Reflection and Conclusions
📊 Research Findings and Methodology Insights
Street Renamings in Riga: Analysis and Perspectives
The majority of renamings occurred during two distinct periods driven by political change:
Early 1990s: Post-Independence Decommunization
- Trigger: Latvia's regained independence
- Goal: Removing Soviet-era names from public spaces
- Scope: Comprehensive elimination of ideological symbols
Early 2020s: Response to Ukrainian War
- Trigger: Russia's war in Ukraine
- Goal: Distancing public space from Russian cultural influence
- Impact: Renewed focus on symbolic politics
Key Insight: Street naming is not a neutral administrative process but one fundamentally shaped by geopolitics and ideology.
High Activity Districts:
- Centrs and Vecrīga: Maximum concentration of renamings
- Characteristics: Hold the most symbolic and administrative weight in the city
- Visibility: High political and cultural importance
Low Activity Districts:
- Peripheral areas: Experienced far fewer changes
- Explanation: Lower symbolic visibility and cultural significance
Pattern: Political visibility and cultural importance heavily influenced where renamings took place.
Primary Historical Triggers:
- Decommunization: Removal of Soviet-era references
- De-Russification: Elimination of Russian cultural influences
Emerging Contemporary Trends:
- Cultural representation: Increasing diversity in honored figures
- Gender balance: More inclusive approach to public memory
- Broader scope: Moving beyond purely political motivations
Significance: Shows evolution toward more inclusive approach to public memory in recent years.
Thematic Focus of New Names:
- Latvian poets: Cultural literary heritage
- Activists: Historical resistance figures
- Cultural figures: National artistic and intellectual leaders
Strategic Purpose: Conscious effort to reclaim national history and values in the built environment.
Information on pre-2000s name changes often missing. Limited machine-readable formats for historical records. Digital age bias in available documentation.
Multiple formats: Different data presentation across sources.
Unclear reasoning: Ambiguous explanations for name changes.
Name ambiguity: Difficulty determining accurate old and new names.
Manual processing: Required significant human intervention for data cleaning.
• GEO RĪGA open data
• Valsts Zemes Dienests official records
• Various municipal archives
Core Problem: Not lack of data itself, but inconsistent initial approaches to data collection and presentation.
Clear field definitions: Standardized data entry categories
Limited input types: Restricted formats to ensure consistency
Strict data validation: Automated checking for completeness and accuracy
Controlled editing: Prevent participants from seeing/editing others' entries
Reliability protection: Maintain neutrality and accuracy in crowdsourcing initiatives
Systematic review: Regular validation of submitted information
1. Openness: Public accessibility of research data
2. Standardization: Consistent formatting and categorization
3. Documentation: Clear metadata and source tracking
4. Validation: Multiple verification steps for accuracy
Methodological Contributions
Digital Humanities Insights: Digital methods and visualization significantly enrich humanities research. High level of preparation required for data-driven projects. Careful data management essential for meaningful results. Constant critical reflection necessary throughout process.
Broader Applications
Research Value: Our experience provides a useful foundation for future studies of urban memory and identity, symbolic politics in public spaces, digital approaches to toponymic research, historical analysis through spatial data.
Final Reflection: This project demonstrates that while digital tools offer powerful new ways to analyze urban memory and identity, they require rigorous methodological preparation and ongoing critical evaluation. The intersection of data science and humanities research opens new possibilities for understanding how cities construct and reconstruct their symbolic landscapes, but success depends on careful attention to data quality, analytical rigor, and interpretive nuance.
First, the majority of renamings occurred during two major periods: the early 1990s, following Latvia’s regained independence, and the early 2020s, in response to Russia’s war in Ukraine. Both waves were driven by political realignment — the first aimed at removing Soviet-era names, and the second at distancing public space from Russian cultural influence. These patterns show that street naming is not a neutral process but one shaped by geopolitics and ideology.
Second, we found that renamings were highly concentrated in central districts like Centrs and Vecrīga, which hold the most symbolic and administrative weight in the city. Peripheral districts experienced far fewer changes, suggesting that political visibility and cultural importance heavily influenced where renamings took place.
Third, the most common triggers behind renamings were decommunization and de-Russification. However, a growing number of names were introduced to increase cultural representation and gender balance, indicating a broader and more inclusive approach to public memory in recent years.
Finally, our thematic analysis showed that most new street names honor Latvian poets, activists, and cultural figures — a conscious effort to reclaim national history and values in the built environment.
While working on our project, we encountered a number of challenges typical for digital humanities research, especially when it comes to working with incomplete, fragmented and historically uneven data sets. Although we relied on official sources such as open data from GEO RĪGA and Valsts Zemes Dienests, we found that information on name changes before the digital age (before the 2000s) was often either missing or not presented in a machine-readable form.
One of the key challenges was the lack of systematization in the sources: different data formats, unclear reasons for name changes, ambiguity in determining the old and new names. This made analysis and visualization difficult and required manual processing of a significant amount of information. We are confident that the reason lies not in the lack of data as such, but in the initially inconsistent approach to their collection and presentation.
Based on this experience, we propose developing more sustainable practices for future projects related to street toponymy and the history of urban memory. We believe that when creating such databases, it is important not only to be open, but also to be strict in the input structure: fields should be clearly defined, and input should be limited in data types and formats. It is also important to avoid situations in which different participants see or edit other people’s entries, especially in crowdsourcing initiatives – this can affect the reliability and neutrality of the information.
Our project has shown that digital methods and visualization can significantly enrich humanities research, but they require a high level of preparation, careful data management and constant critical reflection. We hope that our experience will become a useful resource and starting point for those who also study urban memory, identity and symbolism through data.