Volume 19 • No.

1 • 2007
Journal of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association

Contents

Refereed
5 Using GIS to Measure the Effect of Overlapping Service Areas on Passenger
Boardings at Bus Stops
Thomas J. Kimpel, Kenneth J. Dueker, and Ahmed M. El-Geneidy

13 Teaching by Doing: PPGIS and Classroom-Based Service Learning

Marc Schlossberg and Darren Wyss

23 Worldwide Impact Assessment of Spatial Data Clearinghouses

Joep Crompvoets, Floris de Bree, Pepijn van Oort, Arnold Bregt, Monica Wachowicz,
Abbas Rajabifard, and Ian Williamson

33 From Text to Geographic Coordinates: The Current State of Geocoding

Daniel W. Goldberg, John P. Wilson, and Craig A. Knoblock

47 Analyzing the Usability of an Argumentation Map as a Participatory Spatial

Decision Support Tool
Christopher L. Sidlar and Claus Rinner

On the Cover:
Millions of people depend on buses for their professional and personal livelihood.
For many urban and suburban residents they are the only option for those who
sit outside the straining grasp of commuter rail transportation. Buses go where
other forms of public transportation are unable to go. They carefully twist and
wind their way through narrow streets and around unforgiving corners. Whatever
the fee, their thankless goal remains the same: deliver human cargo safe, sound,
and on schedule.

There are few worse feelings than missing the bus. A bus only waits so long before
it must lurch back into traffic carrying another load of weary passengers on its
back. Whoever is left at the stop must sit, wait, and contemplate where things
went wrong. The bus then rejoins the commute only to frustrate motorists who
lack the patience for these vehicular beasts of burden. The life of a bus is lumber, stop, idle, start, all the while being
brayed at by rush hour traffic. What if there was a better way?

An article by Thomas J. Kimpel, Kenneth J. Dueker, and Ahmed M. El-Geneidy entitled Using GIS to Measure the
Effect of Overlapping Service Areas on Passenger Boardings at Bus Stops examines common route problems. The article
examines the potential overlap in walking service areas on the demand for bus transit using a geographic information
system. The results could lead to better stop placement and more reliable commutes in metropolitan areas. The days of
sprinting to catch the bus could be over. Routes will be better structured and based on real, not perceived, population
distribution. Technology will help usher in a new era of efficiency.

Hail to the bus driver.

 Journal

Publisher: Urban and Regional Information Systems Association

Editor-in-Chief: Jochen Albrecht

Journal Coordinator: Scott A. Grams

Electronic Journal: http://www.urisa.org/journal.htm

EDITORIAL OFFICE: Urban and Regional Information Systems Association, 1460 Renaissance Drive, Suite 305, Park Ridge, Illinois 60068-1348;
Voice (847) 824-6300; Fax (847) 824-6363; E-mail info@urisa.org.

SUBMISSIONS: This publication accepts from authors an exclusive right of first publication to their article plus an accompanying grant of non-
exclusive full rights. The publisher requires that full credit for first publication in the URISA Journal is provided in any subsequent electronic or
print publications. For more information, the “Manuscript Submission Guidelines for Refereed Articles” is available on our website, www.urisa.
org, or by calling (847) 824-6300.

SUBSCRIPTION AND ADVERTISING: All correspondence about advertising, subscriptions, and URISA memberships should be directed to:
Urban and Regional Information Systems Association, 1460 Renaissance Dr., Suite 305, Park Ridge, Illinois, 60068-1348; Voice (847) 824-6300;
Fax (847) 824-6363; E-mail info@urisa.org.

URISA Journal is published two times a year by the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association.

© 2007 by the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal
or personal use of specific clients, is granted by permission of the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association.

Educational programs planned and presented by URISA provide attendees with relevant and rewarding continuing education experience. However,
neither the content (whether written or oral) of any course, seminar, or other presentation, nor the use of a specific product in conjunction there-
with, nor the exhibition of any materials by any party coincident with the educational event, should be construed as indicating endorsement or
approval of the views presented, the products used, or the materials exhibited by URISA, or by its committees, Special Interest Groups, Chapters,
or other commissions.

SUBSCRIPTION RATE: One year: $295 business, libraries, government agencies, and public institutions. Individuals interested in subscriptions
should contact URISA for membership information.

US ISSN 1045-8077

 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007

Editors and Review Board
URISA Journal Editor
Editor-in-Chief
Jochen Albrecht, Department of
Geography, Hunter College City University
of New York
Thematic Editors
Editor-Urban and Regional Information
Science
Vacant
Editor-Applications Research
Lyna Wiggins, Department of Planning,
Rutgers University
Editor-Social, Organizational, Legal,
and Economic Sciences
Ian Masser, Department of Urban Planning
and Management, ITC (Netherlands)
Editor-Geographic Information Science
Mark Harrower, Department of Geography,
University of Wisconsin Madison
Editor-Information and Media Sciences
Michael Shiffer, Department of Planning,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Editor-Spatial Data Acquisition and
Integration
Gary Hunter, Department of Geomatics,
University of Melbourne (Australia)
Editor-Geography, Cartography, and
Cognitive Science
Vacant
Editor-Education
Karen Kemp, Director, International Masters
Program in GIS, University of Redlands
Section Editors
Software Review Editor
Jay Lee, Department of Geography, Kent State
University
Book Review Editor
David Tulloch, Department of Landscape
Architecture, Rutgers University
URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007 
Article Review Board
Peggy Agouris, Department of Spatial Information
Science and Engineering, University of Maine
Grenville Barnes, Geomatics Program, University
of Florida
Michael Batty, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis,
University College London (United Kingdom)
Kate Beard, Department of Spatial
Information Science and Engineering,
University of Maine
Yvan Bédard, Centre for Research in Geomatics,
Laval University (Canada) 
Barbara P. Buttenfield, Department of
Geography, University of Colorado
Keith C. Clarke, Department of Geography,
University of California-Santa Barbara
David Coleman, Department of Geodesy and
Geomatics Engineering, University of New
Brunswick (Canada)
David J. Cowen, Department of Geography,
University of South Carolina
Massimo Craglia, Department of Town &
Regional Planning, University of Sheffield
(United Kingdom)
William J. Craig, Center for Urban and
Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota
Robert G. Cromley, Department of Geography,
University of Connecticut
Kenneth J. Dueker, Urban Studies and
Planning, Portland State University
Geoffrey Dutton, Spatial Effects
Max J. Egenhofer, Department of Spatial Information
Science and Engineering, University of Maine
Manfred Ehlers, Research Center for
Geoinformatics and Remote Sensing, University of
Osnabrueck (Germany)
Manfred M. Fischer, Economics, Geography &
Geoinformatics, Vienna University of Economics
and Business Administration (Austria)
Myke Gluck, Department of Math and
Computer Science, Virginia Military Institute
Michael Goodchild, Department of Geography,
University of California-Santa Barbara
Michael Gould, Department of Information
Systems Universitat Jaume I (Spain)
Daniel A. Griffith, Department of Geography,
Syracuse University
Francis J. Harvey, Department of Geography,
University of Minnesota
Kingsley E. Haynes, Public Policy and
Geography, George Mason University
Eric J. Heikkila, School of Policy, Planning, and
Development, University of Southern California
Stephen C. Hirtle, Department of Information
Science and Telecommunications, University of
Pittsburgh
Gary Jeffress, Department of Geographical
Information Science, Texas A&M University-
Corpus Christi
Richard E. Klosterman, Department of
Geography and Planning, University of Akron
Robert Laurini, Claude Bernard University of
Lyon (France)
Thomas M. Lillesand, Environmental
Remote Sensing Center, University of Wisconsin-
Madison
Paul Longley, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis,
University College, London (United Kingdom)
Xavier R. Lopez, Oracle Corporation
David Maguire, Environmental Systems Research
Institute
Harvey J. Miller, Department of Geography,
University of Utah
Zorica Nedovic-Budic, Department of Urban
and Regional Planning,University of Illinois-
Champaign/Urbana
Atsuyuki Okabe, Department of Urban
Engineering, University of Tokyo (Japan)
Harlan Onsrud, Spatial Information Science
and Engineering, University of Maine
Jeffrey K. Pinto, School of Business, Penn State Erie
Gerard Rushton, Department of Geography,
University of Iowa
Jie Shan, School of Civil Engineering,
Purdue University
Bruce D. Spear, Federal Highway Administration
Jonathan Sperling, Policy Development &
Research, U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development
David J. Unwin, School of Geography, Birkbeck
College, London (United Kingdom)
Stephen J. Ventura, Department of
Environmental Studies and Soil Science,
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Nancy von Meyer, Fairview Industries
Barry Wellar, Department of Geography,
University of Ottawa (Canada)
Michael F. Worboys, Department of Computer
Science, Keele University (United Kingdom)
F. Benjamin Zhan, Department of Geography,
Texas State University-San Marcos
 View your GIS world
from a different angle

The world of GIS is changing—adding a new perspective with

oblique imaging and measuring software. As the world leader in
oblique (at an angle, 3D-like) aerial imaging software solutions,
Pictometry can enhance, enrich, and expand the functionality
of your existing ESRI products by integrating oblique imaging
capabilities. Pictometry Solutions for ESRI include:

• ArcGIS Extension • Coordinate Pass-

• ArcIMS Integration through Capabilities
• ArcSDE Database Support • 3D Modeling

Call today to ask how you can See Everywhere, Measure Anything,
and Plan Everything™ from an oblique point of view.

Pictometry in ArcMap lets you configure the

image layout you need. View and measure on
www.pictometry.com 1-888-771-9714 a single oblique or inspect multiple directions
simultaneously.

FutureView 2007 • October 28-31 • Lake Buena Vista, FL • www.pictometry.com/futureview

The world’s only conference dedicated to oblique aerial imaging technology.
ArcGIS, ArcIMS, ArcMap, ArcSDE, and ESRI are trademarks, registered trademarks, or service marks of ESRI in the United States, the European Community, or certain other jurisdictions.
 Using GIS to Measure the Effect of Overlapping Service
Areas on Passenger Boardings at Bus Stops
Thomas J. Kimpel, Kenneth J. Dueker, and Ahmed M. El-Geneidy

Abstract: This study examines the effects of overlapping walking service areas of bus stops on the demand for bus transit. This
requires controlling for variation in potential transit demand as measured by the number of dwelling units and their loca-
tions. A model of passenger boardings for the morning peak hour of service is estimated. Boardings are modeled as a function
of potential transit demand at the level of the individual bus stop. To address overlapping bus stop service areas, a geographic
information system is used to measure the accessibility of each parcel to each bus stop relative to other accessible stops. A distance
decay function is empirically estimated and used to calculate walking accessibility from dwelling units to bus stops. This stop-
level boarding model is an improvement over methods in which ridership is typically related to potential transit demand using
one-quarter-mile service areas under the assumption of uniform density of demand, often with little or no consideration given
to double counting.

INTRODUCTION is related to potential transit demand by 1) intersecting census

This study examines the effects of overlapping bus stop service
areas on the demand for transit at the bus stop level. Potential
transit demand is measured at the most disaggregate level, in terms
of the number of dwelling units per parcel of land. Transit supply
is measured spatially at the individual bus stop, and temporally
for the morning peak hour of service. A GIS-based approach is
used to measure accessibility of dwellings at the parcel level to
the nearest bus stop. The distance decay parameters of the acces-
sibility function are empirically derived by varying intercept and
slope values systematically using ordinary least-squares regression.
Demand at the bus stop level, as measured by average morning
peak hour boardings, is related by regression to a measure of ac-
cessibility-weighted dwelling units that controls for competing
bus stops.
This examination of walking distance to bus stops focuses
on potential transit demand from a residential standpoint using a
measure of integral accessibility (Makri and Folkesson 1999, Song
1996). The study focuses on inbound radial routes in the morn-
ing peak time period serving close-in urban neighborhoods—a
route type, service direction, and time period in which demand
is primarily associated with residential boardings.
A one-quarter-mile walking distance is a well-known rule of
thumb in transit service planning. In most instances, bus stops
are spaced closer than a quarter mile, creating overlapping bus
stop service areas on the same route. In many areas, parallel bus
routes are spaced at distances less than one-half mile, creating
overlapping service areas between routes that often operate at
different service frequencies. To control for these overlapping
service areas, a geographic information system (GIS) is used to
measure the accessibility of each parcel to bus stops within walk-
ing distance and the integral accessibility of each bus stop to
dwelling units within walking distance to the stop. Deriving and
including distance decay parameters in the accessibility measure
is an improvement over traditional methods in which ridership
block groups with bus stop buffers and using areal interpolation to
calculate population or 2) counting the number of housing units
within stop buffers. These methods are based on the questionable
assumption of uniform density of demand to allocate population
or housing units to transit service areas. The approach used in
this study disaggregates potential transit demand to the stop level
and relates it to actual morning peak hour bus boardings at each
bus stop although the data are aggregated to average boardings
per trip in the morning peak hour.
BACKGROUND
A review of the existing literature shows that stop-level transit
demand is modeled from a spatial standpoint. Miller and Shaw
(2003) stress the need for understanding the underlying spatial
assumptions as they relate to GIS transportation analysis. A
number of researchers have empirically analyzed walking dis-
tance to transit stops (Neilson and Fowler 1972, Levinson and
Brown-West 1984, Hsiao et al. 1997, Zhao et al. 2003) based
on information derived from passenger surveys. These studies
found that the relationship between transit demand and walk-
ing distance is expressed as a negative exponential distance decay
function. The findings from these studies suggest 1) that passenger
demand decreases with respect to walking distance to stops and
2) that a one-quarter-mile bus stop service area will not capture
all potential transit users while a larger service area will result in
an overestimation of the number of potential riders if distance
decay is not explicitly addressed.
GIS techniques have been used to relax the assumption of
uniform density to prorate potential transit demand to transit
service area buffers (Peng and Dueker 1998). Instead of uniform
density, O’Neill et al. (1992) used street density, while Zhao
(1998) used dwelling units from a parcel database as the basis for
assignment. Also, Zhao addressed barriers to walking and used
network distance rather than straight-line distance to define transit

URISA Journal • Kimpel, Dueker, El-Geneidy 

service areas around bus stops. While these GIS approaches serve
to more accurately measure potential transit demand, they are not
related to actual transit ridership.
Rather than using ridership data based on passenger surveys,
econometric models typically use a sampling of actual passenger
boardings. Most previous studies seeking to explain the determi-
nants of transit demand have been conducted at either the route
(Kemp 1981, Horowitz 1984, Azar and Ferreira 1994, Hartgen
and Horner 1997) or route-segment (Peng and Dueker 1995,
Kimpel 2001) levels. Stop-level transit demand has been discussed
in the literature as being the most appropriate level of analysis
(Peng and Dueker 1995, Kimpel 2001, Furth et al. 2003), and
implemented in T-BEST (Chu, 2004). The use of automatic pas-
senger counters at transit agencies increasingly supports this type
of modeling because an abundance of high- quality ridership data
can be collected at relatively low cost. (see Furth et al. [2003] for
a discussion of transit data collection technologies).
Bus stops are typically located and spaced according to a transit
agency’s service standards. Ammons (2001) looked at bus stop
spacing standards for a number of transit properties and found that
stop spacing typically ranges from 656 to 1,968 feet in urban areas.
Such small distances between stops leads to overlapping bus stop
service areas on the same route as well as with stops on adjacent
routes serving similar destinations. In prior research, competition
for choice riders was addressed at the route-segment level by Peng
and Dueker (1995) and Kimpel (2001) through different means.
In the former study, competition was addressed in the modeling
stage using an explanatory variable based on the percent area of a
buffer subject to overlap. In the latter study, competition was ad-
dressed during the data-processing stage by proportionally assign-
ing potential demand in overlapping service areas using secondary
information derived from disaggregate data (tax parcel value) as
the basis for allocation. One of the primary reasons that stop-level
demand models are lacking is because of the exceedingly complex
difficulties associated with allocating potential transit demand in
overlapping transit service areas to specific stops. Although the use
of a GIS to solve problems related to transit accessibility is now
fairly common, only a few researchers have adequately addressed
overlapping service areas in a manner consistent with theory and
only at spatial levels higher than the level of the bus stop. Also
notable is that none of the econometric studies have addressed the
issue of distance decay but instead have relied on the assumption
of a uniform density of demand within transit service areas. In the
present analysis, rather than using an arbitrary one-quarter-mile
service area buffer, we use an initial distance of one-third mile and
then apply a distance decay function that is presented in more detail
later. We utilize a network-based method for determining transit
service areas using a GIS and undertake an analysis that addresses
overlapping service areas through measurement of integral acces-
sibility at the tax parcel level.
Accessibility is a measure of potential opportunities for
interaction (Hansen 1959). While accessibility can be calculated
in various ways, the gravity-based measure of accessibility is the
most widely used measure in planning studies (Handy and Nie-
 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007
meier 1997). The relative accessibility to transit service using a
gravity-based measure is obtained by weighting opportunities of
attraction for transit users (e.g., service frequency) and discounting
this attraction by a negative exponential or a Gaussian impedance
measure based on distance. In this analysis, we use integral acces-
sibility to transit to address the overlap in service areas. Integral
accessibility is the sum of relative accessibility over all possible
destinations divided by the total attraction of the bus stop being
studied (Song 1996).
In addition to issues of overlapping service areas and distance
decay in stop-level demand modeling, a third issue concerns ser-
vice quantity. Besides spatial proximity to bus stops, passengers are
also concerned with the availability of service across the temporal
dimension (Kittelson and Associates 2003) because it influences
wait times at transit stops. A measure of service quantity such as
the number of buses per hour passing a given location is needed
to capture any variation in the level of service between stops on
the same route as well as between stops on competing routes. In
the former case, certain bus stops will have higher service levels
compared to others because of varying service patterns (e.g., regu-
lar, limited, and express service). In the case of overlapping bus
stop service areas on different routes serving the same destination,
choice riders would most likely walk to the bus stop associated
with the greater service frequency certis paribus. The review of the
literature shows the strength of GIS-based methods, the need for
a distance decay-weighted measure of potential transit demand
at the bus stop level, and the need to relate demand to automatic
passenger counter–generated passenger boardings. This research
builds on these developments and estimates a descriptive model at
the disaggregate level—passenger boardings at bus stops averaged
over all trips in the morning peak hour. This is similar to planning
models such as T-BEST, which is a stop-level model that also
aggregates trips to time periods and identifies potential demand
using a buffering technique, but does not address distance decay.
Our parcel-based accessibility measure incorporates the size effect
(number of housing units), the likelihood of waiting at a bus stop
(scheduled headway), and a distance decay function.
STUDY DESCRIPTION
The study uses data from three sources. TriMet, the regional
transit provider for the Portland metropolitan region has auto-
matic vehicle location (AVL) and automatic passenger counter
(APC) technologies on most of the fixed-route bus fleet collecting
boarding and alighting information as well as service reliability
information at each bus stop. Metro, the regional transportation
and land-use planning organization, distributes GIS data for bus
stops, bus routes, and tax parcels on a quarterly basis as part of
the Regional Land Information System. The Multnomah County
tax assessment database was used to obtain information on the
number of units associated with multifamily parcels.
Boardings associated with the morning peak hour of service
(7:30 A.M. to 8:30 A.M.) for two routes for 69 stops were ob-
tained from TriMet. The routes of interest are the 14 Hawthorne
and the 15 Belmont, two radial routes connecting southeast
Figure 1. Study area
Portland with the Central Business District. The study area en-
compasses an inner-city area that is well served by bus transit that
is well patronized. Nine months of data associated with weekday
service yielded approximately 126,000 data points. The study
stops were limited to those located between I-205 and S.E. 12th
Avenue. Stops that could attract patronage from other sources
such as transfer and park-and-ride locations rather than the sur-
rounding neighborhoods were eliminated from consideration.
The study area and the bus stop service areas within one-
third-mile walking distance along the street network are presented
in Figure 1. Note the prevalence of overlapping bus stop service
areas on the same route as well as between routes. The distribution
of dwelling units associated with parcels in relation to three bus
stops is presented in Figure 2. The different colored areas represent
locations where parcels have access to one or more stops.
Distance Decay Function
Zhao et al. (2003) fit a negative exponential function to survey
data of walking distance to transit stops. Others use an arbitrary
one-quarter-mile service area buffer, in which the probability
of demand falls from one to zero at exactly a one-quarter-mile
distance. Similar to Vuchic (2005), we posit something in
between—that a negative logistic function of the form exp(a
– bdij)/(1+exp(a – bdij)) is better suited for distance decay of
transit demand to reflect a more gradual decline in transit demand
at short distances, a steeper decline as distance approaches one-
quarter mile, and a more gradual tail. We estimated the distance
decay function by empirically analyzing multiple sets of intercept
(a) and slope (b) parameters in a series of ordinary least-squares
regression models of transit demand allowing us to identify the
parameter set that maximizes goodness of fit. The estimation of
the distance decay function utilized distance to the nearest stop
and does not include accessibility to more than one stop. The
following model specification was used to empirically derive the
parameters:
URISA Journal • Kimpel, Dueker, El-Geneidy 
Figure 2. Overlapping bus stop service areas
ONSXj = f {DWDUj}
(1)
where:
ONSXj = average passenger boardings per trip at stop j in the
morning peak hour over all days;
DWDUj = ∑i (exp(a – bdij)/(1+exp(a – bdij)) * DUi) = the sum
of distance-weighted dwelling units associated with stop j ex-
pressed as a probability using a negative logistic distance decay
function;
where:
dij = on-street distance in miles from parcel i to stop j; and
DUi = dwelling units at parcel i.
The estimated probabilities for several of the logistic func-
tions exp(a – bd), Zhao et al.’s exponential function exp(-6.864d),
and the uniform density of demand assumption (UDD) where p
= 1 for d <= 0.25 miles and p = 0 for d > 0.25 miles are shown in
Table 1. Figure 3 shows this information graphically.
Parameters a = 2 and b = 15 were selected as the best repre-
sentation of distance decay using the negative logistic function
since this particular model provided the best fit of the data. This
parameter set depicts a steep distance decay prior to one-quarter
mile. At short distances the probability of taking the bus is high,
while at distances approaching one-quarter mile the probability
is low.
Our approach to estimating the walking distance decay func-
tion is indirect. The direct approach requires information about
where each transit rider lives and which particular stop he or she
accesses. This knowledge is often gained by means of an onboard
survey of transit riders; however, this technique normally yields
sample sizes that are too small for subsystem analyses (e.g., stop,
corridor, or route level). Instead, our indirect approach involves
Table 1. Estimated Probabilities for Various Distance Decay Functions
Negative Negative Uniform
Logistic Exponential Density
Parameters/
5-23d 4-21d 3-22d 2-22d 2-15d -6.864d UDD
Distance
d = 0.10 mile 0.9370 0.8699 0.6900 0.4502 0.6225 0.5034 1.0000
d = 0.20 mile 0.5987 0.4502 0.1978 0.0832 0.2689 0.2534 1.0000
d = 0.25 mile 0.3208 0.2227 0.0759 0.0293 0.1480 0.1798 1.0000
d = 0.30 mile 0.1301 0.0911 0.0266 0.0100 0.0759 0.1276 0.0000
d = 0.40 mile 0.0148 0.0121 0.0030 0.0011 0.0180 0.0642 0.0000

in GIS-based analysis of transit demand. Although people can

walk that distance, most transit riders do not. Thus, a quarter-mile
transit buffer overestimates the population thought to be served
by transit and lends support for bus stop spacing standards that
call for relatively short distances between stops.

