were determined based on the cyberspace distance between these nodes and control
nodes. The 3D visualization of the geographical coordinates for each network node was accomplished
using node-link representations.

3.2.3. Geographic network metaphorical relevance

Geographical metaphors are crucial for establishing a metaphorical relationship between the VGE
and VCE. This approach enables the representation of the cyberspace environment using familiar
geographic concepts, such as coordinate systems, territorial boundaries, and layers.
Figure 17(a) illustrates a VGE that displays a 3D DE, showcasing the relevant elements of the
cyberspace environment using the DE platform. However, owing to the lack of specific geographic
location information for most cyberspace elements, obtaining a complete overview of the cyber-
space environment is challenging.
Figure 17(b) depicts the VCE section that uses the metaphor of a 3D DE to depict the elements of
the cyberspace environment as a virtual sphere. The surface of the sphere features a territorial map
of cyberspace, establishing a metaphorical connection between cyberspace nodes and geographic
space. This approach aligns with the human cognition of geographic space and enables a compre-
hensive understanding of the cyberspace environment. Additionally, by incorporating the meta-
phor of geographic space, this representation provides a perception of the association between
cyberspace environment and geographic space.

3.3. Application cases

3.3.1. Physical geography, human geography, and cyberspace in VGCE
Various elements in the virtual and process resource layers of the network space lack geographical
attributes. For instance, obtaining accurate geographic locations is difficult for most virtual IPs, and
expressing network security protection in geographic space is challenging. Figure 18(a) depicts the

Figure 17. Geo-cyber space metaphorical relevance. (a) Visualization of the virtual geographic environment (VGE), including geo-
graphic coordinate system, geographic layers, and geographic boundaries. (b) Visualization of virtual cyberspace environment
(VCE), including network coordinate system, cyberspace layers, and cyber domains.
20 B. JIANG ET AL.

Figure 18. (a) Representation of network space elements based on a virtual geographic environment (VGE). Most network space
elements that do not contain geographical locations are difficult to model and represent in a VGE. (b) Unified expression of natu-
ral, humanistic, and network space elements based on the virtual geo-cyber environment (VGCE), which displays all layers of
network space elements and achieves the associated modeling of natural, humanistic, and network space elements based on
entity nodes.

network space elements with precise geographical locations; however, displaying numerous net-
work space elements that lack geographic positions is difficult. As illustrated in Figure 18(b), all net-
work space elements can be displayed in the VGCE space using the proposed method. Furthermore,
based on the VGCE, natural, humanistic, and network space elements can be associated and dis-
played in a unified environment. In Figure 19, the red nodes represent the natural geographical

Figure 19. (a) Blue nodes represent entities of network space elements which are shown in 3D globe earth. (b) Red nodes rep-
resent entities of natural geographical elements, such as road entities; green nodes represent entities of human geographical
elements, such as social organizations; blue nodes represent entities of network space elements, such as Internet protocol
(IP) entities.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH 21

elements, specifically road entities; the green nodes indicate the human geographical elements, such
as social and cultural organizations; and the blue nodes denote the network space elements, repre-
senting network virtual IPs and other entities.

3.3.2. Cyberspace environment resource navigation

The objective of cyberspace environment resource navigation is to provide users with a convenient
method to query and locate network resources within cyberspace. This includes searching for IP
addresses, AS numbers, server devices, and virtual accounts. Primarily, two approaches are used
to navigate resources in the virtual cyberspace sphere.

(1) Interactive navigation through the virtual cyberspace sphere: In this approach, users can inter-
actively navigate through the virtual cyberspace sphere to obtain specific resources; Figure 20
illustrates this process. Users can click on a query in the cyberspace asset vulnerability node to
access detailed information on the right-hand side. This information includes the vulnerability
app name, device manufacturer, asset type, vulnerability count, and protocol. Additionally, the
VGE on the left-hand side enables rapid navigation to the corresponding geographic location
connected to the resource.
(2) Interactive navigation through the network logic layer: This approach involves using the node-
link graphical representation method to construct a layered knowledge graph of cyberspace;
Figure 21 illustrates this technique. Users can access linkages with geographic space by clicking
on the network nodes located in different layers. This navigation facilitates a comprehensive
understanding of network connectivity and asset associations between various layers within
cyberspace.