Accessibility-Weighted
Demand Model
With the empirically estimated parameters for distance decay,
another demand model is estimated for the case of overlapping
bus stop service areas using a measure of integral accessibility.
The average number of passenger boardings per trip per bus
stop during the morning peak hour is modeled as a function of
potential transit demand at the level of the individual bus stop
controlling for overlapping bus stop service areas. Our model
controls for variation in potential transit demand as measured
by the number of dwelling units and their location (by distance
from all bus stops within walking access) as well as the amount of
scheduled service provided at stops. The following specification
was used for the model:

ONSXj = f {AWDUj} (2)

Figure 3. Estimated demand probabilities where:

estimating the distance decay function parameters by relating ac-
tual boardings to distance-weighted dwelling units by means of an
iterative fitting process using ordinary least-squares regression.
While the model with the exponential function had the
highest R2, the results across the models did not vary that much
with values ranging from 0.285 to 0.315. The parameters a = 2
and b = 15 yielded the best R2 value of all the negative logistic
functions; however, the low intercept value of a = 2 makes our
function similar to the exponential function estimated by Zhao et
al. Ridership is quite sensitive to distance, but the various measures
of distance-weighted dwelling units were nearly indistinguishable,
perhaps because of the simplifying assumption of distance to
nearest stop. Nevertheless, our “best” distance-decay function is
consistent with prior research that shows distance decay that starts
close, is steep, and has a long tail. Similarly, our estimation does
not support the use of a quarter-mile buffer that is commonly used
ONSXj = average passenger boardings per trip at stop j in the
morning peak hour over all days;
AWDUj = ∑i ((Aij / ∑j Aij) * exp(a – bdij)/(1+exp(a – bdij)) * DUi
= accessibility-weighted dwelling units around stop j;
where:
Aij / ∑j Aij = integral accessibility or proportion of accessibility at
parcel i attributable to stop j;
where:
Aij = accessibility of parcel i to bus stop j = exp(a – bdij)/(1+exp(a
– bdij)) * BUSHRj * DUi;
where:
exp(a – bdij)/(1+exp(a – bdij)) = probability of taking transit
based on the negative logistic distance decay function using the
parameters a = 2 and b = 15;

 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007

where:
dij = on-street distance in miles from parcel i to stop j;

BUSHRj = scheduled service measured by buses per hour at

stop j;

DUi = dwelling units at parcel i; and

∑j Aij = accessibility of parcel i to all stops j within 1/3 mile of

parcel i.

The integral accessibility (Aij / ∑j Aij) of parcel i to stop j is

a key concept in this research. It measures the share of parcel i
demand that is allocated to bus stop j, where the denominator
Figure 4. Measures of parcel accessibility
(∑j Aij) measures the accessibility of parcel i to all stops within
walking distance. The accessibility of parcels to all walking ac-
cessible stops is shown for parcels associated with bus stop 2606
in the first panel of Figure 4. The second panel shows walking
accessibility to stop number 2606 without considering overlap. are aggregated over all 69 study stops so considerable variation
More intense colors indicate a combination of nearness and in potential demand at any given stop may exist, depending on
density. The third panel of Figure 4 takes overlapping bus stop which particular distance decay function is used.
service areas into consideration. The third panel shows the effect Table 3 contains the descriptive statistics for the variables
of applying integral accessibility (Aij / ∑j Aij) of stop 2606 times used in the accessibility-weighted dwelling unit model and the
the accessibility (Aij) of stop 2606, the result of which we call other comparative models. Table 4 contains the results of the
accessibility-weighted dwelling units at parcel i attributable to regressions.
bus stop j (AWDUij). The results in Table 4 show that the accessibility-weighted
The number of distance-weighted dwelling units for the 69 dwelling unit (AWDU) model performs better than do the
study stops according to the uniform density of demand assump- comparison models.
tion, the negative exponential function derived by Zhao et al. The parameter for the number of dwelling units, control-
(2003), the negative logistic function using the parameters a = 2 ling for integral accessibility, 0.0147 boardings per accessibility-
and b = 15, and the same negative logistic function controlling weighted dwelling unit, is used to estimate morning peak hour
for integral accessibility are shown in Table 2. By incorporating boardings at stops on a per-trip basis for counts of accessibil-
distance decay, potential transit demand is shown to decrease ity-weighted dwelling units. The results of this simulation are
by a factor of approximately 2x using the negative exponential shown in Table 5.
function and the two negative logistic functions relative to the
traditional one-quarter-mile buffer method. Potential demand CONCLUSIONS
is higher relative to the negative exponential decay function for The research examined the determinants of transit boardings,
the negative logistic function using nearest stop criterion and taking advantage of automatically collected passenger data at
lower based on the notion of integral accessibility. These results bus stops. A tax parcel layer database was used as the basis
for calculating potential transit demand at each stop using the
Table 2. Distance-Weighted Dwelling Units
Decay Function Assumption Distance (feet) Units
UDD Nearest stop 1,320 10,854
DWDU (Neg. Exponential) Nearest stop 1,760 4,937
DWDU (Neg. Logistic) Nearest stop 1,760 5,601
AWDU (Neg. Logistic) Integral accessibility 1,760 4,266

Table 3. Descriptive Statistics for Accessibility-Weighted Dwelling Unit (AWDU) Model and Comparison Models
Name Mean Std. Dev. Var. Min. Max
ONSX 0.92 0.68 0.46 0.02 2.76
UDD 157.36 85.87 7374.40 17.00 391.00
DWDU (Neg. Exponential) 71.55 38.92 1515.00 10.19 194.53
DWDU (Neg. Logistic) 81.18 44.38 1969.10 11.33 210.36
AWDU (Neg. Logistic) 61.83 28.24 797.30 16.86 150.16

URISA Journal • Kimpel, Dueker, El-Geneidy 

Table 4. Model Results for Accessibility-Weighted Dwelling Unit (AWDU) Model and Comparison Models
Coef. Std. Err. T-ratio Adj. R2 Constant
UDD 0.0044 0.0008 5.5714 0.3064 0.2167
DWDU (Neg. Exponential) 0.0099 0.0018 5.6833 0.3152 0.2049
DWDU (Neg. Logistic) 0.0086 0.0015 5.5939 0.3082 0.2159
AWDU (Neg. Logistic) 0.0147 0.0069 6.3350 0.3652 0.0069

Table 5. Simulation of Stop-Level Boardings Using Accessibility-Weighted Dwelling Units

Accessibility-Weighted Dwelling Units Per Stop Estimated Stop-Level Boardings Per Trip During Morning Peak Hour
25 0.368
75 1.104
100 1.472
150 2.207

measure of integral accessibility that takes into consideration About The Authors
distance-weighted accessibility and competing stops. The analysis
was confined to the morning peak hour, when transit demand is Thomas J. Kimpel is a research associate in the Center for Ur-
most directly related to dwelling units. ban Studies, Portland State University, where he has been
Data preparation required the use of a GIS, which consisted employed since 1996. His areas of interest include GIS
of snapping dwelling units from parcel centroids to abutting analysis, transportation and land-use planning, and bus
streets, computing distance on the street network to all bus stops transit performance monitoring.
within one-third-mile distance, computing integral accessibility
Corresponding Address:
of dwelling units to those stops, and summing the integral acces-
Thomas J. Kimpel
sibility of dwellings for each bus stop.
Center for Urban Studies
Distance decay parameters of the accessibility function were
Portland State University
empirically derived from ordinary least-squares regression models
506 S.W. Mill Street, Room 350
by varying intercept and slope values. These parameters were then
Portland, OR 97201
used to estimate a stop-level bus boarding model using accessibil-
Phone: (503) 725-8207, Fax: (503) 725-8480
ity-weighted dwelling units. The number of accessibility-weighted
E-mail: kimpelt@pdx.edu
dwelling units is positively related to the number of boarding pas-
sengers. The parameter on this variable can be used to estimate
Kenneth J. Dueker, Professor Emeritus of Urban Studies and Plan-
morning peak hour transit ridership at the bus stop level.
ning, Portland State University, is an experienced educator
This research illustrates the power of analysis using detailed
and researcher in transportation. He directed the Center
disaggregate data, boardings at the bus stop level, and for parcel-
for Urban Studies at PSU from 1979 to 1998. His areas of
level counts of dwelling units. A GIS analysis was needed to relate
interest include transportation and land-use interactions,
dwelling units to the street network and to calculate distances
travel and parking behavior, and GIS transportation.
to bus stops. A distance decay function was derived and used
to compute an accessibility measure to account for overlapping Corresponding Address:
bus stop service areas for an improved estimation of stop-level Kenneth J. Dueker
transit demand. Center for Urban Studies
It is important to note that distance decay parameters may Portland State University
not be constant; they may vary by trip purpose and access mode. 506 S.W. Mill Street, Room 350
In the future, it is recommended that more reliable distance Portland, OR 97201
decay parameters be estimated from passenger intercept surveys Phone: (503) 725-4040, Fax: (503) 725-8480
conducted at bus stops. These surveys can ask transit users about E-mail: duekerk@pdx.edu
their point of origin, trip purpose, destination, access mode, and
whether they will undertake a transfer. It is expected that decay
curve parameters will vary based on these factors. Accordingly,
a better transit demand model can be generated.

10 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007

Ahmed M. El-Geneidy is a postdoctoral research fellow in the Hsiao, S., J. Lu, J. Sterling, and M. Weatherford. 1997. Use of
Department of Civil Engineering and the Humphrey Insti- geographic information system for analysis of transit pedes-
tute of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota. He formerly trian access. Transportation Research Record 1604: 50-59.
worked under the auspices of the Center for Urban Studies Kemp, M. A. 1981. A simultaneous equations analysis of route
as a graduate research assistant. His areas of interest include demand and supply, and its application to the San Diego
GIS analysis in transportation planning and bus transit bus system. Washington, D.C.: UMTA, Report DTUM-
performance monitoring. 60-80-71001.
Corresponding Address: Kimpel, T. J. 2001. Time point-level analysis of transit service
Ahmed M. El-Geneidy reliability and passenger demand. Portland, OR: Unpub-
Department of Civil Engineering and lished Doctor of Philosophy in Urban Studies, Portland
Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs State University.
University of Minnesota Kittelson and Associates. 2003. Transit capacity and quality of
500 Pillsbury Drive S.E. service manual. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Minneapolis, MN 55455 Transportation.
E-mail: geneidy@umn.edu Levinson, H. S., and O. Brown-West. 1984. Estimating bus rider-
ship. Transportation Research Record 994: 8-12.
Makri, M., and C. Folkesson. 1999. Accessibility measures for
References analyses of land-use and travelling with geographical infor-
mation systems. Department of Technology and Society,
Ammons, D. N. 2001. Municipal benchmarks: assessing local Lund Institute of Technology, Sweden, 1-17.
performance and establishing community standards. Thou- Miller, H., and S. Shaw. 2001. Geographic information systems
sand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. for transportation: principles and applications. New York:
Azar, K. T., and J. F. Ferreira. 1994. Integrating geographic Oxford University Press.
information systems into transit ridership forecast models. Neilson, G., and W. Fowler. 1972. Relation between transit
Journal of Advanced Transportation 29(3): 263-79. ridership and walking distances in a low-density Florida
Chu, X. 2004. Ridership models at the stop level. Tampa, FL: retirement area. Highway Research Record 403: 26-34.
Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of O’Neill, W. A., R. D. Ramsey, and J. Chou. 1992. Analysis of
South Florida, Report No. BC137-31. transit service areas using geographic information systems.
Furth, P. G., B. Hemily, T. H. Mueller, and J. G. Strathman. Transportation Research Record 1364: 131-38.
2003. Uses of archived AVL-APC data to improve transit Peng, Z., and K. J. Dueker. 1995. Spatial data integration in route-
performance and management: review and potential. Wash- level transit demand modeling. URISA Journal 7: 26-37.
ington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board. TRCP Report Song, S. 1996. Some tests of alternative accessibility measures:
No. 23 (Project H-28), http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/ A population density approach. Land Economics 72(4):
tcrp/tcrp_webdoc_23.pdf. 474-82.
Handy, S. L., and D. A. Niemeier. 1997. Measuring accessibility: Vuchic, V. 2005. Urban transit: operations, planning and econom-
An exploration of issues and alternatives. Environment and ics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Planning A 29(7): 1,175-94. Zhao, F. 1998. GIS analysis of the impact of community design
Hansen, W. 1959. How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of on transit accessibility. Proceedings of the ASCE South
the American Institute of Planners 25(2): 73-76. Florida Section 1998 Annual Meeting, Sanibel Island,
Hartgen, D., and M. W. Horner. 1997. A route-level transit Florida, 1-12.
ridership forecasting model for lane transit district: Eugene, Zhao, F., L. Chow, M. Li, I. Ubaka, and A. Gan. 2003. Forecasting
Oregon. Charlotte, NC: Center for Interdisciplinary Trans- transit walk accessibility: regression model alternative to buf-
portation Studies, Report No. 170. fer method. Transportation Research Record 1835: 34-41.
Horowitz, A. J. 1984. Simplifications for single-route transit
ridership forecasts. Transportation 12: 261-75.

URISA Journal • Kimpel, Dueker, El-Geneidy 11

 Teaching by Doing: PPGIS and Classroom-Based Service
Learning
Marc Schlossberg and Darren Wyss

Abstract: As geographic information systems (GIS) continue to be used as tools for participatory decision making, it becomes
increasingly important to teach the next generation of GIS users about public participation GIS (PPGIS) ideas, concepts, and
skills. This paper describes an effort to teach a GIS course that utilizes PPGIS, community-based research notions, and ser-
vice-learning ideas as core concepts in teaching intermediate-level technical skills in GIS. The class, “Applied GIS and Social
Planning,” is a mixed undergraduate/graduate course that combines traditional, intermediate-level GIS labs with a neighbor-
hood-based service-learning project and lectures on social change, PPGIS, and community-based research. Moreover, the class
focuses on the use of new mobile GIS technology as a way to facilitate community-based participatory GIS, as well as to give
students experience in an emerging GIS technology. This study utilized six different instruments to collect data from students to
evaluate this applied approach toward learning GIS in general and PPGIS in particular. In general, students found that the
community-based PPGIS project was an overall positive learning experience for both technical skill development and in ap-
plying PPGIS theory to practice, that more community interaction and involvement with project planning would enhance the
experience, and that learning and applying PPGIS in a course context gives students an insight into the long-term and complex
approaches needed to help facilitate local community change.

INTRODUCTION course, a discussion about the class and service-learning project,

GIS is much more than making static maps or representing com-
plex data in simple map form; it is also a tool that can facilitate
bottom-up participatory decision making. Many organizations,
mainly nonprofit and advocacy groups, have begun to utilize GIS
in this way, but more mainstream GIS users, such as municipal
governments, continue to view GIS in the same top-down data
synthesis and presentation model of the past. Part of this discon-
nect in uses can be traced to the types of GIS education that most
students receive that emphasize technical skills over the context
within which those skills can be applied. Public participation
and GIS (PPGIS) represents much more than a set of technical
skills; it represents a suite of concepts that incorporates both the
technical use of GIS and the larger contextual elements of par-
ticipation, policy making, and social change. For these ideas to
be successfully implemented in the workplace by knowledgeable
practitioners who realize the potential of participatory decision
making, this knowledge should be cultivated in students.
This paper describes the efforts of one course that strives to
teach PPGIS to students from multiple perspectives. The class,
“Applied GIS and Social Planning,” is a five-credit, mixed under-
graduate/graduate course that combines traditional, intermediate-
level GIS labs with a neighborhood-based service-learning project
and lectures on social change, PPGIS, and community-based
research. Moreover, the class focuses on the use of new mobile
GIS technology as a way to facilitate community-based participa-
tory GIS, as well as to give students experience in an emerging
GIS technology.
The remainder of this paper is organized into three primary
components: the description and rationale that underpins this
and the evaluation of the project’s impact on student learning.
Most service-learning evaluations focus on the benefits that accrue
to the community, but given our interest in teaching PPGIS ef-
fectively to students, we were curious about the relative benefit of
incorporating community-based GIS work as part of the normal
course requirements in terms of teaching PPGIS concepts.
CONTEXT
Many professionals in the planning field have identified public
participation as an important aspect of the planning process.
This is particularly true at the local level where neighborhood
residents need to be empowered to help develop ideas and plans
that reflect the wishes of the community (Jones 1990). Many dif-
ferent approaches to participation have been taken in the past, but
recently there has been an interest in a bottom-up approach that
puts more of the planning process in the hands of the residents.
This bottom-up approach to planning has helped to generate an
increase in research surrounding the topics of public participation
GIS (PPGIS) and community-based research (CBR). An aspect of
PPGIS seeks to make GIS technology and training accessible to
local residents as an empowering tool to use in the decision-mak-
ing process, while CBR emphasizes the inclusion of community
members as research partners to improve the practicality and
responsiveness to local needs.
Public Participation GIS
The phrase public participation GIS (PPGIS) comes to the GIS
community from the planning profession (Obermeyer 1998). The

URISA Journal • Schlossberg,Wyss 13

phrase can be used to describe a “variety of approaches to making
GIS and other spatial decision-making tools available and acces-
sible to all those with a stake in official decisions” (Obermeyer
1998). PPGIS embodies the desire to utilize the capacity of GIS
to engage and empower the public because planners realize the
critical importance of community input in decision making. How-
ever, PPGIS approaches often differ from project to project, from
Internet-based map servers to field-based development methods.
Because of this variability, Schlossberg and Shuford (2005) rec-
ommend that “understanding how specific publics are linked to
specific types of participation is an important effort to undertake
so that users of PPGIS ideas can appropriately characterize, utilize,
implement, and evaluate their PPGIS efforts” (15).
Although no consensus has been reached on a clear definition
of PPGIS, the debate has progressed into a more constructive
research engagement in which community empowerment through
GIS is a stated intention (Harris and Weiner 1998). What schol-
ars and practitioners see in common is that GIS can facilitate a
broader set of participants in the planning process because of its
visual orientation when addressing spatial issues (Al-Kodmany
2001). This process of spatially investigating an issue through
PPGIS can produce positive returns in group dynamics, consensus
building, and joint planning (Schlossberg and Shuford 2005),
although participatory GIS itself exists in a murky area between
fields and goals, “often with contradictory implications, priorities,
and outputs” (Elwood 2006a, 197).
To ensure the realization of the positive returns of PPGIS,
Leitner et al. (2002) formulated six models for successfully mak-
ing GIS available to community organizations. The six models
are: community-based (in-house) GIS, university-community
partnerships, publicly accessible GIS facilities at universities and
libraries, map rooms, Internet map servers, and the neighborhood
GIS center. Each model inherently contains certain advantages
and disadvantages, but the university-community partnership is
of particular interest because of the possibility of adding the com-
ponent of service learning to the project. This thread of PPGIS is
often overlooked and provides an interesting model of building
community capacity and empowerment. Sawicki and Peterman
(2002) suggest that “an ideal PPGIS could be where neighborhood
residents collect their own spatial data and process it themselves
using GIS software.” Service-learning PPGIS could be a step toward
that “ideal,” where the initial university-community partnership
may lead to community empowerment and self-sufficiency, or may
lead to an ongoing relationship between the university and com-
munity, but a relationship based on shared benefit.
While conducting service-learning GIS can be important for
the community, evaluating the effort can be helpful for future
instruction for students. Jordan (2002), however, found that PP-
GIS evaluation is often not conducted with enough rigor, making
it difficult for others to properly learn from past efforts. Barndt
(2002), on observing the role of GIS as a tool for participation,
developed a set of criteria for the evaluation of PPGIS to encour-
age a more rigorous evaluation process. The focus of the criteria is
on the value of the project results, particularly for the community;
14 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007
however, when considering the model of university-community
partnerships and the role of service learning in PPGIS, this form of
evaluation only touches half (the community) of the participants
involved. The students are involved to provide a service, but also to
gain educational value from the process. Using the service-learn-
ing principle of reflection could help to understand the benefits
to the students (Leitner et al. 2002, Joerin and Nembrini 2005).
“Service learning involves faculty and students in providing a
service to the community, such as developing a GIS application
based on a community request, and then reflecting on the lessons
learned from the experience. Its primary goal is to enhance learn-
ing through the service experience with less emphasis on chang-
ing social systems or generating new knowledge although it can
provide the opportunity for both to happen” (Leitner et al. 2002,
XX). This process also increases the students appreciation for the
community usage of GIS through observation and understanding
of how communities develop their own spatial narratives within
a participatory GIS endeavor (Elwood 2006b).
Community-Based Research
The concept of community-based research (CBR) is predicated
on including the community members as research partners and
active participants in a community-based project (Checkoway
1997). This emphasis on the participation and influence of
nonacademic researchers in the process of creating knowledge is
what Israel (1998) identifies as the fundamental characteristic of
CBR. Viewing the community as a social entity instead of simply
a place or setting in which community members are not actively
involved is the critical distinction between CBR and other research
processes (Hatch et al. 1993).
The more traditional “professional-expert” model, where
project decision-making power is concentrated in the hands of
the researcher, often produces results that are impractical and
unresponsive to local needs (Whyte 1989). CBR, by involving
the community in the research processes, attempts to overcome
the “professional-expert” shortfalls. For example, equitable
participation and shared control over all phases of the research
process is a goal to strive to achieve for beneficial results (Green
et al. 1995). A participatory bottom-up approach involves the
community throughout the process, from identifying the issues
examined to participating in data collection to analysis and dis-
cussion of the action steps (Heskin 1991). This empowerment
approach can lead to greater community ownership of the proj-
ect and significantly increase the participation of local residents
(Reardon 1998). Additionally, CBR can connect communities
with university knowledge, a potentially local resource that is
often difficult or confusing to access by the local community
(Checkoway 1997). CBR utilized as a service-learning activity
helps improve communication with constituencies, increases
the accessibility of knowledge, and builds support for univer-
sity-community partnerships that help higher education fulfill
its responsibilities to society (Checkoway 1997). These are very
important aspects of the scholarship of integration, application,
and teaching (Boyer 1994).
Service Learning
The term service learning has come to be applied to a wide range of
activities, from tutoring programs across grade levels to commu-
nity tree plantings, and with students from kindergarten through
higher education (Waterman 1997). Although no agreed-on defi-
nition of service learning exists, the basic requirement is a service
experience that is both personally meaningful and beneficial to the
community (Pritchard 2002). The Corporation on National and
Community Service, an independent federal agency that supports
volunteering and community service nationally, suggests four key
components to service learning, which form the theoretical basis
for this research. Service learning is a method:
1. under which students learn and develop through active
participation in thoughtfully organized service experiences
that meet actual community needs and that are coordinated
in collaboration with the school and community;
2. that is integrated into the students’ academic curriculum or
provides structured time for the students to think, talk, or
write about what the students did and saw during the actual
service activity;
3. that provides students with opportunities to use newly
acquired skills and knowledge in real-life situations in their
own communities; and
4. that enhances what is taught in school by extending student
learning beyond the classroom and into the community and
helps to foster the development of a sense of caring for others
(National and Community Service Act of 1990, 5).
The basic idea behind service learning is to use a community
or public service experience to enhance the meaning and impact
of traditional course content (Sax and Astin 1997). Dewey
(1916) viewed the community as an integral part of educational
experiences, because what is learned in the school must be taken
and utilized beyond its bounds, both for the advancement of the
student and the betterment of future societies. Dewey (1956) later
helped advance the view that active student involvement in learn-
ing was an essential element in effective education. Service-based
learning has been shown to be an effective educational approach
to improve student learning (Markus, Howard, and Peterson
1993; Boss 1994; Cohen and Kinsey 1994) and carefully designed
service-learning experiences can lead to profound learning and
developmental outcomes for students (McEwen 1996).
In terms of service-learning outcomes, Sax and Astin (1997)
found that the real-world value of service participation reveals
itself in the positive effects observed in three areas of student
satisfaction: leadership opportunities, relevance of course work
to everyday life, and preparation for future career. They also
identified additional benefits in terms of a number of college
outcomes, including students’ commitment to their communities,
skills in conflict resolution, and understanding the community
problems—all skills we would hope that future PPGIS practi-
tioners would hold.
URISA Journal • Schlossberg,Wyss 15
BACKGROUND:THE COURSE
These skills are being taught in the course, “Applied GIS and So-
cial Planning,” a mixed, five-credit, undergraduate/graduate class
taught during a one-term quarter (ten weeks) with enrollment
usually between 12 to 15 students. Offered each fall, the course is a
regular intermediate-level GIS course for students across campus,
with priority given to students in the home department of Plan-
ning, Public Policy, and Management. Students are expected to
have taken an Introduction to GIS course or have an equivalent
level of knowledge prior to enrolling in this course, and such skill
level is assessed during the first week of class. The class meets six
hours per week, with two of those hours dedicated to lectures and
discussions and the other four dedicated to GIS lab work. The
class is essentially divided into four primary components, each of
which is discussed more fully in the following sections: technical
GIS skills, theory and practice of PPGIS, applied service-learning
experience, and individual projects.
Technical GIS Skills
This class is an intermediate-level GIS course and teaches a va-
riety of technical skills, including network analyses, a variety of
more advanced spatial analyses, analysis of census data, and an
introduction to three-dimensional modeling. Moreover, there is
a significant focus on mobile GIS technology, both on operating
GIS on a personal digital assistant (PDA) and in creating custom-
ized data-entry interfaces for field-based data collection.
Theory and Practice of PPGIS
Unlike many GIS courses, the lecture component of this course
does not cover the theoretical underpinnings of GIS science
skills. Rather, discussion time focuses on the environment in
which GIS can be applied, with a special emphasis on social and
participatory applications. Students have an extensive reading list
and in-class discussions based on those readings include social
planning, community-based research, PPGIS, and social equity
and empowerment. Short two-page thought papers are assigned
to give students an opportunity to think about these more con-
text-oriented issues and how they relate to the use of a technical
tool such as GIS.
Applied Service-Learning Experience
All students are required to participate in a community map-
ping service-learning project that is ongoing throughout the
entire term. As mentioned in more detail in a following section,
this component includes attending neighborhood meetings (in
Eugene, Oregon) and partnering with a neighborhood resident
to collect community data to train that community member in
data collection, and to build goodwill between the university and
the community.
Individual Projects
Finally, each student is required to conduct an individual and
original GIS analysis. Students may choose to use the community
project data as an input to their individual projects, or students
can choose to work with other community organizations or com-
munity issues for their projects. The project emphasizes that GIS
is a tool in understanding some larger question or issue, and, ac-
cordingly, students are required to write reports and make public
presentations of these larger efforts.
PARTICIPATORY GIS IN PRACTICE:
THE WUN MAP PROJECT
Students in the class are able to translate the theory and discussions
about PPGIS to practice in the classwide-applied service-learning
project. Planning and carrying out this community-based project
occurs throughout the term, some of which is in direct collabora-
tion with the community and some on behalf of the community.
The basic goals of this part of the course are:
1. The project should be of immediate value to the
neighborhood.
2. The project should be small enough in scope to ensure success
at the end.
3. The students must be able to gain tangible skills.
The WUN MAP (pronounced one map) project, which
stands for the West University Neighbors Mapping Project,
occurred during the fall 2004 term.1 The WUN MAP project
was born from two key events that took place almost simultane-
ously during the spring of 2004, about five months prior to the
class. The first event was when the chair of the West University
Neighbors (WUN), a city-sanctioned neighborhood association,
contacted the University of Oregon seeking assistance in visual-
izing the neighborhood in some way. The request sought to create
a means of increasing involvement in the neighborhood, improv-
ing the neighborhood for residents, and at the same time making
use of the vast resources at the university. Eventually, the WUN
chair was placed in contact with the Department of Planning,
Public Policy, and Management (PPPM) because of its interest in
social planning, empowerment, and GIS. It is important to note
that the initiation of the project came from the neighborhood
itself and not from the teacher/researcher of the course. Often
in community-based work such as this, “experts” at universities
seek to impose solutions on neighborhoods rather than work
collaboratively with neighborhoods (Checkoway 1997). That the
project was neighborhood-driven in the first place established a
good foundation for a joint PPGIS effort, and one that can flip
the research university paradigm where community partners
would be regarded as “research partners and active participants
in knowledge development rather than as human subjects and
passive recipients of information” (Checkoway 1997, 310).
At about the same time as the contact by the neighborhood,
PPPM was awarded a small classroom technology grant that allowed
this intermediate GIS course to develop a new teaching curriculum
around community-based GIS and the use of mobile, PDA-based
GIS. This grant, together with the interest from the neighborhood,
led to the formation of a course-based service-learning project.
16 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007
The Planning of WUN MAP
The class is taught in the fall, and because the course is only ten
weeks in length, considerable planning for the project occurred in
the summer prior to class. As the instructor and teaching assistant
for the course, we met with the chair of the WUN group several
times to explore the type of joint project that would make sense
for all involved and we established the following three points
during our discussions:
1. Control over the basic structure and content of the project
would be in the hands of neighborhood residents. The effort
would be based on the neighborhood inviting the class to
participate.
2. As a class-based exercise, the educational value to the students
was essential.
3. The project should be viewed as an opportunity to establish
positive university-community interactions where each could
derive benefit from the project.
Once the neighborhood formally invited us in, the develop-
ment and planning of the project happened over the course of
regular monthly WUN meetings. Of primary importance was that
residents chose what data was to be collected. After taking into
account the size and layout of the neighborhood, the amount of
time that would be available for collecting, and the number of
possible student-resident teams, the neighborhood decided on
mapping the location of three key assets.
Public Street Trees. The neighborhood was interested in
knowing where the trees in the public right-of-way were, as well
as some basic facts about them.  Their interest in street trees stems
from their desire to protect trees in their neighborhood. The
primary attribute of interest, therefore, was tree diameter because
trees greater than eight inches in diameter have a different and
stronger legal status.
Streetlights. The neighborhood has a spatially unequal
distribution of streetlights, which can impact safety.  Of equal
interest to the neighborhood was where “traditional” or old-
fashioned pedestrian-oriented and styled streetlights were.  Once
residents know where these community assets are clustered, they
can begin thinking about strategies to use them for additional
community-building activities.
Visible Dumpsters. In addition to detached residential
housing, the neighborhood has many multiunit apartment
buildings and some businesses that utilize Dumpsters for garbage
collection.  In some instances, these Dumpsters are highly visible
from any walking path, detracting from the viewshed throughout
the neighborhood.  Moreover, the Dumpsters are often misused,
further impacting the “feel” of the community.
We decided that one weekend day, preferably a Saturday,
would be dedicated to bringing students and residents together
to collect neighborhood data. The final steps were to publicize
the data-collection day event and to develop the data-collection
instrument using ArcPad, a mobile GIS software program.2 The
process of creating and using the data instrument was developed
into an in-class lab exercise for students to learn and develop
the new skills and understanding of the mobile GIS technol-
ogy, and it also allowed students to participate in a test run to
familiarize themselves with the data-collection instruments before
participating in the data-collection day. Concepts of instrument
development and pretesting were incorporated into the learning
concepts of the class.
Actual data collection took place on one Saturday that began
with complimentary coffee and pastries and included a compli-
mentary pizza lunch, both from neighborhood shops. Although
the students were required to attend, neighborhood participa-
tion relied on volunteers, and free food is always a good way to
get help. More important, the social time afforded during these
meals allowed students and residents to meet one another and
develop an initial trust and bond that would serve them well for
the project and for a larger, although unspoken, goal of fostering
good community-university relations.
The neighborhood was divided into 12 sections, and stu-
dent-resident teams were responsible for collecting the three sets
of data in one section each. Of the 12 teams, six used PDAs to
collect data and six teams used pen-and-paper data-entry forms.
The total time commitment of the data-gathering day was six
hours and the students spent another two hours entering data
that had been gathered with the paper instrument.
The final phase of the project included several students
creating maps that represented the data in various ways. One
student created a map template that was used to coordinate the
layout of all the maps. In the end, approximately 80 maps were
given to the WUN group using a consistent and cartographi-
cally pleasing format. These maps, along with the raw data (in
spreadsheet and GIS formats) were uploaded to a project Web
site, free to use and manipulate as anyone sees fit. These maps
and data have subsequently been used by the neighborhood to
lobby various city departments on a variety of decisions that af-
fect the neighborhood. In one example, the presence of the maps
and neighborhood knowledge put pressure on the city’s urban
forester to begin an effort of data collection on the city’s trees
that was more detailed and accurate than what the community
project gathered. While there were other community benefits
that accrued from this project, the remainder of this paper will
focus on the value of this PPGIS effort on student learning and
experience in the classroom.
PPGIS AND STUDENT LEARNING
Many service-learning projects are evaluated based on the out-
comes for the community, but we were interested in the outcomes
for students. Specifically, we wanted to know whether this type of
applied PPGIS project added to students’ GIS skill set, afforded
students a beneficial learning opportunity, what the opportunity
costs for including a service-learning component to class was in
terms of time away from technical-skill building, and how the
project could be improved, if indeed it is worthwhile. Using
recommendations of Bradley (1997), we used six different instru-
ments to collect project evaluations from students:
URISA Journal • Schlossberg,Wyss 17
Preproject questionnaire. The preproject questionnaire was
distributed to students the morning of the data-collection day.
The questionnaire intended to gauge student expectations and
feelings about participating in the project.
Postproject questionnaire. The postproject questionnaire was
distributed students on the completion of the field-collection
activity. The students took the questionnaires home and returned
them during class the following week. The questionnaire was
designed to induce reflection, a critical part of service learning,
from the students on their participation in the project.
Focus group. A focus group was organized approximately
one and a half months after the class ended and was led by two
neutral facilitators. The discussion covered a wide range of topics,
from the educational benefits of the project to suggestions for
improvement, and the full participation by all students created a
lively and energetic dialogue.
Outcome survey. A survey that addressed key elements of
service-learning theory was then sent to students based on themes
that emerged from the focus group. Questions included both
open-ended and closed Likert-scaled questions.
One-on-one interview. These interviews were conducted
about three months following the end of the course and were
designed to provide an additional means of reflection for the
student participants and to allow for more in-depth discussion
about the personal outcomes for each participant. Conducting
the interviews three months after the end of the class permitted
the students to have stepped away, completed another term of
course work, and have time to think about the experience.
Participant observation. We were involved in all phases of
the project, from planning to implementation to evaluation, and
acted as participant observers during the process. This constant
connection with the project allowed us to observe student interac-
tions and reactions and to hold candid conversations about their
involvement in the project along the way.
These varied approaches produced information pertaining
to student expectations, learning, and recommendations, and
because of the multiple methods, we are confident in the reliability
of the student assessments.
STUDENT REFLECTIONS
After collecting and analyzing the data derived from the methods
previously discussed, four primary findings of student outcomes
emerged:
1. The classroom-based PPGIS project provided a positive
learning environment that the students felt was worthwhile to
their educational experience. The opportunities to interact,
communicate, and share ideas and knowledge was an
important component of the project for the students. Very
few opportunities exist in most classes, especially GIS classes,
for the students to work on a real-world project, particularly
involving personal, hands-on interaction with a community
group. One student commented, “I enjoyed the team
building aspect of it. Learning GIS and sharing skills with
 others (we were not all experts, but helped one another to
be efficient) was awesome.” This experience of learning and
using a new technology, not only for student benefit but also
for the community, was empowering for the students and
helped to create a sense of purpose for their work.
Participants expressed satisfaction with the opportunity
to build communication skills outside of the university,
which included explaining GIS to the residents. This real-
world application of learning the software and applying
those skills worked well for learning through action, not
just reading. One student commented, “The community
involvement aspect, listening to the needs of the community,
was a good complement to the planning program.” Those
who attended neighborhood meetings expressed the added
benefit of witnessing the “cynic factor” of those opposed
to the project and the work needed to compromise and
accommodate.
2. The classroom-based PPGIS project was of appropriate structure
to learn ArcPad and practice the concepts of PPGIS and CBR.
The inherent purpose of the software is to collect field data,
so the hands-on aspect of learning it was very beneficial to
understanding the worth and utility of the tool. Participating
in the project also allowed the classroom concepts to be better
understood through implementation. Student participants
were able to witness and make connections between the
readings and the project. It provided the opportunity to
experience the importance of planning, collaborating, and
compromising when developing and implementing a public-
participation endeavor. One student commented, “I was able
to see the divide between letting the public choose subjects
versus the researcher seeing things that should have been
done, but that could have just been the limits of residents not
understanding what could have taken place and the need to
educate them.” And another student observed, “I felt like the
explanations of the project were OK, although I didn’t buy
into helping the community with what was collected until
afterwards when introduced to a portion of the group who
were skeptical about GIS and saw that it was a controversial
issue.”
Students spoke on the benefits of learning ArcPad and
the new skill set it provided them. They also reiterated that
the way it was taught, through the hands-on experience of
field collection, was a valuable learning experience. They
viewed the project as a team effort that allowed for positive
interaction and an exchange of ideas, while working towards
the goal of helping the neighborhood address its needs
(“Really felt that working with others in the class on a real
project was beneficial.”). The students saw the value in
introducing the tool of GIS to the community and helping to
create a relationship between the university and community
that could lead to future projects. (“The experience of
working with folks outside of academia was great for learning
to communicate ideas better, through explaining the uses
of GIS and what it can/cannot do.”) Student responses
18 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007
also indicated the project was a good effort at connecting
theory and practice. The project provided insight into how
to engage the community with GIS and involve residents in
the project planning that otherwise would have been missed.
One student commented, “The project helped me gain real-
life experience that I could reflect upon and then compare to
the learning in the classroom, which was different. Afterward,
I could see the connection between them.”
3. The classroom-based PPGIS project could have had more of an
impact on student learning by increasing interaction with the
community, more participation in the planning process, and a
greater transfer of knowledge to the community. Students spoke
of wishing for more community interaction (before, during,
and after data-collection day) that would have enhanced the
learning experience. As mentioned previously, because of
the short time frame of the course (ten weeks), some of the
project planning happened prior to the start of the academic
term. Being involved in the planning of the project would
have allowed for more interaction and exposed the students
to the intricacies of developing a PPGIS/CBR project.
Students felt that more involvement in these preproject-
planning stages could have developed skills for formulating
such a project in the future. Students also expressed the
need for more time to fully appreciate the project, perhaps
by extending the class over two or three terms.
Students also felt that increasing interaction between
students and community members could have helped to
enhance communication, collaboration, and analytical skills.
Interactions between students and community residents
were limited to one active engagement (joint data gathering)
and two more passive interactions (project presentations at
monthly meetings) over the course of the term. Students
were not given an opportunity to more formally transfer
GIS skills to residents, although they provided training on
the PDA on the data-collection day. Students suggested that
adding several opportunities to interact with the community,
whether on the project planning or on direct GIS skill
transfer, would have been of value.
4. The classroom-based PPGIS project was restricted by time in
meeting the goals of community empowerment and building
a relationship with the community, but the value of working
towards those longer-term goals was understood and evident
in the student reflections. The student participants were
truly interested in achieving the goals of PPGIS and CBR,
as evidenced by suggestions for developing a project over
multiple ten-week classes to experience the community
outcomes. This lack of completeness or ability to see the
project through on a longer-term basis was discouraging
for the students, but the ability to stand back and reflect on
longer-term community change goals, and the piece they
played in the process, allowed the students to appreciate their
efforts and envision the worth of a classroom-based PPGIS
project.
 Prior to the data-gathering day, students were asked, “What
are your expectations for the day from an educational standpoint?”
Three key themes emerged: 1) to gain skill-building experience,
2) to share skills and interact with the community members, and
3) to experience the value of a public-participation/collaborative
process for students and residents. The key findings previously
mentioned suggest that all three of these expectations were met
at varying degrees. The students gained tangible skills, while the
inherent nature of the project was to interact with the commu-
nity in a participatory environment. Increased interaction and a
greater transfer of knowledge could have helped to better solidify
these expectations.
When students were asked, “What are your ideas where this
project could lead?” the longer-term goals of building relationships
and empowering the residents were the key themes that emerged.
These expectations were not completely met by the project, but
the key findings suggest that the students were able to experience
and value the contributions that were made in working toward
those longer-term goals. These outcomes provided the students
a view into the positive attributes of the concepts of PPGIS and
CBR.
When students were asked, “What are your feelings in
participating with the community?” they responded with it is
important to build relationships that include the community,
it gives context and value to student work through real-world
experience, and it is enjoyable to transfer knowledge/skills to
benefit those outside of the university. The key findings suggest
that these expectations were met for the students found the project
a positive learning experience and they were able to experience
all of the listed processes. Again, improvements could have been
made, but the introduction to the expectations was valuable to
the participants.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
FUTURE WORK
Based on the experiences of the students, as well the instructors,
we offer the following recommendations on future classroom-
based PPGIS activities:
Project Continuation
The creation and implementation of classroom-based PPGIS
projects are effective ways to teach the application of new GIS
skills in addition to the technical know-how of GIS software.
Moreover, for those interested in understanding how GIS can play
a role in fostering community change, bottom-up planning, or
participatory decision making, a service-learning model of class-
room learning can be an invaluable tool to link theory, practice,
and experience. Students in general have limited opportunities to
participate in service-learning endeavors where they can practice
concepts and utilize skills learned in the classroom—especially in
GIS classes where the focus is predominantly on technical skills
and the GIS science that informs its use. This real-world appli-
cation of knowledge, hands-on experience, and communication
URISA Journal • Schlossberg,Wyss 19
that takes place provides numerous educational benefits for the
students, including insight into community skepticism about
data, maps, and the motivation of university students to “help”
their community neighbors. One student reflected, “[the] com-
munity meetings seemed disruptive, but introduced [us] to the
element of ‘conspiracy’and distrust that is inherent in projects
working with the public.” Additionally, understanding what it
takes to work toward the larger goals of community empower-
ment, building relationships, and increasing participation in the
decision-making process is difficult to achieve without directly
participating in such a project.
Increased Interaction
Classroom-based PPGIS projects need to include multiple, re-
quired activities and meetings for the students to interact with
community members. The project described earlier required only
one interaction between students and the community, with two
additional opportunities for interaction highly recommended.
Students who participated in these recommended opportunities
strongly believed that they significantly enhanced their PPGIS
experience and helped them better understand the complexities
in conducting a community-based, collaborative GIS project.
Students who did not attend these optional meetings felt that they
missed out on something important—“I didn’t go to any com-
munity meetings, but wish I could have and maybe it should have
been required.” The expectations of student participants and the
benefits to student learning are directly tied to the communication
and collaboration with the community. Participation in goal-
setting sessions, conducting GIS workshops for the community,
working together in analyzing data, and attending neighborhood
association meetings are a few examples of activities that could be
required to increase interaction. One student reflected, “A meeting
before the data-collection day would have been helpful in having
a dialogue about why things were being done and to understand
a more comprehensive reason to do things.”
That said, a balance between student desire to be part of
the entire project-planning process and the requirements for
sufficiently organizing a project prior to the beginning of an
academic term needs to be met. Especially in institutions on a
ten-week quarter system where multiple course terms dedicated
to the service-learning project are unrealistic, some work prior to
the beginning of the term must be performed. At a minimum, the
community group with which to work should be identified and
some initial conversations about the types of project that might
work should be had prior to the start of class. Also, the commu-
nity must agree to the project (even if only loosely defined) prior
to the class beginning so that proper planning for the academic
term can proceed.
Even with those constraints, it is feasible to delay much of
the substantive planning decisions until the course begins, as
long as the project is defined in such a way that it can be viably
completed during the term. Final community deliberations and
decisions on precisely what data to collect and analyze can be
delayed until the first week or two of class, leaving enough time
for the community and the class to finalize data-collection ideas
and protocols before embarking on the collaborative data-collec-
tion effort. Clearly, planning a project, deciding on what GIS data
to collect, collecting the data, analyzing data, and preparing data
and maps with a volunteer community effort is a lot to do within
a ten-week quarter (it is even a lot for a 20-week semester), but
the value for students to be involved in all phases of the project
provides important insight into and experience in the context of
GIS projects. And understanding that context is what will help
students learn how to use their new technical GIS skills appro-
priately when working within a PPGIS environment.
Scalability and Transferability
This type of approach to learning PPGIS by doing PPGIS can
be carried out in at least two ways. First, the basic approach
outlined previously could be scaled up to classes with larger
enrollments without much effort if the class is to focus on only a
single project. Nothing in this approach becomes more difficult
with more participants; rather, the greater the participation (of
students and community members), the larger geographical area
could be covered through the community-based mapping or
the more depth of data that could be captured within a smaller
geographical extent. Second, if a course such as this were to
take on multiple projects, a separate staff person would need
to handle project-management activities. It is not realistic for a
single instructor to manage a normal set of responsibilities with
the addition of managing several community projects and to do
that project management in a way that adheres to the principles
of community GIS work discussed previously.
Despite the positive experiences and rich learning opportunity
afforded to students within this service-learning model, an extraor-
dinary amount of time was required by the instructor to manage
the projects. In addition to preparing labs and lectures that would
normally be part of the course, the inclusion of a service-learning
project required many out-of-class meetings with the community
in both small working groups and larger neighborhood meetings,
arranging logistics for the data-gathering day meeting place, reserva-
tion paperwork, food, training materials, etc. Fostering a collabora-
tive approach to the project also means spending extra time working
with community skeptics to build the trusting relationship that is
critical to short-term and long-term successes for the community
and a positive experience for students.
Given these time constraints, if multiple projects are needed
because of high course enrollments or because of a range of
community interests, then we would suggest pulling the project
component out of the GIS class and instead offer the project
component as a parallel course to the PPGIS course. This parallel
course may be focused on service learning itself, within which PP-
GIS offers one set of tools that may be appropriate for the project
at hand. And depending on the skill or time of the GIS instructor,
the service-learning and project-management component may be
better handled by faculty who specialize in these types of applied
experiences. The PPGIS course, then, acts almost like a resource
for the service-learning sequence, which itself is a resource for
20 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007
both student learning and community empowerment.
This approach of making PPGIS available as a community
and student resource is being explored at the University of Oregon
where the institution’s Community Service Center (CSC) profes-
sional staff already actively manages four to six service-learning
projects per year. There is often a desire to have community GIS
as a component in these projects, but not enough PPGIS expertise
within the CSC staff has been available to adequately offer it as a
resource to the community and to students. The current explora-
tion is to develop a three-pronged approach to making PPGIS
opportunities: 1) continue to offer the PPGIS class discussed
previously, but pull the project out of the course requirements;
2) develop community projects through the CSC that incorpo-
rate PPGIS and coordinate these efforts with the PPGIS course
as much as possible, either to run in parallel or to use students
who have completed the PPGIS course as core organizers of later
PPGIS projects; and 3) develop an ongoing PPGIS lab on campus
that continually trains and engages students in community work
independent of any particular course.
CONCLUSION
Planners have long recognized the importance of public participa-
tion in the planning process and this has led to an interest in the
concept of PPGIS. This introduction of GIS tools to community
organizations for furthering participation has also empowered
communities through access to the technology. The act of giving
community access to the technology can follow several models,
but the university-community model is particularly interesting
because of the service aspect possibilities for students. By allowing
students to transfer their “expert” knowledge of GIS to the com-
munity, the students are gaining educational value as residents
gain tools that are intended to empower.
The university-community model of PPGIS also corresponds
nicely with the concept of community-based research (CBR). CBR
emphasizes recognizing the community as a research partner and
using a bottom-up approach to project development by involving
the community in all phases. In a service-learning environment,
the partnership would benefit everyone with the community
gaining empowerment, ownership, and needed assistance, while
the university furthers the education of the student.
The service-learning model is a widely used approach to
enhancing student education through applying classroom ideas
to real-world projects. Assessing the value of a service-learning
project through an evaluation strategy is difficult, but recom-
mended. A variety of assessments can be made, but evaluating
student outcomes is crucial to the continuous improvement of
the process.
In the case presented here, the four primary findings from
student reflections show that the student participants appreciated
the opportunity to apply their developing skills to a community
project and that the outcomes from that participation were ben-
eficial to their learning experience. In general, their expectations
for the project were met, and students did not feel that the PP-
GIS project unduly took time away from learning technical GIS
skills. The students felt the project could have been improved by Elwood, S. (2006a). “Negotiating knowledge production: the
including students more in the project-planning phase and by everyday inclusions, exclusions, and contradictions of
requiring multiple events where students and community mem- participatory GIS research.” The Professional Geographer
bers could interact around the project. Overall, students found 58(2): 197-208.
value in combining technical learning with applied experiences in Elwood, S. (2006b). Beyond cooptation or resistance: urban
PPGIS: “I got a good sense of using GIS as a tool to engage the spatial politics, community organizations, and GIS-based
community and really couldn’t truly learn the concept of PPGIS spatial narratives. Annals of the Association of American
without experiencing a real-world project.” Geographers 96(2): 323-41.
Green, L. W., M. A. George, M. Daniel, C. J. Frankish, C. J.
About The Authors Herbert, et al. 1995. Study of participatory research in health
promotion. University of British Columbia, Vancouver:
Marc Schlossberg is an assistant professor of Planning, Public Royal Society of Canada.
Policy, and Management at the University of Oregon. His Harris, T., and D. Weiner. 1998. Empowerment, marginaliza-
research and teaching interests focus on the use of mobile tion, and “community-integrated” GIS. Cartography and
GIS technology to foster community empowerment and to Geographic Information Systems 25(2): 67-76.
understand local walkability. Hatch J., N. Moss, A. Saran, L. Presley-Cantrell, and C. Mallory.
1993. Community research: partnership in black communi-
Corresponding Address: ties. American Journal of Preventative Medicine 9(Suppl.):
Planning, Public Policy, and Management 27-31.
University of Oregon Heskin, A. D. 1991. The struggle for community. Boulder, CO:
128 Hendricks Hall Westview Press.
Eugene, OR 97403 Israel, B. A., A. J. Schultz, E. A. Parker, and A. B. Becker. 1998.
Phone: (541) 346-2046 Review of community-based research: assessing partnership
E-mail: schlossb@uoregon.edu approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of
Public Health 19: 173-202.
Darren Wyss has a master’s degree in City and Regional Planning Joerin, F., and A. Nembrini. (2005). Post-experiment evaluation
from the University of Oregon and is currently a long-range of the use of geographic information in a public participatory
planner for the city of Tigard in Oregon. process. URISA Journal 17(1): 15-26.
Jones, B. 1990. Neighborhood planning: a guide for citizens and
References planners. Chicago and Washington, D.C.: Planners Press,
American Planners Association.
Al-Kodmany, K. 2001. Bridging the gap between technical and Jordan, G. 2002. GIS for community forestry user groups in
local knowledge: tools for promoting community-based Nepal: putting people before the technology. In Craig et al.,
planning and design. Journal of Architectural and Planning eds., Community participation and geographic information
Research 18(2): 110-30. systems. London: Taylor and Francis.
Barndt, M. 2002. A model for evaluating public participation Leitner, H., R. B. McMaster, S. Elwood, S. McMaster, and E.
GIS. In Craig et al., eds., Community participation and geo- Sheppard. 2002. Models for making GIS available to com-
graphic information systems. London: Taylor and Francis. munity organizations: dimensions of difference and appro-
Boss, J. 1994. The effect of community service work on the priateness. In Craig et al., eds., Community participation
moral development of college students. Journal of Moral and geographic information systems. London: Taylor and
Education 23:183-98. Francis.
Boyer, E. L. 1994. Creating the new American college. Chronicle Markus, G., J. P. F. Howard, and M. Peterson. 1993. Instruction
of Higher Education 40(March 9): A48. enhances learning: results from an experiment. Educational
Bradley, L. (1997). Evaluating service-learning: toward a new Evaluation and Policy Analysis 15: 410-19.
paradigm (131-71). In A. S. Waterman, ed., Service learning: McEwen, M. K. 1996. Enhancing student learning and develop-
applications from research. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum ment through service learning. In B. Jacoby and Associates,
Associates. eds., Service learning in higher education. San Francisco:
Checkoway, B. 1997. Reinventing the research university for pub- Jossey-Bass.
lic service. Journal of Planning Literature 11(3): 307-19. National and Community Service Act of 1990. Public Law 101-
Cohen, J., and D. Kinsey. 1994. “Doing good” and scholarship: 610, as amended.
a service learning study. Journalism Educator 48: 4-14. Obermeyer, N. J. 1998. The evolution of public participation
Dewey, J. 1916. Democracy and education. New York: Macmillan. GIS. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems
Dewey, J. 1956. Experience and education. New York: Macmillan. 25(2): 65-66.