Users can efficiently query and locate network resources in cyberspace using the aforementioned
interactive navigation methods. The combination of the virtual network globe and network logic
layer enhances the overall understanding of the interconnections and associations between different
elements of the cyberspace environment.

Figure 20. Interactive navigation through virtual cyberspace sphere.

22 B. JIANG ET AL.

Figure 21. Interactive navigation through the cyberspace logic layer.

3.3.3. Cyberspace environment situational awareness

The purpose of situational awareness in the cyberspace environment is to provide an analysis of the
current state of cyberspace attacks, defense, and operations, as well as to predict and assess
unknown network security threats. Figure 22 illustrates this concept, where the left-hand side rep-
resents cyberspace based on the layers of Earth’s sphere, whereas the right-hand side represents the
logical interaction expression of various resource layers within cyberspace. Users can utilize the vir-
tual resource layers to select network link-type nodes and access attributes, such as the AS number,

Figure 22. Geographical space layers versus the network space logic layers.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH 23

IP quantity, and virtual machine registration number. Additionally, the VGE facilitates rapid navi-
gation to the corresponding location. Examining the distribution and connections of the network
virtual resource layer nodes displayed on the right-hand side of Figure 22 can provide insight into
the overall situation of network attacks and defenses. The geographic distribution of the cyberspace
nodes on the left-hand side provides a clear understanding of the distribution of cyberspace
resources associated with the different geographic layers. Based on this approach, the cyberspace
situational awareness enables a comprehensive analysis and understanding of the overall state of
cyberspace, including the interplay between the different resource layers and their geographic
associations.

4. Conclusions and outlook

In this study, we propose a fundamental framework for geo-cyber spatial correlation mapping,
modeling, and expression based on the theory of geographic metaphor to completely utilize the
benefits of geographic information in understanding the cyberspace environment. The developed
VGCE system is validated by demonstrating its ability to model and visually express geo-cyber cor-
relations. This visualization method aligns with human cognitive habits in the geographic environ-
ment and enhances the comprehension of the cyberspace environment. Furthermore, it facilitates
unified mapping of cyberspace and geographic space, facilitating the accurate grasping of the cyber-
space situation by considering the impact of geographic location and assessing the importance of
situational information.
The proposed method of geographic metaphor correlation mapping and expression presents
three advantages. First, the metaphorical cognition of fundamental concepts, such as coordinates,
layers, domain boundaries, circles, and landmarks is realized by mapping geographic concepts to
cyberspace, providing a geographical perspective in understanding the cyberspace environment.
Second, the OVPD layered modeling approach is utilized to graphically model the complex knowl-
edge network in cyberspace, effectively leveraging the advantages of cyberspace. Third, by calculat-
ing the impact of geographic location on the network nodes, the association visualization of VGE +
VCE is achieved, connecting geospatial and cyberspace through physical nodes. This improves the
ability to query and navigate, enhancing the situational awareness of virtual assets in cyberspace.
However, the following limitations were observed in our analysis.

(1) Cognitive illusion of metaphor: The metaphor-based approach uses the cognitive habits of geo-
graphic space to achieve cognitive understanding of the virtual and dynamic network space
environments; however, this may lead to cognitive illusions. For instance, if users view only
the VGCE without the comparison display of VGE, they may misinterpret the boundaries of
cyberspace as geographical boundaries. Additionally, spherically constraining the boundless
network space environment can cause an unclear understanding of the network space
environment.
(2) Metaphorical problem of the geographical location of virtual assets in cyberspace: To represent
geographical and network information in a unified environment, we performed mapping based
on network and geographical distances to calculate the position attributes of virtual nodes.
However, this deviates from the actual geographical location of virtual IPs (if any), and certain
virtual assets do not comprise specific locations. For instance, geographical locations have no
relevance to virtual IPs or virtual roles, which may lead users to incorrectly interpret that all
virtual nodes have geographical location information.
(3) Integration of natural, humanistic, and cyberspace expressions: The unified association and
expression of the three aspects are realized based on the semantic space, providing a new
method for the unity of the ternary space. However, the actual relationship between the
three aspects is complex and may be biased to achieve their association in the same space
only from a semantic perspective.
24 B. JIANG ET AL.