URISA Journal • Schlossberg,Wyss 21

Pritchard, I. A. 2002. Community service and service learning in
America: the state of the art. In A. Furco and S. H. Billig, eds.,
Service learning: the essence of the pedagogy. Greenwich,
CT: Information Age Publishing.
Reardon, K. M. 1998. Enhancing the capacity of community-
based organizations in East St. Louis. Journal of Planning
Education and Research 17: 323-33.
Sawicki, D. S., and D. R. Peterman. 2002. Surveying the extent
of PPGIS practice in the United States. In Craig et al., eds.,
Community participation and geographic information sys-
tems. London: Taylor and Francis.
Sax, L. J., and A. W. Astin. 1997. The benefits of service: evidence
form undergraduates. Educational Record 78: 25-33.
Schlossberg, M., and E. Shuford. 2005. Delineating “public” and
“participation” in PPGIS. URISA Journal 16(2): 15-26.
22 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007
Waterman, A. S. 1997. An overview of service learning and the
role of research and evaluation in service-learning programs.
In A. S. Waterman, ed., Service learning: applications from
the research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Whyte, W. F. 1989. Advancing scientific knowledge through
participatory action research. Sociological Forum 4(3):
367-85.
Footnotes
(Endnotes)
1 Additional information can be found by visiting http://www.
uoregon.edu/~wunmap/.
2 ArcPad is created and distributed by Environmental Systems
Research Institute.
 Worldwide Impact Assessment of Spatial Data
Clearinghouses
Joep Crompvoets, Floris de Bree, Pepijn van Oort, Arnold Bregt, Monica Wachowicz,
Abbas Rajabifard, and Ian Williamson

Abstract: This paper provides results from a worldwide impact assessment of spatial data clearinghouses. Its aim
is to assist policy makers in their task of evaluating whether or not investment in setting up and maintaining these
establishments is justified. To achieve this objective a procedure was devised for the comprehensive and systematic
evaluation of sustainable development within the worldwide clearinghouse population. The assessment procedure
entailed a survey undertaken by clearinghouse coordinators. A range of economic, social, and environmental indica-
tors was chosen to evaluate the relevance, efficiency, and effectiveness of clearinghouses. This paper also presents
the results of complementary analyses that were carried out to assess the significance of the impacts recorded.
They were also used to assess the objectivity of the responses of the coordinators. The results of these assessments
reveal that clearinghouses provide mainly positive impacts. In addition, the results also indicate the significance of
clearinghouses as relevant facilities for enhancing spatial data accessibility, providing efficient means of accessing
spatial data, and the effective promotion of data use and distribution. Finally, the results could be used to justify
present investments and to support future investments in the clearinghouse system.

INTRODUCTION spent on management and coordination costs, GIS and Internet

Many international regions, countries, states, and counties
throughout the world have spent considerable resources over the
past few years implementing and managing Spatial Data Clear-
inghouses (SDCs). These SDCs are prominent features of Spatial
Data Infrastructures (SDIs) (Clinton 1994, Federal Geographic
Data Committee 1997, Onsrud 1998, Crompvoets et al. 2004),
because they are the facilities for making spatial data accessible to
the general public and promoting data sharing. SDCs facilitate
the searching, viewing, transferring, ordering, publishing, and/or
disseminating of spatial data and services from numerous sources
via a Web site (interface) on the Internet, and, as appropriate,
providing complementary services. These SDCs contain data
catalogs, which are access systems that use metadata (INSPIRE
Architecture and Standards working group 2002, Maguire and
Longley 2005, Tait 2005).
The access service for spatial data on the Web is known
variously within the spatial community as clearinghouse, catalog
service, spatial data directory, geoportal and geospatial one-stop
portal. Although different names are used, obviously the goals
of accessing spatial data through the metadata remain the same
(Crompvoets et al. 2004, Beaumont et al. 2005). The enhance-
ment of data/service accessibility and the sharing of spatial data
and related services between suppliers and users are the main
reasons to build these electronic facilities (Bernard et al. 2005,
Beaumont et al. 2005, Maguire and Longley 2005).
Based on an overall assessment, the average cost of an SDC
is approximately € 1,500,000 a year (Southern California As-
sociation of Governments 1998, INSPIRE Architecture and
Standards working group 2002, Pasca et al. 2004). This money is
application development, training, hardware, standardization
activities, legal environment creation, and metadata prepara-
tion. Currently, about 500 (noncorporate) SDCs have been
established and many more SDCs probably will be set up in
the future. On a global scale, hundreds of millions of dollars
are spent yearly on SDC activities. Up to now this large invest-
ment has rarely been audited or evaluated. A study conducted
by the Urban and Regional Information Systems Association
(Gillespie 2000) cited that while the costs of SDC projects may
be relatively easy to assess and highly “front-loaded,” the benefits
are often difficult to measure and may not emerge until well into
the life of the SDC and depend on other factors coming into
play (Federal Geographic Data Committee 2002, Commission
of the European Communities 2004).
SDCs could be developed at different administrative levels,
ranging from local to state/provincial, national, and international
levels to a global level, to better access and share spatial data and
related services. There is a need to address politicians and deci-
sion makers to demonstrate the benefits of such a system. One
of the difficulties of selling the benefits to decision makers has
been the paucity of systematic evidence of the full economic,
social, and environmental impacts. This was highlighted in
the context of Geospatial One-Stop (Federal Geographic Data
Committee 2002) and the Extended Impact Assessment of the
INSPIRE-initiative (Commission of the European Commission
2004). However, it has been difficult to extrapolate impacts from
these individual cases to reach more generalized conclusions. In
addition, it is critical to move away from a narrow focus on the
technical considerations of SDCs to their potential contribution

URISA Journal • Crompvoets, de Bree, van Oort, Bregt, Wachowicz, Rajabifard, Williamson
23
to area competitiveness, innovation, productivity, job creation,
etc. (Craglia et al. 2003).
The focus of this paper is on the worldwide impact assess-
ment of the current SDCs with the main objective of providing
this information to policy makers to assist them in evaluating
whether or not investment in setting up and maintaining these
SDCs is justified. In this context, the term impact is described as
the (positive or negative) effect that SDCs could have on society.
Few studies exist about the worldwide impact of these facilities.
To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no comprehensive and
systematic impact assessment has taken place. The purpose of
the present paper is to fill this gap.
This paper presents and assesses the impacts of current SDCs
throughout the world with reference to the economic, social, and
environmental dimensions. This impact assessment is based on
a survey undertaken among coordinators of known SDCs of the
world using indicators to assess the relevance, efficiency, and ef-
fectiveness. Complementary analyses are implemented to interpret
the significance of the impacts.
Introduction to Impact
Assessment
Impact assessment is a key tool for improving policy making
and implementation, and promoting sustainable development
(Long and Alastair 1997, Commission of the European Com-
munities 2002, Bråthen 2003). Many techniques can be used to
assess the impacts (Jorgenson 1998, Environmental Protection
Agency 2000), but whatever method is used, the results need to
be transparent, reproducible, and robust. To make comparisons
as accurate as possible, impacts are expressed in quantitative
and monetary terms (e.g., cost-benefit analysis) in addition to a
qualitative appraisal.
Impact assessment identifies and assesses problems arising
from pursuing the objectives and the options available to achieve
those objectives. It also highlights the positive and negative
impacts with their respective advantages and disadvantages, in-
cluding synergies and trade-offs (Commission of the European
Communities 2002, Bråthen 2003). Any assessment should be
based on the following criteria:
• Relevance for solving the problem,
• Efficiency in the use of human and financial resources,
• Effectiveness in achieving the defined objectives.
These assessments of impact are difficult mainly because
of the degree of uncertainty in the reliability of the data, the as-
sessments of the proportion of the impacts, the range of affected
stakeholders, the short-term and long-term developments, and
the efficacy of the assessment method.
Systematic assessment of impacts should also consider sus-
tainable development. Sustainable development is based on the
idea that in the longer run, economic growth, social inclusion,
and environmental protection should go hand in hand. At this
moment, many governments regard these economic, social, and
environmental dimensions as the main driving force behind their
24 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007
policies (Williamson et al. 2003). The economic, social, and envi-
ronmental impacts should be identified and cover all positive and
negative effects, including costs and benefits. Economic, social,
and environmental impacts have been identified by the report of
the European Communities (2002).
Existing Impact Assessment
Studies
Several studies assess the impact of SDIs including SDCs (Renong
Berhad 1995, PriceWaterhouse 1995, Canadian Council of Land
Surveyors, Canadian Institute of Geomatics, Geomatics Industry
Association of Canada 2000, Berends and Weesie 2001, Fornefeld
and Oefinger 2001, Federal Geographic Data Committee 2002,
Pasca et al. 2004, Commission of the European Communities
2004). These studies encountered difficulties in estimating the
costs, while the estimation of benefits appeared to be even more
difficult.
Previous assessment research focused mainly on the impact
of one SDC and was neither comprehensive nor systematic
(PriceWaterhouse Nederland 1996, Federal Geographic Data
Committee 2002, Commission of the European Communities
2004, Pasca et al. 2004, Tait 2005, Walther 2005). As with many
SDI initiatives, the majority of impacts were qualitative in terms.
The main findings of these six studies are that SDCs:
• Improve the availability, accessibility, usability, and
“downloadability” of data supplied.
• Are cost-effective and efficient. For example, the benefit-cost
ratio, related only to the reduction of time to access data,
ranges from 1.1 to 4.
• Widen the range of users with different levels of education
and technical skills.
• Increase the awareness of spatial data among the general
public.
• Enhance the performance and productivity of (publicly
funded) organizations.
• Improve metadata quality.
• Increase government participation.
• Support better decision making.
• Serve as catalysts to innovation and new ways of working.
• Improve partnerships.
These initial assessment results and literature (e.g., Groot
and Sharifi 1994, Askew et al. 2005, Maguire and Longley 2005,
Beaumont et al. 2005) suggest that SDCs are a relevant means to
enhance data accessibility as well as data sharing, both effective
and efficient in the use of human and financial resources.
In contrast with the previous assessment research, this paper
focuses on the worldwide clearinghouse population and is com-
prehensive and systematic.
METHODOLOGY
This paper focuses on the development and implementation of
a procedure to assess the impacts of currently existing interna-
tional, national, federal, interstate, state, county, and local SDCs
of the world. The “preclearinghouse situation” was considered
the baseline against which to assess the current impact of SDC
development. The preclearinghouse situation refers to when no
electronic facility existed on the Internet to access spatial data
using metadata. To undertake the assessment, it was important
to take into account developments over time, to use existing
knowledge and experience, to consult interested parties and rel-
evant experts, to be transparent, and to compare negative impacts
with positive impacts.
Assessment difficulties have circumscribed the very few stud-
ies containing quantitative and qualitative information on the
impacts of SDCs. Therefore, the approach chosen in the study
was to determine impacts by referring to the expert knowledge and
experiences of SDC coordinators as their perceptions are sensi-
tive indicators for changes as well as impacts. These coordinators
organize activities as management, marketing, technical and legal
environment creation, and human resources so that their SDCs
operate well. Other reasons to focus on SDC coordinators were
their intermediate roles between data/service suppliers and users,
their awareness of the historical, institutional, cultural, legal,
economic, and technological context, and their ability to provide
accurate data about the development, use, management, content,
and technology of their SDCs. Moreover, they were relatively easy
to contact. This was not the case with the data users as well as
the suppliers of SDCs. In addition, the expertise and experiences
of a selected number of European SDC practitioners (users and
data/service suppliers) were used to evaluate the objectivity of
coordinators’ perceptions. The availability of this expertise meant
that the impact in terms of economic, social, and environmental
context could be described fairly comprehensively.
The procedure used in this assessment study consisted of
the following steps:
• Undertaking extensive literature research (see the previous
section on existing impact assessment studies);
• Determining assessment indicators to evaluate the relevance,
efficiency, and effectiveness;
• Designing and conducting the survey to collect information
about the perceptions of coordinators;
• Analyzing results by categorization of the SDCs to facilitate
the interpretation of these results; and
• Assessing the objectivity of coordinators’ responses.
Determining Assessment
Indicators
The assessment was confined to using a number of economic,
social, and environmental impact assessment indicators, because
a full implementation of a quantitative assessment study was
proscribed by cost considerations. These indicators were mea-
surable and illustrative (Taylor et al. 1990). They could measure
the relevance, efficiency, and effectiveness of SDCs and provide
insight into how economic and social structure and environment
alter when SDCs are implemented. The selection of indicators
URISA Journal • Crompvoets, de Bree, van Oort, Bregt, Wachowicz, Rajabifard, Williamson
was based on expert knowledge, literature, and direct relevance
for SDCs.
The economic indicators used were:
• Consumption of data/services,
• Data market transparency,
• Duplication of data collection.
The social indicators were:
• Spatial data/service awareness and
• Social cohesion between citizens.
The only environmental indicator was:
• Data delivery for environmental policy formulation.
Designing and Conducting
Survey
The survey was undertaken (November 2004 to April 2005) to
collect information about the perceptions of coordinators. A
questionnaire was distributed to all known coordinators of SDCs.
This survey was strongly supported by the INSPIRE expert group
(a group composed of representatives of the European Commis-
sion and environmental and GI communities of member states)
and the Executive Board of the Permanent Committee of GIS
Infrastructure for Asia and Pacific (PCGIAP).
As many SDC coordinators as possible completed the survey
to provide a full and reliable impact assessment. For this reason an
inventory of identified SDCs was compiled by extensive browsing
on the Internet (using several search engines), reading literature,
contacting experts and SDC coordinators. Where possible, the e-
mail address (and name) of the SDC coordinator was collected.
A questionnaire was used to collect the relevant informa-
tion. The questions were based on current literature as well as on
expert knowledge, so that the coordinators’ perceptions of their
SDCs could be analyzed. Most questions could be answered by
selecting the appropriate option boxes; none of the questions were
open. The questions were framed in a way that they described
the impacts of SDCs as well as the future developments. The
questions were:
1) On which administrative level listed is your SDC mainly
operating? (In the next section, the administrative levels
listed are presented).
2) For which of the countries listed does your SDC cover
(partly) metadata (193 countries were listed)?
3) Which of the options listed are the main benefits of your
SDC? (Figure 3 presents the benefits listed.)
4) Which of the options listed are the main drawbacks of your
SDC? (Figure 4 presents the drawbacks listed.)
5) Which of the options listed is likely to take place with your
SDC within the next five years? (In the following “Future
Developments” section, the future options are partially
presented.)
25
Figure 1. Worldwide distribution of spatial data clearinghouses (456) by country
Moreover, 14 statements were formulated to assess what
SDC coordinators considered the impacts of their SDCs on a
scale from strongly agree to strongly disagree. Examples of these
statements include:
a) Your SDC increases the consumption of spatial data and
services.
b) Your SDC improves data market transparency.
c) Your SDC reduces data duplication.
d) Your SDC improves the awareness of spatial data.
e) Your SDC strengthens the social cohesion among citizens. This
statement refers to the solidarity and social bonding between
people within state, country, or international region.
f ) Your SDC improves the appropriate data delivery for
environmental policy formulation.
g) Establishment and maintenance of your SDC is economically
beneficial.
In addition, supplementary statements were included to
check the face validity of the responses.
The questionnaire was distributed via e-mail and was ad-
dressed personally to the coordinators. The main advantages of
using e-mail are that it is fast, easy, and inexpensive for distribu-
tion. In total, 428 coordinators were contacted.
Analyzing Results
The worldwide answers were aggregated. However, because the
world is so diverse in historical, institutional, legal, cultural,
technological, and economic respects, and different geographical
26 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007
information (GI) processes take place at various administrative
levels, the variability of the answers between regions and admin-
istrative levels was categorically analyzed. The classification by
region was based on the division of Dorling Kindersley (2002).
Eight administrative levels were identified: worldwide, conti-
nental, international, national (federal), interstate, state, county,
and local. The chi-square and Fisher exact tests (Agresti 1990)
were used to test whether respondents at different regional areas
and administrative levels reacted differently to the questions and
statements of the questionnaire. Throughout, test results with a
(one-sided) P value of less than 0.1 were considered significant.
Assessing the Objectivity of
Coordinators’ Responses
Because the results of the questionnaire were based on the re-
sponses from the SDC coordinators, it was expected that their
views could be biased. To mitigate this, a comparison of responses
from the European SDC coordinators with those of the European
user community was made, assuming that the objectivity of Eu-
ropean coordinators’ responses represent well the objectivity of
all SDC coordinators’ responses. To facilitate this procedure, a
short version of the questionnaire was distributed to 75 European
representatives of the GI user community (June to August 2005).
These practitioners were members of the INSPIRE Expert Group
and were considered important stakeholders who could use SDCs
to access or supply spatial data (e.g., ministries, municipalities,
mapping agencies, cadastres, universities, public/private institu-
tions, utilities, etc.). The chi-square and Fisher exact tests were
Figure 2. Worldwide distribution of survey responses (105) by country
also used to test the differences of the views between the European
SDC coordinators and these practitioners.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The inventory resulted in a list of 456 SDCs (of 80 countries) of
which 428 had personal e-mail addresses of their SDC coordina-
tors. Figure 1 indicates the worldwide distribution of all identified
SDCs by country. Apparently, the establishment of SDCs has
become a global activity as recorded by Crompvoets and Bregt
(2003) and Crompvoets et al. (2004). Most SDCs are established
in Europe, Southeast Asia, North America and South America.
The countries with the highest number of SDCs are the United
States and Canada. The areas with few implementations are Africa
and the Middle East.
A total of 105 coordinators from 31 countries completed
the survey (25 percent of the population of coordinators). This
percentage is in line with the responses to similar types of surveys
(Hamilton 2003). This sample size was adequate in respect to
the SDC population in the developed world for the respondents
were mainly coordinating SDCs in North America (the United
States/Canada) (41 percent), Europe (32 percent), and Australia (8
percent) (only 19 percent in total were African, South American,
and Asian (see Figure 2)). To obtain reliable results, the regional
analysis included only the North American, European, and Aus-
tralian coordinators. The other regions were excluded from the
regional analysis because of the limited number of responses.
As mentioned previously, the survey identified eight admin-
istrative levels (question 1). To achieve reliable statistical analysis,
URISA Journal • Crompvoets, de Bree, van Oort, Bregt, Wachowicz, Rajabifard, Williamson
several levels were reclassified. Finally, three classes were consid-
ered: (inter)state, national (including federal), and international.
Interstate and state classes were reclassified into (inter)state (41
percent); national class was unchanged (31 percent); worldwide,
continental, and international classes were reclassified into in-
ternational (20 percent); county and local classes were excluded
from the administrative level analysis (8 percent).
Benefits and Drawbacks
The enhanced access to spatial data and the improved data sharing
and distribution are regarded as the main benefits (question 3) of
the current SDCs (see Figure 3). This confirms the results derived
from the previous studies and literature (see the previous section
on existing impact assessment studies). On the basis of this result,
overall SDCs are relevant facilities to access data/services and to
promote sharing. However, many SDCs still lack integration
among suppliers and users. This could result in inefficient use of
resources, potential duplication, inconsistency, incompatibility,
and the inability to maximize the value of data and services. The
main benefits appear to be economic in nature. Minor benefits
are the more effective use of available data, the improved spatial
data awareness, and the reduction of spatial data duplication. Cost
savings are not really seen as a benefit, which could indicate that
SDC coordinators are not very cost-conscious.
Coordinators of North American SDCs regard the reduc-
tion of data duplication and the improved data sharing and
distribution significantly more as benefits (this is in contrast with
European SDCs).
27
Figure 3. Worldwide distribution of SDC coordinators’ responses
(percentage) relating to the benefits of spatial data clearinghouses
In addition, coordinators of international SDCs see the
reduction of data duplication significantly less as a benefit. This
is in contrast with (inter)state coordinators who also look on cost
savings significantly more as a benefit.
Besides costs and funding (80 percent), not one single
drawback (question 4) could be identified as another important
obstacle for SDC implementations and maintenance (see Figure
4). Institutional problems (33 percent), lack of specialized data
managers (25 percent), and data standardization (23 percent) can
be considered as significant drawbacks. The lack of harmonized
reference systems (3 percent), liability problems (12 percent) and
inadequate Internet bandwidth (16 percent) are less significant as
drawbacks for SDC implementation. This result is in line with
literature (INSPIRE Architecture and Standards working group
2002, Federal Geographic Data Committee 2002, Wehn de
Montalvo 2004, Askew et al. 2005). None of the main obstacles
are directly technology-related. It seems that the challenges are
more likely to be organizational than technical.
North American coordinators consider lack of specialized
managers significantly more as a drawback and problems with data
pricing as less. On the other hand, the European SDC coordina-
tors look on problems with data pricing and commercialization
of data significantly more as drawbacks.
The high degree of correspondence in coordinators’ views
with respect to the perceived benefits and drawbacks is significant
insofar as it gives a clear indication that SDCs worldwide function
within a broadly similar operating environment.
Economic, Social, and
Environmental Impacts
Economic Impact. The economic impact is primarily assessed
by using economic indicators. Several statements in the ques-
tionnaire refer to these economic indicators. The survey results
show the likelihood of higher consumption of spatial data and
services as well as the reduction of data duplication as the main
28 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007
Figure 4. Worldwide distribution of SDC coordinators’ responses
(percentage) relating drawbacks of spatial data clearinghouses
economic impacts. This impact result is illustrated in Figure 5,
which presents the responses of SDC coordinators to three eco-
nomic indicators: consumption of data and services (statement
a), data market transparency (statement b), and duplication of
data collection (statement c). On the basis of these results, it is
apparent that the vast majority of respondents agree with the
statement that their SDCs increase the consumption of spatial
data and services. This implies that this increase of consumption
could be regarded as the most important economic impact. Ad-
ditionally, a majority also agrees with the statement that their
SDCs reduce duplication of spatial data. The result related to the
statement that an SDC improves data market transparency is not
clear (the majority neither agrees nor disagrees). On the basis of
the responses related to these three economic indicators, it could
be deduced that SDCs have a significant (positive) impact on the
economic dimension.
From a regional perspective, evidence can be found that more
North American coordinators agree with the statements that their
SDCs increase the consumption of spatial data and services and
reduce duplication of spatial data.
Evidence exists that national SDCs agree less that their
SDCs increase the consumption of spatial data and services while
(inter)state SDCs agree more that their SDCs reduce duplication
of data.
Besides the statements directly related to the indicators, the
coordinators could also respond to the statement that establish-
ment and maintenance of their SDCs are economically beneficial
(statement g). Some 70 percent of the coordinators agree and
only 11 percent disagree with this statement. Because the main
benefits and drawbacks are likely to be economic in nature, this
result indicates that SDC coordinators perceive that the positive
impacts more than counterbalance the negative impacts.
Both data users and suppliers could gain economically by the
implementation of SDCs. Data users benefit from the improved
efficiency to access spatial data, and data suppliers from the in-
creased effectiveness to distribute their spatial data and the improved
efficiency to collect data by reducing data duplication. It seems
that the establishment and maintenance costs of these facilities
are economically justified, although the cost savings for the SDC
coordination organizations appear to be a less important impact.
Social Impact. The social impact is primarily assessed by
using social indicators. Two statements in the questionnaire refer
to these indicators: spatial data/service awareness (statement d)
and social cohesion between citizens (statement e). These impact
results are illustrated in Figure 6. From the responses of SDC
coordinators, the vast majority agrees that their SDCs improve
spatial data awareness. Thus, this improvement of spatial data
awareness could be regarded as the most important social impact.
It appears that SDCs could change the way society is using this
spatial data. In many decision-making processes, the role of spa-
tial data is increasing. SDCs improve (indirectly) these processes
in a way that enables stakeholders to become better informed.
Additionally, a majority also agrees that their SDCs strengthen
the social cohesion. It appears that SDCs are, for example, able
to provide equal spatial information access to rural, urban, and
remote communities, which will support local decision-making
capacity development and new socioeconomic activities in these
communities. In view of these social results, it is reasonable
to deduce that SDCs exert a significant impact on the social
dimension.
From a regional perspective, evidence exists that North
American coordinators agree more with the statement that their
SDCs improve the awareness of spatial data. From an administra-
tive-level perspective, no differences in agreement exist. The coordinators expect mainly that the spatial data con-
Environmental Impact. The environmental impact is as-
sessed by using one environmental indicator: data delivery for
environmental policy formulation (statement f ). The coordina-
tors expect little impact on the environment. From the response
it appears that the majority of the coordinators neither agree nor
disagree (60 percent) with statement f. SDCs do not seem to
deliver the data appropriately for environmental policy formula-
Figure 5. Worldwide distribution of SDC coordinators’ responses
(percentage) to statements relating to economic indicators
URISA Journal • Crompvoets, de Bree, van Oort, Bregt, Wachowicz, Rajabifard, Williamson
tion. Nevertheless, some environmental policy makers make use
of SDCs to access needed spatial data and services (Williamson
2004).
From a regional perspective, the evidence indicates that
North American coordinators do not consider this impact as
important. From an administrative-level perspective, no differ-
ences in agreement exist.
Examining assessment indicators in combination with the
benefits, it appears that the main positive impact of implementing
SDCs is economic. The high degree of correspondence in coordi-
nators’ views with respect to the economic, social, and environ-
mental impacts is significant, confirming that SDCs worldwide
function within broadly similar operating environments
Future Developments
The coordinators were asked to select what they expect will hap-
pen with their SDCs in the next five years (question 5). A subset
of their response was that:
• The use of spatial data will increase (89 percent).
• More (new) services will be provided (55 percent).
• The data quality will improve (50 percent).
• The use by governments will increase (49 percent).
• More datasets will be provided (35 percent).
• More specific datasets will be needed (34 percent).
• The metadata standards applied will be changed (31
percent).
• New expertise will be needed (26 percent).
sumption as well as the range of service provision of their SDCs
will increase. These developments are in line with literature
(Maguire and Longley 2005, Beaumont et al. 2005) and link
strongly to the gradual shift in focus of SDC development: from
data-centric to user-centric. In the 1990s, data and technology
were the main driving forces for SDCs. At the present moment,
Figure 6. Worldwide distribution of SDC coordinators’ responses
(percentage) to statements relating to social indicators
29
the use of data (and services) and the needs of the users are be-
coming the main forces for SDC development (Reeve and Petch
1999, Williamson et al. 2003, Crompvoets et al. 2004).
The similarity in development views of the coordinators is
significant, showing that the coordinators possess the same future
objectives probably created by such external developments as
expanding technologies, market demand, changing business mod-
els, sustainable development, e-government, and participatory
democracy. The few differences are that more North American
coordinators expect that additional datasets will be provided and
new expertise will be needed.
Assessment of
the Objectivity of
Coordinators’ Responses
A total of 41 European practitioners completed a short version of
the questionnaire. The high degree of correspondence between the
responses of these European practitioners and the European SDC
coordinators (34) with respect to the questions and statements is
significant. This result implies that the coordinators’ perceptions are
not unduly biased (at least the European coordinators’ perceptions)
and justifies the choice to focus on SDC coordinators as reliable
sources of information to assess the impacts. Furthermore, the
practitioners look on cost savings as a more significant benefit and
consider the improved awareness of spatial data as a less important
impact. This indicates that the coordinators underestimate the ef-
ficiency of SDCs and overestimate the improved awareness.
Methodology Used
The implementation of the assessment procedure was appropriate
to measure the impact of SDCs on a worldwide scale to assist
policy makers to decide whether investments in the establishment
and maintenance of SDCs are justified. When compared to pre-
vious studies, the strength of this impact assessment was that it
was comprehensive and systematic, reproducible, robust, based
on expert knowledge, and that it identified significant economic
and social impacts. Through the survey it was possible to gather
the perceptions of the coordinators in a fast, inexpensive, and easy
way. The complementary analyses were needed to interpret the
results of the survey. The main limitation of this study was that
only qualitative impacts could be assessed and it was not possible
to determine quantitative measures such as financial impacts. The
current experiences of the SDC operations are limited by the fact
that they are still at an early stage of their development. There
is a need to refine methodology so that more precise records of
numerical and financial data can be recorded. In this way, a bet-
ter and more accurate grasp of financial and operational impacts
could be delivered. Nevertheless, the usage of indicators gave some
insight into how economic, social structure, and environment
alter when SDCs are implemented.
30 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007
CONCLUSIONS
The main conclusions of this comprehensive and systematic
impact assessment referring primarily to SDCs of the developed
world are:
• SDCs are likely to exert a positive impact on society. The
main (positive) impacts are of an economic nature, but social
impacts are obviously important as well. On the other hand,
SDCs likely have little impact on the environment.
• SDCs could be considered as relevant facilities to enhance
spatial data/service accessibility and to promote the sharing
of these resources.
• SDCs could be considered as efficient facilities to enhance
data/service accessibility and to reduce data duplication.
• SDCs could be considered as effective facilities to increase
the use and distribution of spatial data/services, to improve
the awareness of spatial data/services, to strengthen social
cohesion between citizens, and to improve potentially better-
informed decision making.
• Costs and funding could be regarded as the main obstacle
for SDC implementation.
• In the near future, the use of spatial data resources of SDCs
will increase as well as the range of service provisions.
• Coordinators have similar views toward the benefits,
drawbacks, and impacts as well as the future developments of
SDCs. These similarities could form a perfect basis to ensure
interoperability between datasets and access mechanisms,
and to create a culture of sharing as well as a shared language
among coordinators.
North American SDCs are considered the most efficient
and effective facilities, and are substantially accepted within the
community. This is in line with Maguire and Longley (2005),
who mention that many American as well as Canadian SDCs
already in the 1990s were able to promote awareness of spatial
data, create community involvement, and build capacity to access
this data (Maguire and Longley 2005). The Australian SDCs form
the intermediate in efficiency and effectiveness between North
American and European SDCs.
The diversity in benefits, drawbacks, impacts, and future
developments between the different administrative levels appear
to be low. This could imply that the GI processes relating to
spatial data/service accessibility do not vary much at different
administrative levels.
The results obtained could be used to justify present invest-
ments and to support future investments in SDCs. However,
the authors observe that despite these positive results in terms
of relevance, efficiency, and effectiveness, the SDC concept to
share resources continues to be resisted, which leads to unneces-
sary inefficiencies, resulting in duplication of data collection and
storage and consequent costs (Nedovic-Budic and Pinto 2000,
Federal Geographic Data Committee 2002, Askew et al. 2005).
To utilize these SDCs effectively, there must be a clear understand-
ing of how they influence and justify their costs, and overcome
institutional problems. It appears that more impact assessment References
research is needed (e.g., case studies).
Agresti, A. 1990. Categorical data analysis. Hoboken, NJ:
Acknowledgments Wiley.
Askew, D., S. Evans, R. Matthews, and P. Swanton. 2005.
The authors would like to thank Hugh Buchanan, Watse Castelein, MAGIC: a geoportal for the English countryside. Comput-
Michael Gould, Louis Hecht, Günther Pichler, Gerda Schennach, ers, Environment and Urban Systems 29: 71-85.
Paul Smits, and Marc Vanderhaegen for their contributions to Beaumont, P., P. A. Longley, and D. J. Maguire. 2005. Geographic
the generation of the questions of the questionnaire, and the information portals—a UK perspective. Computers, Envi-
members of the INSPIRE Expert Group and the Permanent Com- ronment and Urban Systems 29: 49-69.
mittee on GIS Infrastructure for Asia and Pacific (PCGIAP) for Berends, J., and E. Weesie. 2001. Kosten en effecten ruimte voor
disseminating the questionnaire to potential SDC coordinators. geo-informatie. Rotterdam: Twynstra Gudde and NEI (in
Moreover, the authors gratefully wish to acknowledge the support Dutch).
of all the SDC coordinators and the European practitioners in the Bernard, L., I. Kanellopoulos, A. Annoni, and P. Smits. 2005.
preparation of this paper. Their contributions by answering the The European geoportal—one step towards the establish-
questions and statements were crucial for the results presented in ment of a European spatial data infrastructure. Computers,
this paper. Finally, the authors thank Gert Jan Hofstede, Brian Environment and Urban Systems 29: 15-31.
Goodsell, and Rini Kools for comments and suggestions on earlier Bråthen, S. 2003. Economic impact assessment: description.
versions of this paper. Available at http://home.himolde.no/~brathen/V04lecs/
The authors also acknowledge the financial support by the Transp_lec1.doc.
Dutch innovation program, “Space for Geo-Information.” Canadian Council of Land Surveyors, Canadian Institute of
Geomatics & Geomatics Industry Association of Canada.
About The Authors 2000. Geomatics Sector—Human Resources Study.
Clinton, W. 1994. Coordinating geographic data acquisition and
Joep Crompvoets, Floris de Bree, Pepijn van Oort, Arnold access to the national spatial data infrastructure. Executive
Bregt, and Monica Wachowicz are with the Centre for Geo- Order 12096, Federal Register 59: 17671-4 (Washington,
Information at Wageningen University, The Netherlands. D.C.).
Commission of the European Communities. 2002. Commu-
Corresponding Address: nication from the Commission on Impact Assessment,
Joep Crompvoets Brussels.
Wageningen University Commission of the European Communities. 2004. Proposal
Centre for Geo-Information for a directive of the European Parliament and the Council
P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the
Wageningen, The Netherlands community (INSPIRE). Extended Impact Assessment, Com-
Phone: (+31) 317 474399; Fax (+31) 317 419000 mission Staff Working Document, Brussels.
E-mail: joep.crompvoets@wur.nl Craglia, M., A. Annoni, M. Klopfer, C. Corbin, L. Hecht, G.
Pichler, and P. Smits, eds. 2003. Geographic information
Abbas Rajabifard and Ian Williamson are with the Centre for in the wider Europe, Geographic Information Network in
Spatial Data Infrastructures and Land Administration in Europe (GINIE). Available at http://www.ec-gis.org/ginie/
the Department of Geomatics at Melbourne University, doc/GINIE_finalreport.pdf.
Australia. Crompvoets, J., and A. Bregt. 2003. World status of national
Corresponding Address: spatial data clearinghouses. URISA Journal (Special issue on
Melbourne University Public Participation GIS) 15: APA I, 43-50.
Centre for Spatial Data Infrastructures Crompvoets, J., A. Bregt, A. Rajabifard, and I. Williamson. 2004.
and Land Administration Assessing the worldwide developments of national spatial
Department of Geomatics data clearinghouses. Int. J. Geographical Information Sci-
Victoria 3010, Australia ence 18(7): 665-89.
Dorling Kindersley. 2002. Great world atlas. London: Dorling
Kindersley Limited.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Guidelines for preparing
economic analysis.
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 1997. Metadata to clear-
inghouse hands-on tutorial. Washington, D.C.: Federal
Geographic Data Committee.