Despite its effectiveness in studying cyberspace, VGE is a complex artificial space where reality is
intertwined with virtual elements. Therefore, perceiving scene elements, forming boundaries, and
understanding changing dynamics using only our senses are challenging. This implies that compre-
hensible expression is vital for users to comprehend cyberspace and its security landscape. Cross-
domain information mapping is a major concern in the field of cyberspace, which includes the chal-
lenge of mapping between information, geographic, and human environments. In the future, we
intend to introduce dynamic information expression methods in VGEs by employing techniques
such as multi-view collaborative correlation analysis, human–computer collaborative interaction
analysis, and mapping visualization. These techniques can facilitate the analysis and mining of com-
plex high-dimensional network data, achieving a global cognition of cyberspace. Furthermore, user
experiences can be enhanced by immersion in virtual environments using technologies such as VR,
AR, and extended reality, enabling the cognitive integration of geographic space and cyberspace.

Acknowledgements
Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author and
do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This work was supported by National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 42171456].

ORCID
Bingchuan Jiang http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1073-094X

References
Celentano, A., and F. Pittarello. 2012. “From Real to Metaphoric Maps: Cartography as a Visual Language for
Organizing and Sharing Knowledge.” Journal of Visual Languages & Computing 23 (2): 63–77. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jvlc.2011.11.004.
Chen, M., C. Claramunt, A. Çöltekin, X. Liu, P. Peng, A. C. Robinson, D. Wang, et al. 2023. “Artificial Intelligence
and Visual Analytics in Geographical Space and Cyberspace: Research Opportunities and Challenges.” Earth-
Science Reviews 241: Article 104438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2023.104438.
Chen, M., and H. Lin. 2018. “Virtual Geographic Environments (VGEs): Originating from or Beyond Virtual Reality
(VR)?” International Journal of Digital Earth 11 (4): 329–333. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2017.1419452.
Chen, M., H. Lin, M. Hu, L. He, and C. Zhang. 2013. “Real-geographic-scenario-based Virtual Social Environments:
Integrating Geography with Social Research.” Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 40 (6): 1103–
1121. https://doi.org/10.1068/b38160.
Cheng, J., Y. Zhang, Q. Ye, and H. W. Du. 2016. “High-precision Shortest Distance Estimation for Large-scale Social
Networks.” In IEEE INFOCOM 2016 - The 35th Annual IEEE International Conference on Computer
Communications. San Francisco, CA, USA, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1109/INFOCOM.2016.7524580.
Dabek, F., R. Cox, F. Kaashoek, and R. Morris. 2004. “Vivaldi: A Decentralized Network Coordinate System.” ACM
SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review 34 (4): 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1145/1030194.1015471.
Dodge, Martin, and Rob Kitchin. 2000. Mapping Cyberspace. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203279731.
Fabrikant, S. I., D. R. Montello, M. Ruocco, and R. S. Middleton. 2004. “The Distance–Similarity Metaphor in
Network-Display Spatializations.” Cartography and Geographic Information Science 31 (4): 237–252. https://doi.
org/10.1559/1523040042742402.
Fang, B. X. 2018. “Define Cyberspace Security.” Chinese Journal of Network and Information Security 4 (1): 1–5.
Francis, P., S. Jamin, C. Jin, Y. Jin, D. Raz, Y. Shavitt, and L. Zhang. 2001. “IDMaps: A Global Internet Host Distance
Estimation Service.” IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 9 (5): 525–540. https://doi.org/10.1109/90.958323.
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF DIGITAL EARTH 25