URISA Journal • Crompvoets, de Bree, van Oort, Bregt, Wachowicz, Rajabifard, Williamson
31
Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2002. Geospatial One-Stop,
Office of Management and Budget Capital Asset Plan.
Fornefeld, M., and P. Oefinger. 2001. Marktstudie: aktivierung
des geodatenmarktes in Nordrhein Westfalen. MICUS
GmbH (in German).
Gillespie, S. 2000. An empirical approach to estimating GIS
benefits. URISA Journal 12(1): 7-14.
Groot, R., and M. A. Sharifi. 1994. Spatial data infrastructure,
essential element in the successful exploitation of GIS tech-
nology. EGIS/MARI ’94, Fifth European Conference and
Exhibition on Geographical Information Systems. Utrecht,
The Netherlands.
Hamilton, M. 2003. Online survey response rates. Available at
http://www.supersurvey.com/papers/supersurvey_white_pa-
per_response_rates.htm.
INSPIRE Architecture and Standards Working Group (P. Smits,
ed.). 2002. INSPIRE Architecture and Standards Position
Paper. Infrastructure for spatial information in Europe.
Available at http://www.ec-gis.org/inspire/.
Jorgenson, D. W. 1998 Growth, Vol. 2: energy, environment, and
economic growth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Long, M., and I. Alastair. 1997. Assessing climate change impacts:
co-evolution of knowledge, communities, and methodolo-
gies. BCSIA Discussion Paper, Discussion Paper E-97-09.
Cambridge, MA: Kennedy School of Government, Harvard
University.
Maguire, D. J., and P. A. Longley. 2005. The emergence of geopor-
tals and their role in spatial data Infrastructures. Computers,
Environment and Urban Systems 29: 3-14.
Nedovic-Budic, Z., and K. Pinto. 2000. Information sharing in
an interorganisational GIS environment. Environment and
Planning B: Planning and Design 27(3): 455-74.
Onsrud, H. J. 1998. Compiled responses by question for selected
questions. Survey of national and regional spatial data infra-
structure activities around the globe. GSDI survey. Available
at http://www.spatial.maine.edu/~onsrud/GSDI.htm.
32 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007
Pasca, M., G. Artioli, G. Ciardi, G. Asunis, F. Vinelli, M. Salvem-
ini, P. Cipriano, L. Garretti, F. Vico, A. Oggiano, and W.
Castelein. 2004. Lessons learnt from Italian NSDI. INSPIRE
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe.
PriceWaterhouse. 1995. Australian Land and Geographic Infra-
structure—Benefits Study. Canberra Australia Government
Publishing Service.
PriceWaterhouse Nederland BV. 1996. Beheerorganisatie national
clearinghouse geo-informatie (in Dutch).
Reeve, D., and J. Petch. 1999. GIS organisations and people, a
socio-technical approach. London: Taylor and Francis.
Renong, Berhad. 1995. Feasibility study for the National Land
Information System. Final Report.
Southern California Association of Governments. 1998. Access
Project. U.S. Department of Transportation.
Tait, M. G. 2005. Implementing geoportals: applications of
distributed GIS. Computers, Environment and Urban
Systems 29: 33-47.
Taylor, C., C. Nicholas, B. Hobson, and C. C. Goodrich. 1990.
Social assessment: theory, process and techniques, studies in
resource management, 7. Lincoln University, New Zealand:
Center for Resource Management.
Walther, J. 2005. GEOmis.bund—1. Stufe der GDI-DE. In
L. Bernard, J. Fitzke, and R. M. Wagner, eds., Geodaten-
infrastruktur, grundlagen und anwendungen. Heidelberg:
Herbert Wichmann Verlag, 163-69 (in German).
Wehn de Montalvo, U. 2004. Chapter Eight, Outreach and
capacity building. In D. D. Nebert, ed., Developing spatial
data infrastructures: the SDI cookbook. Version 2.0, GSDI-
Technical Working Group, 96-116. Available at http//www.
gsdi.org/docs2004/Cookbook/cookbookV2.0pdf.
Williamson, I., A. Rajabifard, and M. E. Feeney. 2003. Devel-
oping spatial data infrastructures: from concept to reality.
London: Taylor and Francis.
Williamson, I. 2004. Report on inter-jurisdictional coordination
and benchmarking of spatial data infrastructures for the Of-
fice of Spatial Data Management Geoscience, Australia.
 From Text to Geographic Coordinates:
The Current State of Geocoding
Daniel W. Goldberg, John P. Wilson, and Craig A. Knoblock

Abstract: This article presents a survey of the state of the art in geocoding practices through a cross-disciplinary historical review
of existing literature. We explore the evolving concept of geocoding and the fundamental components of the process. Frequently
encountered sources of error and uncertainty are discussed as well as existing measures used to quantify them. An examination
of common pitfalls and persistent challenges in the geocoding process is presented, and the traditional methods for overcoming
them are described.

INTRODUCTION Saalfeld 1987) to complex interpolation algorithms using a variety

The process of geocoding forms a basic fundamental compo-
nent of spatial analysis in a wide variety of research disciplines
and application domains (e.g., health [Vine et al. 1998, Boulos
2004, Rushton et al. 2006]; crime analysis [Olligschlaeger 1998,
Ratcliffe 2001]; political science [Haspel and Knotts 2005];
computer science [Hutchinson and Veenendall 2005b, Bakshi
et al. 2004]). This act of turning descriptive locational data such
as a postal address or a named place into an absolute geographic
reference has become a critical piece of the scientific workflow.
However, the geocoding of today is a far cry from the geocoding
of the past. Geocoding data that used to cost $4.50 per 1,000
records as recently as the mid-1980s (Krieger 1992) quickly
moved to $1.00 per record in 2003 (McElroy et al. 2003), and
can now be done for free with online services (e.g., Yahoo! Inc.
[2006], Locative Technologies [2006]), with far greater spatial
accuracy and match rates.
As the availability and accuracy of reference datasets have
increased over the past several decades (Dueker 1974, Werner
1974, Griffin et al. 1990, Higgs and Martin 1995, Martin and
Higgs 1996, Johnson 1998a, Martin 1999, Boscoe et al. 2004),
geocoding has undergone marked transitions to accommodate
and exploit changes in both data format and user expectations.
These transitions can clearly be seen in the input, output, and
internal processing of the geocoding process. The input data suit-
able for geocoding have expanded from simple postal addresses
(O’Reagan and Saalfeld 1987) to include textual descriptions
of relative locations (Levine and Kim 1998, Davis et al. 2003,
Hutchinson and Veenendall 2005b). The output capabilities
of the geocoding process have moved from simple nominal
geographic codes (Tobler 1972, Dueker 1974, Werner 1974,
O’Reagan and Saalfeld 1987) to full-fledged three-dimensional
(3-D) geospatial entities (Beal 2003, Lee 2004). Likewise, the
internal processing mechanisms that produce the geographic out-
put have moved from simple feature assignment (O’Reagan and
of heterogeneous data sources (Bakshi et al. 2004, Hutchinson
and Veenendall 2005a, b).
While significantly improving the usability, reliability, and ac-
curacy of the geocoding process, these developments have brought
with them a host of issues that a potential user must recognize
and be prepared to contend with. Specific issues include the as-
sumptions made during the interpolation process (Dearwent et al.
2001, Karimi et al. 2004), the underlying accuracy of the reference
dataset (Gatrell 1989, Block 1995, Drummond 1995, Martin and
Higgs 1996, Chung et al. 2004), the uncertainty in the match-
ing algorithm (O’Reagan and Saalfeld 1987, Jaro 1984), and the
choice of areal unit geocoded to (Krieger 1992, Geronimus et al.
1995, Geronimus and Bound 1998, Krieger et al. 2002a, 2003).
These topics have received considerable research in recent times,
and a great deal of literature is available. This article will survey
the field of geocoding through a cross-disciplinary study of the
geocoding literature focusing foremost on the technical aspects of
the process. The changing concept of geocoding will be described,
and the fundamental components of the geocoder will be out-
lined. Potential sources of error in the geocoding process will be
explored, and particularly difficult geocoding scenarios requiring
further research will be highlighted. The primary contributions
of this article will be to inform the reader of the state of the art
in geocoding through a discussion of its evolution over time
and to warn of potentially sticky situations that can arise in the
geocoding process if one is not aware of how one’s decisions and
assumptions can affect the geocoded results. This work should be
seen as distinct from the recent work published by Rushton et al.
(2006), which also offers a review of the geocoding process, but is
focused on its application to health research, in particular cancer
studies. Their work takes a narrow and limited view of geocod-
ing and does not delve so deeply into the evolution or technical
aspects of the geocoding process as does that presented here. As
such, this paper can be seen as a more comprehensive, technically

URISA Journal • Goldberg,Wilson, Knoblock 33

targeted, broadly visioned journey through the geocoding process
and should be used as a companion article to field-specific reviews
such as that of Rushton et al. (2006).
THE CONCEPT OF GEOCODING
Over the years, the changing availability of geographic data has
forced the concept of geocoding to remain flexible and adaptive
in terms of its requirements and capabilities. The increasing avail-
ability, accuracy, and reliability of digital geographic reference
datasets has meant that the geocoding process has continually
evolved to keep pace with the underlying datasets that facilitate
its use. As such, practitioners have been pushing the boundaries
of what types of information can be geocoded using different
information sources from the very beginning. Early geocoding
systems used by the U.S. Census in the 1960s simply turned
postal addresses and named buildings into geographical zones
delineated by numerical codes (O’Reagan and Saalfeld 1987),
not the valid geographic objects such as points, lines, areas, or
surfaces with which consumers of geocoded data are accustomed
to today. More modern attempts at geocoding have tackled the
problems of assigning valid geographic codes to far more types
of locational descriptions such as street intersections (Levine and
Kim 1998), enumeration districts (census delineations) (Sheehan
et al. 2000), postal codes (zip codes) (Gatrell 1989, Collins et
al. 1998, Sheehan et al. 2000, Krieger et al. 2002b, Hurley et
al. 2003), named geographic features (Davis et al. 2003, United
Nations Economic Commission 2005), and even freeform textual
descriptions of locations (Wieczorek et al. 2004, Hutchinson and
Veenendall 2005a, b).
These fundamental shifts in geocoding attitudes and oppor-
tunities can be traced directly to the technological advances made
to the underlying reference datasets on which they are based. The
early attempts at geocoding were hindered by the lack of digital
geographies to use in the assignment of codes, and were limited
by their use of flat text-based files. This resulted in low-resolution
nongeographic output, turning addresses and building names into
the census block to which they belonged. The development of true
digital geographies in the form of products such as the U.S. Cen-
sus Bureau’s Dual Independent Map Encoding (DIME) files en-
abled the assignment of true geographic codes, but their structure
limited the processing that could be applied to derive the output.
The introduction of the vector-based geographic datasets such as
the U.S. Census Bureau’s Topographically Integrated Geographic
Encoding and Referencing (TIGER) (U.S. Census Bureau 2006)
database have enabled new generations of geocoding algorithms
to approximate representations for the geographic output using
interpolation-based approaches, greatly increasing the resolution
of the geographic output (Dueker 1974, O’Reagan and Saalfeld
1987, Martin 1998, Ratcliffe 2001, Nicoara 2005). Taking this
a step further, the creation of precompiled geocoded national ad-
dress registers such as the ADDRESS-POINT (Ordnance Survey
2006) and Geocoded National Address File (G-NAF) (Paull 2003)
databases in the United Kingdom and Australia, respectively,
have facilitated highly precise geocoding capabilities at national
34 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007
scales (Higgs and Martin 1995, Martin 1998, Ratcliffe 2001,
Churches et al. 2002, Higgs and Richards 2002, Christen et al.
2004, Christen and Churches 2005, Murphy and Armitage 2005).
Furthermore, the emergence of high-resolution digital parcel and
property boundary files may enable even more accurate digital
geographic results to be returned (Dueker 1974, Olligschlaeger
1998, Dearwent et al. 2001, Ratcliffe 2001, Rushton et al. 2006),
but these developments are pushing the limits of what form the
output of geocoding should take. Likewise, the development
of multiresolution gazetteers defining geographic footprints for
named geographic places such as the Alexandria Digital Library
Gazetteer (Frew et al. 1998, Hill and Zheng 1999, Hill et al.
1999, Hill 2000) are pushing the limits of what type of geographic
features can have geographic codes assigned to them (Davis et
al. 2003, United Nations Economic Commission 2005), as well
as the role of the geocoder in the larger geospatial information-
processing context. The proliferation of a variety of diverse types
of locational addressing systems throughout the world precludes
a “one size fits all” geocoding strategy that will work in all cases
(Fonda-Bonardi 1994, Lind 2001, Davis et al. 2003, Walls 2003,
United Nations Economic Commission 2005).
The result of this evolution is a somewhat “fuzzy” concept
of geocoding, tailored to the specific requirements and data avail-
ability of the person performing the geocoding. For example,
almost everyone involved in or using geocoding today would
agree that turning a postal address into a geographic point is most
certainly included in the set of geocoding operations. Likewise,
they would probably agree that turning a portion of the postal
address such as the post code (zip code) into a geographic point
or polygon is also part of the geocoding process. However, con-
tinuing this line of reasoning presents a slippery slope because
a series of fundamental questions arise. What should the point
returned as representative of the postal code be? Should it be the
center of mass (centroid)? Should it be weighted by the popula-
tion distribution? Furthermore, if the digital boundary of the
postal code is available, why not return it instead of just a single
point? Questions such as these are just the beginning. If the
postal code can be geocoded, can the city be as well? If so, what
is the difference between the geocoder returning a geographic
representation of the city and the gazetteer doing the same? And
if they are, in fact, performing the same operation, why is it
commonly understood that a gazetteer can provide geographic
representations for a wide variety of geographic features such as
rivers, mountains, and shorelines, while these are seldom thought
of as candidates for the geocoding process? We can see through
this discussion that the term geocoding can mean different things
to different people, and their perception will be based on their
primary experience or usage with a particular geocoding tool.
To some, “geocoding” is synonymous with “address matching”
(e.g., Drummond 1995, Vine et al. 1998, Bonner et al. 2003),
highlighting its prevalent use of transforming postal addresses into
geographic representations (Drummond 1995, 250). For others,
“geocoding” is understood to produce a valid geographic output,
but its input is not necessarily limited to simple postal addresses
(e.g., Levine and Kim 1998), and still further distinctions can
be drawn between the two terms (Johnson 1998a, 25). Taken
literally, geocoding means “to assign a geographic code.” This
definition stems from the two root words: geo, from the Latin
for earth, and coding, defined as “applying a rule for converting a
piece of information into another” (similar to that defined early
on in the geocoding literature [Dueker 1974, 320]). Notice that
this literal definition does not imply nor constrain in any way
the input to the geocoding system, the processes or data sources
used to assign the geographic code, or even what the geographic
code returned as output must be. It is precisely this relaxation of
formal constraints on the geocoding process that has allowed it
to mature and prosper to the many forms that we use today, and
that will in turn drive the technological advances of tomorrow.

GEOCODING FUNDAMENTALS
Even with this varied notion of geocoding, it is still possible to
characterize it in terms of its fundamental components: the in-
put, output, processing algorithm, and reference dataset (Levine
and Kim 1998, Karimi et al. 2004, Yang et al. 2004, Nicoara
2005). The input is the locational reference the user wishes to
have geographically referenced that contains attributes capable
of being matched to some datum that has been previously geo-
graphically coded. The most common data to be geocoded are
postal addresses. In fact, there are very few geocoding services
that geocode anything other than postal address data. The simple
reason for this is that postal address data are among the most
prevalent forms of information (Eichelberger 1993), and address
geocoding is cited often throughout the literature as a national Figure 1. Relationship between the gazetteer and geocoder
health goal that will “be the basis for data linkage and analysis
in the 21st century” (U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services 2000, goal 23-3). Address data are how people locate,
situate, and navigate themselves, and are presently the easiest tion between the two components as part of a larger spatial query
method by which to describe one’s location (Walls 2003). In the and analysis framework. This situation is displayed in Figure 1,
future when all cellular phones come equipped with reliable global where the geocoder is shown to be one of many possible sources
positioning system (GPS) units and all homes and businesses are of footprint data for a gazetteer, with itself being composed of
geographically referenced with coordinates available via wireless several data sources.
location-based services, the postal address may, in fact, become The output is the geographically referenced code determined
obsolete. But for the foreseeable future, the postal address will by the processing algorithm to represent the input. In most
remain the critical and ubiquitous data throughout most forms situations, the output is a simple geographic point, but nothing
of information processing. forbids it from being any valid type of geographic object. The
As previously noted, however, address data are not the only development of detailed spatial datasets enables the output of
type of locational data that can or should be geocoded. Even the increasingly detailed multidimensional geographic features, in-
earliest geocoding systems of the U.S. Census accounted for the cluding the emergence of 3-D indoor geocoding solutions (Beal
geocoding of named buildings (O’Reagan and Saalfeld 1987), 2003, Lee 2004).
but the task of associating geocodes with geographic features The processing algorithm determines the appropriate geo-
other than addresses is most commonly associated with the graphic code to return for a particular input based on the values of
services provided by a gazetteer (Hill 2000). The problem with its attributes and the values of attributes in the reference dataset.
this, though, is that a gazetteer typically does not contain the This is by far the most complicated portion of the geocoding
functionality to generate the geocodes that it returns, instead process in which the most research has been invested. The key
acting as a storage mechanism after the geocodes have already topics involved in the process include the standardization and
been determined using other methods. As such, the geocoder is normalization of the input into a format and syntax compatible
commonly employed to produce the geocodes for features in the with that of the reference dataset (Johnson 1998b, Churches et al.
gazetteer that are address-based, emphasizing the crucial connec- 2002, Laender et al. 2005, Nicoara 2005), the matching algorithm

URISA Journal • Goldberg,Wilson, Knoblock 35


Figure 2. Schematic of deterministic address matching with attribute
relaxation
that picks the best feature in the reference dataset (Drummond
1995, Vine et al. 1998, Davis et al. 2003, Bakshi et al. 2004),
and the final geocode generation mechanism that determines
what to return based on the reference feature selected as the
best match (Drummond 1995, Levine and Kim 1998, Ratcliffe
2001, Cayo and Talbot 2003, Davis et al. 2003). Figure 2 shows
a schematic diagram of how a simple deterministic processing
algorithm could proceed using standardization, normalization,
and attribute relaxation. The standardization and normaliza-
36 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007
tion process can vary in complexity from simple token parsing
with lookup tables for standardizing abbreviations to advanced
probabilistic methods using machine learning techniques such
as hidden Markov models that can handle attribute misspellings
and misplacements (O’Reagan and Saalfeld 1987, Fulcomer et
al. 1998, Churches et al. 2002, Christen et al. 2004, Yang et al.
2004, Christen and Churches 2005, Nicoara 2005). In general,
the key role performed in this step is to determine what each
piece of the input is and to turn each into versions consistent
with those in the reference dataset.
Once the input has been sufficiently massaged to be compat-
ible with the reference dataset, the matching process picks the
best candidate to be used to derive the final output. Tricks such
as word stemming, using Soundex, and relaxing the requirement
of matching all attributes can be used to improve the probability
of finding a match in the reference dataset (O’Reagan and Saa-
lfeld 1987, Drummond 1995, Fulcomer et al. 1998, Johnson
1998a, Levine and Kim 1998, Gregorio et al. 1999, Boscoe et
al. 2002, Churches et al. 2002, Beal 2003, Christen et al. 2004,
Yang et al. 2004, Christen and Churches 2005, Nicoara 2005).
Here the issue may arise that zero, one, or more than one refer-
ence features can be the best possible match. In the case of one
match, the algorithm will use it to determine a geocode. In the
case of zero, the matching algorithm may prompt the user for
more information, attempt to geocode at a lower resolution with
additional datasets, or try to find additional information in other
datasets to enable a match (Laender et al. 2005). Likewise, in the
case of multiple matches, the algorithm may prompt the user to
determine the appropriate one or consult additional datasets for
more information to use in breaking the tie (Hutchinson and
Veenendall 2005b, a).
In any case, once the appropriate reference feature has been
selected, the algorithm must determine the appropriate geocode
for output based on the input and the reference feature. In the
case of a precompiled geocoded dataset such as the ADDRESS-
POINT (Ordnance Survey 2006) and G-NAF (Paull 2003),
the algorithm can simply return the existing geographic repre-
sentation. However, in the case of TIGER (U.S. Census Bureau
2006), the output geography must be derived based on the line
segment determined to be a match. Here interpolation algorithms
deduce the appropriate output geography based on attributes of
the street segment such as address ranges and polarity (Drum-
mond 1995, Levine and Kim 1998, Ratcliffe 2001, Cayo and
Talbot 2003, Davis et al. 2003). In general, these interpolation
algorithms work by first identifying the correct street segment in
the reference data source based on the attributes of the address
to be geocoded and the attributes of the street segment (address
ranges associated with both sides of the segment, street name,
street suffix, etc.). Once found, the appropriate side of the street
segment is ascertained using the polarity (even/odd) of the ad-
dress and each of the street segment sides. The correct location
along the street segment is then determined by computing where
the addresses in question would fall as a proportion of the total
address range associated with the appropriate side of the street
Figure 3. Sample block showing parameters of the geocoding algorithm

Figure 4. Sample address block with true parcel arrangement showing true geocoded point as ring

segment. This proportion is then applied to the total length of
the street segment to obtain a location along the centerline of the
street, and additional parameters such as distance and direction
from the street center and offset from the endpoints of the street
can be introduced to further improve the accuracy (Ratcliffe
2001, Cayo and Talbot 2003). Additional data sources can be
consulted to obtain knowledge about the number of parcels on
the street and their geographic distribution (Bakshi et al. 2004)
to overcome the parcel homogeneity assumption (Dearwent et
al. 2001) that all parcels within an address range truly exist and
have the same dimensions. In Figures 3 through 6 these points
are illustrated.
Figure 3 shows the parameters for the interpolation algo-
rithm, d and , the street centerline offset distance and angle,
q , the corner offset distance, and v , the interpolated distance
to the center of the parcel. Also shown are the address ranges for
each side of the segment, 601 through 649 on the odd parity side,
and 600 through 648 on the even parity side. Figure 4 shows a
sample block segment with the geocoded position of 631 Main
Street displayed. Figure 5 displays how the parcel homogene-
ity assumption divides the segment into equal portions for all
addresses within the range of the street segment, placing the
geocoded point for address 631 at the wrong location (shown
as ring) compared to the true location (shown as shaded ring).
Figure 6 also displays the parcel homogeneity assumption, but
in this case the true number of parcels on the street is known
and the resulting geocoded point for address 631 is at a closer
location (shown as ring) to that of the true location (shown as
shaded ring). When using area-based reference features such as
postal code and parcel polygons to compute point geographies

URISA Journal • Goldberg,Wilson, Knoblock 37

Figure 5. Sample address block with parcel homogeneity assumption using address range showing erroneous geocoded point as ring and true
geocoded point as shaded ring

to return as output, the algorithm must calculate an appropriate geographic object, the probability that the feature returned is the
centroid (Stevenson et al. 2000, Dearwent et al. 2001, Ratcliffe one that was desired, or the validity of one or more assumptions
2001). It may simply return the center of mass of the object, or used by the geocoding algorithm? Further definitions could
it may perform more complex calculations in conjunction with include the error caused by the match rate, the weighting and
other information such as population distributions across an area relaxation techniques used in the standardization process, or the
to determine a more representative weighted centroid (Gatrell confidence cutoffs used during probabilistic matching. Common
1989, Durr and Froggatt 2002). causes and effects of errors in each stage of the geocoding process
The reference dataset consists of the geographically coded are listed in Table 1.
information that can be used to derive the appropriate geographic
code for an input. As noted earlier, the datasets used as geocoding Table 1. Common Causes and Effects of Errors in Stages of the
reference files have changed rapidly over time and are respon- Geocoding Process
sible for driving new technological breakthroughs in geocoding Stage Cause of error Effect of error
methodologies. The early datasets of text-based lists have given Matching    
way to true digital geographic datasets, and are rapidly moving
toward advanced 3-D representations. The underlying advances   Attribute relaxation Incorrect feature
in terms of efficient storage, retrieval, and indexing have allowed   Probabilistic Incorrect feature
these datasets to grow expansively in size, detail of resolution, and confidence level
speed of access. The only constraint on these datasets is that they Derivation    
need to maintain attributes in a consistent fashion throughout,
  Parcel homogeneity Wrong distribution
so that the standardization and normalization algorithms can
assumption
work toward transforming the input data to be appropriate for
  Address range Wrong number
finding a match.
existence assumption
Reference Data    
GEOCODING ERROR   Spatial accuracy Results inaccurate
This broad definition of geocoding also brings with it a significant
burden in the form of anticipating and/or quantifying geocod-   Temporal accuracy Results inaccurate
ing error. Even simply defining what the error of the geocoding
process is presents an arduous task. When speaking of geocoding
error, is reference made to the positional accuracy of the returned