Gao, J., and X. Cao. 2021. “The new Development Direction of Cartography Promoted by Spatial Cognition.” Acta
Geodaetica et Cartographica Sinica 50 (6): 711–725. https://doi.org/10.11947/j.AGCS.2021.20210043.
Gao, C., Q. Guo, D. Jiang, Z. Wang, C. Fang, and M. Hao. 2019. “Theoretical Basis and Technical Methods of
Cyberspace Geography.” Journal of Geographical Science 29 (12): 1949–1964. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11442-
019-1698-7.
Gonçalves, C. P. 2019. “Cyberspace and Artificial Intelligence: The new Face of Cyber-Enhanced Hybrid Threats.”
Cyberspace, IntechOpen, https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.88648.
Guo, R., Y. Chen, S. Ying, G. Lü, and Z. Li. 2018. “Geographic Visualization of pan-map with the Context of Ternary
Spaces.” Geomatics and Information Science of Wuhan University 43 (11): 1603–1610. https://doi.org/10.13203/j.
whugis20180373.
Guo, R., Y. Chen, Z. Zhao, D. Han, D. Ma, S. Ying, P. Ti, W. Ke, and Y. Fan. 2022. “Scientific Concept and
Representation Framework of Maps in the ICT era.” Geomatics and Information Science of Wuhan University
47 (12): 1978–1987. https://doi.org/10.13203/j.whugis20220534.
Guo, Q. Q., C. D. Gao, K. F. Sun, S. Chen, D. Jiang, and M. M. Hao. 2021. “The Construction of Cyberspace Elements
Hierarchical System Based on man-Land-Network Relationship.” Geographic Research 40 (1): 109–118. https://
doi.org/10.11821/dlyj020200867.
Han, S. Y., M. H. Tsou, and K. C. Clarke. 2018. “Revisiting the Death of Geography in the era of Big Data: The
Friction of Distance in Cyberspace and Real Space.” International Journal of Digital Earth 11 (5): 451–469.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2017.1330366.
Hartford, B. S. 1987. “Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind.” Studies in
Second Language Acquisition 11 (4): 462–464. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263100008469.
He, Y., B. Hofer, Y. Sheng, Y. Yin, and H. Lin. 2023. “Processes and Events in the Center: A Taxi Trajectory-Based
Approach to Detecting Traffic Congestion and Analyzing its Causes.” International Journal of Digital Earth 16 (1):
509–531. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2023.2182374.
Hu, T., J. Luo, and W. Liu. 2018. “Life in the “Matrix”: Human Mobility Patterns in the Cyber Space.” Proceedings of
the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 12 (1), https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v12i1.15000.
Ji, S., S. Pan, E. Cambria, P. Marttinen, and S. Y. Philip. 2022. “A Survey on Knowledge Graphs: Representation,
Acquisition, and Applications.” IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks and Learning Systems 33 (2): 494–514.
https://doi.org/10.1109/TNNLS.2021.3070843.
Klippel, A., P. Sajjadi, J. Zhao, J. O. Wallgrün, J. Huang, and M. M. Bagher. 2021. “Embodied Digital Twins for
Environmental Applications.” ISPRS Annals of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information
Sciences 4: 193–200. https://doi.org/10.5194/isprs-annals-V-4-2021-193-2021.
Kwan, M. P. 2015. “Cyberspatial Cognition and Individual Access to Information: The Behavioral Foundation of
Cybergeography.” Environment & Planning B: Planning & Design 28 (1): 21–37. https://doi.org/10.1068/b2560.
Lin, H., and M. Chen. 2015. “Managing and Sharing Geographic Knowledge in Virtual Geographic Environments
(VGEs).” Annals of GIS 21 (4): 261–263. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475683.2015.1099568.
Lin, H., M. Chen, and G. Lu. 2013. “Virtual Geographic Environment: A Workspace for Computer-Aided
Geographic Experiments.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 103 (3): 465–482. https://doi.org/
10.1080/00045608.2012.689234.
Lin, H., M. Chen, G. Lu, Q. Zhu, J. Gong, X. You, Y. Wen, B. Xu, and M. Hu. 2013. “Virtual Geographic
Environments (VGEs): A new Generation of Geographic Analysis Tool.” Earth-Science Reviews 126: 74–84.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2013.08.001.
Lin, H., Q. Zhu, and M. Chen. 2018. “The Being and non-Being Generate Each Other, and the Virtual and the Real are
Mutually Interactive-the Progress of Virtual Geographic Environments (VGE) Studies in Last 20 Years.” Acta
Geodaetica et Cartographica Sinica 47 (8): 1027–1030. https://doi.org/10.11947/j.AGCS.2018.20180202.
Liu, X., M. Chen, C. Claramunt, M. Batty, M. P. Kwan, A. M. Senousi, G. Lü, et al. 2022. “Geographic Information
Science in the era of Geospatial big Data: A Cyberspace Perspective.” The Innovation 3 (5): 100279. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.xinn.2022.100279.
Liu, H., R. Zhang, J. Liu, and M. Zhang. 2016. “Time Synchronization in Communication Networks Based on the
Beidou Foundation Enhancement System.” Science China Technological Sciences 59 (1): 9–15. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11431-015-5974-1.
Lü, G., M. Batty, J. Strobl, H. Lin, A. X. Zhu, and M. Chen. 2019. “Reflections and Speculations on the Progress in
Geographic Information Systems (GIS): A Geographic Perspective.” International Journal of Geographic
Information Science 33 (2): 346–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/13658816.2018.1533136.
Lü, G., M. Chen, L. Yuan, L. Zhou, Y. Wen, M. Wu, B. Hu, Z. Yu, S. Yue, and Y. Sheng. 2018. “Geographic Scenario: A
Possible Foundation for Further Development of Virtual Geographic Environments.” International Journal of
Digital Earth 11 (4): 356–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2017.1374477.
Ma, C. X., J. C. Song, Q. Zhu, K. Maher, Z. Y. Huang, and H. A. Wang. 2020. “EmotionMap: Visual Analysis of Video
Emotional Content on a map.” Journal of Computer Science and Technology 35 (3): 576–591. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s11390-020-0271-2.
26 B. JIANG ET AL.

MacEachren, A. M., R. Edsall, D. Haug, R. Baxter, G. Otto, R. Masters, S. Fuhrmann, and L. Qian. 1999. “Virtual
Environments for Geographic Visualization: Potential and Challenges.” In: Proceedings of the 1999 Workshop
on New Paradigms in Information Visualization and Manipulation in Conjunction with the Eighth ACM
International Conference on Information and Knowledge Management, November 1999, 35–40. https://doi.org/
10.1145/331770.331781.
Mao, Y., L. K. Saul, and J. M. Smith. 2006. “IDES: An Internet Distance Estimation Service for Large Network.” IEEE
Journal on Selected Areas in Communications 24 (12): 2273–2284. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSAC.2006.884026.
Mekni, M. 2018. “Spatial Simulation Using Abstraction of Virtual Geographic Environments.” International Journal
of Digital Earth 11 (4): 334–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/17538947.2017.1381190.
Mohebbi, S., Q. Zhang, E. C. Wells, T. Zhao, H. Nguyen, M. Li, N. Abdel-Mottaleb, et al. 2020. “Cyber-physical-social
Interdependencies and Organizational Resilience: A Review of Water, Transportation, and Cyber Infrastructure
Systems and Processes.” Sustainable Cities and Society 62: 102327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2020.102327.
Ng, T. E., and H. Zhang. 2002. “Predicting Internet Network Distances with Coordinate-Based Approaches.” In
Proceedings of Twenty-First Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE Computer and Communications Societies,
New York, USA, 1: 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1109/INFCOM.2002.1019258.
Skupin, A. 2000. “From Metaphor to Method: Cartographic Perspectives on Information Visualization.” In IEEE
Symposium on Information Visualization, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 91–97. https://doi.org/10.1109/INFVIS.
2000.885095.
Taylor, D. R. F. 2014. Developments in the Theory and Practice of Cybercartography: Applications and Indigenous
Mapping. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Theilmann, W., and K. Rothermel. 1999. “Dynamic Distance Maps of the Internet.” In Proceedings of the IEEE
INFOCOM 2000. Conference on Computer Communications. Nineteenth Annual Joint Conference of the IEEE
Computer and Communications Societies, Tel Aviv, Israel, 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1109/INFCOM.2000.
832197.
Wijayawardena, A. S., R. Abeysekera, and M. W. Maduranga. 2023. “A Systematic Review of 3D Metaphoric
Information Visualization.” International Journal of Modern Education and Computer Science 15 (1): 73–93.
https://doi.org/10.5815/ijmecs.2023.01.06.
Xin, R., T. Ai, and B. Ai. 2018. “Metaphor Representation and Analysis of non-Spatial Data in map-Like
Visualizations.” ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 7 (6): 225. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi7060225.
Xin, R., T. Ai, R. Zhu, B. Ai, M. Yang, and L. Meng. 2021. “A Multi-Scale Virtual Terrain for Hierarchically Structured
non-Location Data.” ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information 10 (6): 379. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijgi10060379.
Yu, D., L. Tang, F. Ye, and C. Chen. 2021. “A Virtual Geographic Environment for Dynamic Simulation and Analysis
of Tailings dam Failure.” International Journal of Digital Earth 14 (9): 1194–1212. https://doi.org/10.1080/
17538947.2021.1945151.