38 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007

Figure 6. Sample address block with parcel homogeneity assumption using actual number of parcels showing erroneous geocoded point as ring
and true geocoded point as shaded ring
It becomes obvious from this (not even close to exhaustive)
list of commonly described error metrics that evaluating the error
associated with a geocoded result is difficult at best, and at worst
not even taken into consideration. It is an unfortunate reality that
even though a broad range of literature exists specifically geared to
exposing how minor error in geocoding accuracy can affect results
based on detailed spatial models (e.g., Gatrell 1989, Ratcliffe
2001, Higgs and Richards 2002, Bonner et al. 2003, Cayo and
Talbot 2003, Krieger 2003, Krieger et al. 2005), recent research
initiatives continue to employ geocoded data without regard for
how the accuracy can introduce possible inconsistencies or bias
into the results (Diez-Roux et al. 2001, Brody et al. 2002, Haspel
and Knotts 2005).
Several studies have attempted to quantify the error associ-
ated with the geocoding process, highlighting error introduction
from specific aspects of the geocoding process (e.g., Davis et al.
2003, Karimi et al. 2004). On evaluating a potential geocoding
strategy, one should consider several key factors to determine if
the outcome will meet their needs. First, what areal unit will the
data be geocoded to? Will the output be to the granularity of in-
dividual postal addresses, or will it be to a larger delineation such
as a census block or zip code, and will the implicit aggregation
of using a larger unit have an effect on the results? This decision
is a divisive topic in the geocoding literature and several studies
have demonstrated that areal unit choices both have an effect and
do not have an effect on the outcomes of the results (Geronimus
et al. 1995, Geronimus and Bound 1998, 1999a, b, Krieger and
Gordon 1999, Smith et al. 1999, Soobader et al. 2001, Krieger
et al. 2002a, 2003, Gregorio et al. 2005). Evaluating one’s confi-
URISA Journal • Goldberg,Wilson, Knoblock 39
dence in the available scholarship will require personal judgment
to determine if this could be an issue given a particular dataset
and research objective.
Second, how accurate is the underlying data used as the refer-
ence dataset? Included in this discussion should be the concepts of
spatial accuracy (how close are the features in the dataset to what
is found on the ground [Karimi et al. 2004, Wu et al. 2005]?),
temporal accuracy (how close are the features in this dataset to
how they were at the time period of interest to me [McElroy et al.
2003, Han et al. 2005]?), original collection purpose (what were
these data originally collected for [Boulos 2004]?), and lineage
(what processes have been applied to this data [Veregin 1999]?).
These aspects may be difficult to quantify because the accuracy
measurements associated with datasets are estimates over the entire
dataset, not on a per-feature basis. For example, while achieving
an acceptable accuracy for short street segments in urban areas,
the TIGER (U.S. Census Bureau 2006) datasets most commonly
used for linear interpolation geocoding in the United States are
known to be far less accurate for geocoding in rural areas with
longer street segments (Drummond 1995, Vine et al. 1998, Cayo
and Talbot 2003, Bonner et al. 2003, Wu et al. 2005). Assuming
a consistent accuracy value for a dataset throughout the entire area
of coverage is rarely discussed or noted as a point of contention
in the determination of geocoding accuracy.
A third related issue arises when one considers multitiered
geocoding approaches using multiple data sources. For example,
in numerous instances, geocoding match rates in rural areas are
far less than in urban areas (e.g., Gregorio et al. 1999, Kwok and
Yankaskas 2001, Boscoe et al. 2002, Bonner et al. 2003, Cayo
and Talbot 2003). The typical approach to solving this problem
involves a decision of whether to geocode to a less precise level or
to include additional detail from other sources to determine the
correct geocode. Choosing either case creates a resulting dataset
with varying degrees of accuracy as a function of location, a
condition recently defined as “cartographic confounding” (Oliver
et al. 2005) that has been alluded to many times, yet remained
undefined throughout the history of geocoding research (Block
1995, Ratcliffe 2001, Cayo and Talbot 2003, Nuckols et al. 2004,
Ratcliffe 2004, Gregorio et al. 2005). A per-geocode accuracy
is rarely maintained as a result of the geocoding process other
than the level of geography matched to (i.e., census tract versus
block group), and rarely do spatial models include variables to
model this phenomena, although some researchers (Openshaw
1989, Arbia et al. 1998, Cressie and Kornak 2003, Gabrosek
and Cressie 2002) have begun developing models to account for
it. Despite this, information describing the varying degrees of
accuracy of each individual geocode is not typically represented
during subsequent spatial analysis.
Fourth, one needs to determine if the assumptions made
by the geocoding algorithm are applicable to one’s needs. As
previously mentioned, the most common form of geocodin
(linear interpolation–based) makes several key assumptions that
can affect the level of accuracy of the results. First, it assumes
that all addresses within an address range exist. Thus, when it
determines the correct location for a particular address along a
street segment by identifying the proportion along the segment
where an address should fall, it will overestimate the number of
addresses placing it at the wrong location. Second, it assumes a
homogeneous distribution of addresses in terms of lot placement
and size, known as the parcel homogeneity assumption (Dearwent
et al. 2001, 332). This means that each lot on the street is assumed
to have the same dimensions, and be oriented in the same direc-
tion, which is typically not a realistic assumption. Furthermore,
it does not take into account that the corner lot on a segment
may belong to the segment in question, or to the segment that
forms the corner (Bakshi et al. 2004). While the magnitude of
error introduced by these assumptions is small (on the order of
half the length of the street segment [Wu et al. 2005, 596]), it
can have dramatic effects when the variable and/or relationships
of interest (e.g., environmental exposure doses to pesticide [Brody
et al. 2002, Kennedy et al. 2003], air pollution [Wu et al. 2005],
or proximity to voting precincts [Haspel and Knotts 2005]) vary
over tens or hundreds of meters, and becomes amplified as the
landscape becomes more rural. Additionally, it has been shown
that when geocodes are used for point-in-polygon operations
to derive attributes from other datasets, small spatial errors in
geocodes that lie along borders between the larger level features
can cause serious misclassifications in combined data (Ratcliffe
2001, Schootman et al. 2004).
Fifth, one needs to consider the uncertainty created by the
aggregation or randomization performed on the resulting point
to protect the identity of the geocoded object. This is most often
the case in the geocoding of health data, where confidentiality
40 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007
requirements necessitate the geocode for an individual’s location
to be nonidentifying. Research has shown that there are ways to
trade off between the usefulness of data returned for spatial analy-
sis versus specific confidentiality requirements, but further work
is required to quantify the effect of this in a geocoding context
(Armstrong et al. 1999). For a more thorough description of the
issues involved specifically geared toward health research, refer to
Boscoe et al. (2004) and Rushton et al. (2006).
Finally, one needs to determine if the intended spatial analysis
can deal with uncertain geographic values or not. Here a funda-
mental decision must be made whether probabilistic matching
methods can be used or strictly deterministic ones (O’Reagan
and Saalfeld 1987). When interpreting an input query, the
geocoding system must go through several steps to determine the
“best” match in the reference dataset (Levine and Kim 1998). If
the input can be matched directly to an existing geography, it
can be returned immediately. However, it is more often the case
that one needs to massage the input data and transform it into
a format consistent for finding the best match. Locational data,
and in particular postal address data, are notoriously “noisy”; very
often, extraneous information, missing information, or confusing
nonstandardization is contained in the input (Fulcomer et al.
1998, Ratcliffe 2001, 2004, Murphy and Armitage 2005, Nico-
ara 2005). In these cases, the geocoding algorithm is forced to
either attempt to correct the input so that a match can be found
or return a nonmatch. It has been shown that with deterministic
approaches such as relaxing the constraint that all attributes must
match exactly and allowing partial matches with a variety of at-
tribute weighting schemes, a higher match rate can be achieved,
but at the price of accuracy. In particular, studies have found
that relaxing the street name portion of an address will greatly
reduce the accuracy of the geocoded results (Lixin 1996, Bonner
et al. 2003, Cayo and Talbot 2003, Krieger 2003, Rushton et al.
2006). In contrast, probabilistic approaches to standardization
(Jaro 1984) have been used since very early on in the geocoding
literature with much success (O’Reagan and Saalfeld 1987) and
continue to improve (Churches et al. 2002, Christen et al. 2004,
Christen and Churches 2005), but one must recognize the risk
that these results may not be accurate, as they are relying on the
confidence level of their uncertainty measures, and they will in
some cases produce erroneous results.
PERSISTENT GEOCODING
DIFFICULTIES
For all the technological advances and improvements that have
been made to the geocoding process and the underlying reference
datasets, the geocoding difficulties identified early on still exist.
In developing countries with little GIS data infrastructure, the
main roadblock to accurate geocoding is the simple nonexistence
of reference datasets or GIS data infrastructure (Croner 2003,
United Nations Economic Commission 2005). The development
of basic GIS reference datasets is hindered by the existence of
slum-like areas that change frequently, contain geographic features
that are not street addressable, and where many areas lack a con-
sistent addressing scheme (Davis 1993, Oppong 1999, Davis et
al. 2003, United Nations Economic Commission 2005). Efforts
are under way to remedy these situations by developing standard-
ized addressing systems that include facets for encouraging public
participation aimed at promoting acceptance and eventual adop-
tion, but these are costly endeavors being undertaken in areas with
few economic resources to dedicate to the task (United Nations
Economic Commission 2005).
Even in developed countries such as the United States, the
existence of rural addresses and P.O. boxes impose a continual
headache for geocoding practitioners (Gregorio et al. 1999,
Boscoe et al. 2002, Hurley et al. 2003, McElroy et al. 2003,
Schootman et al. 2004, Gaffney et al. 2005, Oliver et al. 2005).
In the P.O. box case, it is not possible to determine an accurate
geocode because the information available about the address is
just not specific enough. The best that one can do is to geocode
to a lower resolution such as a postal code centroid, but several
studies have explored how this can introduce bias into the results
produced with the geocoded data (Sheehan et al. 2000, Krieger et
al. 2002b, Hurley et al. 2003). Research initiatives have recently
undertaken creative ways to obtain enough specific information
to produce a more accurate geocode by using secondary sources
including obtaining the P.O. box renter’s address from the postal
service, utility company records, and administrative records from
government agencies. These tasks require human intervention
and are quite expensive (Levine and Kim 1998, Hurley et al.
2003, McElroy et al. 2003, Han et al. 2005). While capable of
producing highly accurate results to within a few meters, the
practice of using a global positioning system (GPS) technology
to record point locations for addresses is an option for producing
geocoded results, but this has its limitations (e.g., time-consum-
ing, expensive, and labor-intensive) (Ward et al. 2005, Bonner
et al 2003). The increasing prevalence of parcel data and its use
when GPS data are unavailable is an alternative option that has
been proposed throughout the history of the literature (e.g.,
Dueke 1974, Rushton et al. 2006). A recent U.S. government
report found that there is an increasing surge in the amount of
survey quality digital parcel boundary data becoming available
(Stage and von Meyer 2005), with some states actually passing
legislation requiring its release (Lockyer 2005), from which ac-
curate centroids could be derived and used as substitutes where
GPS data are not available (Ratcliffe 2001).
Likewise, the mandatory introduction of the Enhanced
911 (E911) system in the United States for all structures with
telephones is improving geocoding by increasing the number
of rural addresses reported as address data and creating more
accurate reference datasets (Johnson 1998a, Cayo and Talbot
2003, Levesque 2003, Rose et al. 2004, Oliver et al. 2005), but
historical data frequently used in research are not being updated,
so the problem still remains. Again in this case, the geocoding
practitioner is forced to obtain secondary information to identify
what an appropriate city-style address would be for the location so
it can successfully be geocoded. E911 geocoding typically results
URISA Journal • Goldberg,Wilson, Knoblock 41
in an “absolute” geocode, as opposed to a “relative” geocode, as in
traditional interpolation-based geocoding. “Absolute” geocoding,
as used here, refers to the fact that the resulting geocode is based
on a linear addressing system, describing a known point (e.g., a
milepost) and the distance one would have to travel to find the
actual location from that point. “Relative” geocoding, in contrast,
results in a geocoded result that is an interpolation along or within
a geographic feature (e.g., a percentage of the distance along a
street segment or the center of mass of a parcel).
As people move away from traditional land-line phones with
the adoption of cell phone technology, some may argue that the
promise of E911 solving addressing issues will begin to disappear.
However, while it is true that in the future more calls will undoubt-
edly be made from cell phones, this is irrelevant for most municipali-
ties still assume that structures will have phones and legislation is
often in place that requires the E911 system to be kept up-to-date
and accurate. As such, when official addresses are requested for new
construction, the department responsible for maintaining the E911
system will most likely be required to visit the property and assign
the E911-based geocode for the address.
A further problem, which the evolution of reference da-
tasets may help solve, is that of subparcel geocoding. This case
occurs when multiple structures are residing on the same land
parcel such as in apartment/condominium-type properties and
large campuses such as universities and business parks or in the
case of large farms where a single small structure may be located
somewhere within a much larger parcel. Here geocoding to the
centroid of the property may not present sufficient accuracy for
the detailed applications previously described (Gaffney et al.
2005). However, including secondary data sources and operations
such as high-resolution imagery in conjunction with computer
vision techniques to identify and separate buildings may help
lead the way in this arena (Hutchinson and Veenendall 2005b).
Like all reference data sources though, when employing imagery
data in a geocoding solution, one must be aware that the accuracy
ultimately achieved can be greatly affected by the preprocessing
applied (or lack thereof ), typically the rectification and registra-
tion processes. For in-depth historical and state-of-the-art reviews,
consult Gottesfeld Brown 1992, Pohl and Van Genderen 1998,
Toutin 2004. Additionally, integrating and conflating existing
detailed maps of campuses (Chen et al. 2003, 2004) may enable
the extraction of highly accurate polygons for building footprints,
but automating this task is still an open research problem. Of
course, the reliance on two-dimensional (2-D) GIS data sources
of the traditional and commonly used GIS platforms precludes
the ability for highly precise geocoding of 3-D structures with
multiple addresses such as multistory buildings.
CONCLUSION
This article has explored the state of the art in geocoding through
a discussion of the path geocoding and its reference datasets have
taken over the years. This work should serve as a starting point
from which potential geocoding projects can be undertaken with
regard to identifying the potential pitfalls and challenges that are
commonly encountered. Each particular geocoding project will Craig A. Knoblock is a senior project leader at the Information
have its own requirements in terms of input and output data Sciences Institute and a research professor in computer sci-
structure and format, confidentiality, cost, available tools, and ence at the University of Southern California. He received
technical know-how, but the survey presented here should allow his Ph.D. in computer science from Carnegie Mellon Uni-
a more thorough understanding of the ramifications of particular versity. His current research interests include information
choices made during the process. integration, automated planning, machine learning, con-
straint reasoning, and the application of these technologies
Acknowledgments to geospatial data integration. He is currently President of
the International Conference on Automated Planning and
This research is based on work supported in part by the National Scheduling and a fellow of the American Association of
Science Foundation under Award Number IIS-0324955 and in Artificial Intelligence.
part by the University of Southern California Libraries. The views
and conclusions contained herein are those of the authors and References
should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official
policies or endorsements, either expressed or implied, of any of Arbia, G., D. Griffith, and R. Haining. 1998. Error propagation
these organizations or any person connected with them. modeling in raster GIS: overlay operations. Int. Journal of
Geographical Information Science 12(2): 145-67.
About The Authors Armstrong, M. P., G. Rushton, and D. L. Zimmerman. 1999.
Geographically masking health data to preserve confidential-
Dan W. Goldberg is a third-year computer science Ph.D. ity. Statistics in Medicine 18(5): 497-525.
student working in the GIS Research Laboratory at the Bakshi, R., C. A. Knoblock, and S. Thakkar. 2004. Exploit-
University of Southern California. He is a recent recipient ing online sources to accurately geocode addresses. In D.
of the 2005–2006 U.S. Geospatial Intelligence Foundation’s Pfoser, I. F. Cruz, and M. Ronthaler, eds., ACM-GIS ’04:
Graduate Student Scholarship, and his research interests Proceedings of the 12th ACM International Symposium on
include geographic information extraction and integration, Advances in Geographic Information Systems, Washington
automated approaches to building highly detailed and ac- D.C., November 2004, 194-203.
curate gazetteers, and developing new methods for geocoding Beal, J. R. 2003. Contextual geolocation, a specialized application
textual locational descriptions. for improving indoor location awareness in wireless local area
networks. In T. Gibbons, ed., MICS2003: The 36th Annual
Corresponding Address: Midwest Instruction and Computing Symposium, Duluth,
GIS Research Laboratory Minnesota, April 2003.
University of Southern California Block, R. 1995. Geocoding of crime incidents using the 1990
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0255 TIGER file: the Chicago example. In C. R. Block, M. Dab-
Phone: (213) 740-8263 doub, and S. Fregly, eds., Crime analysis through computer
E-mail: daniel.goldberg@usc.edu mapping. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research
Forum, 15.
John P. Wilson is a professor of geography and Director of the Bonner, M. R., D. Han, J. Nie, P. Rogerson, J. E. Vena, and J.
GIS Research Laboratory at the University of Southern Cali- L. Freudenheim. 2003. Positional accuracy of geocoded
fornia. He is the founding editor of Transactions in GIS, an addresses in epidemiologic research. Epidemiology 14(4):
active participant in the UNIGIS International Network, and 408-11.
Past-President of the University Consortium for Geographic Boscoe, F. P., C. L. Kielb, M. J. Schymura, and T. M. Bolani.
Information Science. His major publications include two 2002. Assessing and improving census track completeness.
books (Terrain Analysis: Principles and Applications; Handbook Journal of Registry Management 29(4): 117-20.
of Geographic Information Science) along with numerous book Boscoe, F. P., M. H. Ward, and P. Reynolds. 2004. Current prac-
chapters and journal articles on topics ranging from soil ero- tices in spatial analysis of cancer data: data characteristics and
sion and groundwater pollution problems to urban growth data sources for geographic studies of cancer. Int. Journal of
modeling and the environmental and social characteristics of Health Geographics 3(28).
place and their impacts on selected health outcomes. Boulos, M. N. K. 2004. Towards evidence-based, GIS-driven
Corresponding Address: national spatial health information infrastructure and sur-
Department of Geography veillance services in the United Kingdom. Int. Journal of
University of Southern California Health Geographics 3(1).
Los Angeles, CA 90089-0255 Brody, J. G., D. J. Vorhees, S. J. Melly, S. R. Swedis, P. J. Drivas,
Phone: (213) 740-1908 and R. A. Rudel. 2002. Using GIS and historical records to
E-mail: jpwilson@usc.edu. reconstruct residential exposure to large-scale pesticide ap-

42 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007

 plication. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental
Epidemiology 12(1): 64-80.
Cayo, M. R., and T. O. Talbot. 2003. Positional error in auto-
mated geocoding of residential addresses. Int. Journal of
Health Geographics 2(10).
Chen, C.-C., C. A. Knoblock, C. Shahabi, and S. Thakkar. 2003.
Building finder: a system to automatically annotate buildings
in satellite imagery. In P. Agouris, ed., NG2I ’03: Proceedings
of the International Workshop on Next Generation Geospa-
tial Information, Cambridge, MA, October 2003.
Chen, C.-C., C. A. Knoblock, C. Shahabi, S. Thakkar, and Y.-
Y. Chiang. 2004. Automatically and accurately conflating
orthoimagery and street maps. In D. Pfoser, I. F. Cruz, and
M. Ronthaler, eds., ACMGIS ’04: Proceedings of the 12th
ACM International Symposium on Advances in Geographic
Information Systems, Washington D.C., November 2004,
47-56.
Christen, P., and T. Churches. 2005. A probabilistic reduplication,
record linkage and geocoding system. In Proceedings of the
Australian Research Council Health Data Mining Workshop
(HDM05), Canberra, AU, April 2005. In press, acrc.unisa.
edu.au/groups/healthhdw2005Christen.pdf.
Christen, P., T. Churches, and A. Willmore. 2004. A probabilistic
geocoding system based on a national address file. Austral-
asian Data Mining Conference, Cairns, AU, December
2004. http://datamining.anu.edu.au/publications/2004/aus-
dm2004.pdf.
Chung, K., D.-H. Yang, and R. Bell. 2004. Health and GIS:
toward spatial statistical analyses. Journal of Medical Systems
28(4): 349-60.
Churches, T., P. Christen, K. Lim, and J. X. Zhu. 2002. Prepara-
tion of name and address data for record linkage using hidden
Markov models. Medical Informatics and Decision Making
2(9). http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-
6947-2-9.pdf.
Collins, S. E., R. P. Haining, I. R. Bowns, D. J. Crofts, T. S.
Williams, A. S. Rigby, and D. M. Hall. 1998. Errors in
postcode to enumeration district mapping and their effect on
small area analyses of health data. Journal of Public Health
Medicine 20(3): 325-30.
Cressie, N., and J. Kornak. 2003. Spatial statistics in the presence
of location error with an application to remote sensing of the
environment. Statistical Science 18(4): 436-56.
Croner, C. M. 2003. Public health GIS and the Internet. Annual
Review of Public Health 24: 57-82.
Davis Jr., C. A. 1993. Address base creation using raster/vector
integration. Proceedings of the URISA 1993 Annual Confer-
ence, Atlanta, GA, 45-54.
Davis Jr., C. A., F. T. Fonseca, and K. A. De Vasconcelos Borges.
2003. A flexible addressing system for approximate geocod-
ing, GeoInfo 2003: Proceedings of the Fifth Brazilian Sym-
posium on GeoInformatics, Campos do Jordão, São Paulo,
Brazil, October 2003.
URISA Journal • Goldberg,Wilson, Knoblock 43
Dearwent, S. M., R. R. Jacobs, and J. B. Halbert. 2001. Loca-
tional uncertainty in georeferencing public health datasets.
Journal of Exposure Analysis Environmental Epidemiology
11(4): 329-34.
Diez-Roux, A. V., S. S. Merkin, D. Arnett, L. Chambless, M.
Massing, F. J. Nieto, P. Sorlie, M. Szklo, H. A. Tyroler, and R.
L. Watson. 2001. Neighborhood of residence and incidence
of coronary heart disease. New England Journal of Medicine
345(2): 99-106.
Drummond, W. J. 1995. Address matching: GIS technology for
mapping human activity patterns. Journal of the American
Planning Association 61(2): 240-51.
Dueker, K. J. 1974. Urban geocoding. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers 64(2): 318-25.
Durr, P. A., and A. E. A. Froggatt. 2002. How best to georefer-
ence farms? A case study from Cornwall, England. Preventive
Veterinary Medicine 56: 51-62.
Eichelberger, P. 1993. The importance of addresses: the locus of
GIS. Proceedings of the URISA 1993 Annual Conference,
Atlanta, GA, 212-13.
Fonda-Bonardi, P. 1994. House numbering systems in Los Ange-
les. Proceedings of the GIS/LIS ’94 Annual Conference and
Exposition, Phoenix, AZ, October 1994, 322-31.
Frew, J., M. Freeston, N. Freitas, L. L. Hill, G. Janee, K. Lovette,
R. Nideffer, T. R. Smith, and Q. Zheng. 1998. The Alex-
andria digital library architecture. In C. Nikalaou and C.
Stephanidis, eds., ECDL ’98: Proceedings of the 2nd Eu-
ropean Conference on Research and Advanced Technology
for Digital Libraries, Heraklion, Crete, Greece, September
1998. Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 1513. London,
UK: Springer, 61-73.
Fulcomer, M. C., M. M. Bastardi, H. Raza, M. Duffy, E. Dufficy,
and M. M. Sass. 1998. Assessing the accuracy of geocoding
using address data from birth certificates: New Jersey, 1989
to 1996. In R. C. Williams, M. M. Howie, C. V. Lee, and
W. D. Henriques, eds., Proceedings of the 1998 Geographic
Information Systems in Public Health Conference, San
Diego, CA, August 1998, 547-60. http://www.atsdr.cdc.
gov/GIS/conference98/proceedings/pdf/gisbook.pdf.
Gabrosek, J., and N. Cressie. 2002. The effect on attribute pre-
diction on location uncertainty in spatial data. Geographical
Analysis 34: 262-85.
Gaffney, S. H., F. C. Curriero, P. T. Strickland, G. E. Glass,
K. J. Helzlsouer, and P. N. Breysse. 2005. Influence of
geographic location in modeling blood pesticide levels in a
community surrounding a U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency Superfund Site. Environmental Health Perspectives
113(12): 1712-16.
Gatrell, A. C. 1989. On the spatial representation and accuracy
of address-based data in the United Kingdom. Int. Journal
of Geographical Information Systems 3(4): 335-48.
Geronimus, A. T., and J. Bound. 1998. Use of census-based ag-
gregate variables to proxy for socioeconomic group: evidence
 from national samples. American Journal of Epidemiology
148(5): 475-86.
Geronimus, A. T., and J. Bound. 1999a. Re: Use of census-based
aggregate variables to proxy for socioeconomic group: evi-
dence from national samples. American Journal of Epide-
miology 150(8): 894-6. Letter.
Geronimus, A. T., and J. Bound. 1999b. Re: Use of census-based
aggregate variables to proxy for socioeconomic group: evi-
dence from national samples. American Journal of Epide-
miology 150(9): 997-9. Letter.
Geronimus, A. T., J. Bound, and L. J. Neidert. 1995. On the valid-
ity of using census geocode characteristics to proxy individual
socioeconomic characteristics. Technical Working Paper 189.
Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Gottesfeld Brown, L. 1992. A survey of image registration tech-
niques. ACM Computing Surveys 24(4): 325-76.
Gregorio, D. I., E. Cromley, R. Mrozinski, and S. J. Walsh. 1999.
Subject loss in spatial analysis of breast cancer. Health &
Place 5(2): 173-7.
Gregorio, D. I., L. M. DeChello, H. Samociuk, and M. Kulldorff.
2005. Lumping or splitting: seeking the preferred areal unit
for health geography studies. Int. Journal of Health Geo-
graphics 4(6).
Griffin, D. H., J. M. Pausche, E. B. Rivers, A. L. Tillman, and J.
B. Treat. 1990. Improving the coverage of addresses in the
1990 census: preliminary results. Proceedings of the Ameri-
can Statistical Association Survey Research Methods Section,
Anaheim, CA, August 1990, 541-6. http://www.amstat.
org/sections/srms/Proceedings/papers/1990+091.pdf.
Han, D., P. A. Rogerson, M. R. Bonner, J. Nie, J. E. Vena, P.
Muti, M. Trevisan, and J. L. Freudenheim. 2005. Assessing
spatio-temporal variability of risk surfaces using residential
history data in a case control study of breast cancer. Int.
Journal of Health Geographics 4(9).
Haspel, M., and H. G. Knotts. 2005. Location, location, location:
precinct placement and the costs of voting. The Journal of
Politics 67(2): 560-73.
Higgs, G., and D. J. Martin. 1995. The address data dilemma
part 1: is the introduction of address-point the key to every
door in Britain? Mapping Awareness 8, 26–28.
Higgs, G., and W. Richards. 2002. The use of geographical
information systems in examining variations in sociodemo-
graphic profiles of dental practice catchments: a case study of
a Swansea practice. Primary Dental Care 9(2): 63-69.
Hill, L. L. 2000. Core elements of digital gazetteers: placenames,
categories, and footprints. In J. L. Borbinha and T. Baker,
eds., ECDL ’00: research and advanced technology for digital
libraries. 4th European Conference, Lisbon, Portugal, Sep-
tember 2000. Lecture notes in computer science, Vol. 1923.
London, UK: Springer, 280-90.
Hill, L. L., J. Frew, and Q. Zheng. 1999. Geographic names:
the implementation of a gazetteer in a georeferenced digital
library. D-Lib Magazine 5(1). http:// www.dlib.org/dlib/ja-
nuary99/hill/01hill.html.
44 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007
Hill, L. L., and Q. Zheng. 1999. Indirect geospatial referenc-
ing through place names in the digital library: Alexandria
digital library experience with developing and implementing
gazetteers. Proceedings of the 62nd Annual Meeting of the
American Society for Information Science, Washington,
D.C., October–November, 1999, 57-69.
Hurley, S. E., T. M. Saunders, R. Nivas, A. Hertz, and P. Reynolds.
2003. Post office box addresses: a challenge for geographic
information system-based studies. Epidemiology 14(4):
386-91.
Hutchinson, M., and B. Veenendall. 2005a. Towards a framework
for intelligent geocoding. In SSC 2005 spatial intelligence,
innovation and praxis. The National Biennial Conference of
the Spatial Sciences Institute, Melbourne, AU, September
2005.
Hutchinson, M., and B. Veenendall. 2005b. Towards using intel-
ligence to move from geocoding to geolocating. Proceedings
of the 7th Annual URISA GIS in Addressing Conference,
Austin, TX, August 2005.
Jaro, M. 1984. Record linkage research and the calibration of
record linkage algorithms. Statistical Research Division
Report Series SRD Report No. Census/SRD/RR-84/27.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Census Bureau. http://www.census.
gov/srd/papers/pdf/rr84-27.pdf.
Johnson, S. D. 1998a. Address matching with commercial spatial
data: part 1. Business Geographics, March, 24-32.
Johnson, S. D. 1998b. Address matching with stand-alone geoc-
oding engines: part 2. Business Geographics, April, 30-36.
Karimi, H. A., M. Durcik, and W. Rasdorf. 2004. Evaluation of
uncertainties associated with geocoding techniques. Journal
of Computer-Aided Civil and Infrastructure Engineering
19(3): 170-85.
Kennedy, T. C., J. G. Brody, and J. N. Gardner. 2003. Modeling
historical environmental exposures using GIS: implications for
disease surveillance. Proceedings of the 2003 ESRI Health GIS
Conference, Arlington, Virginia, May 2003. http://gis.esri.com/
library/userconf/health03/papers/pap3020/p3020.htm.
Krieger, N. 1992. Overcoming the absence of socioeconomic
data in medical records: validation and application of a
census-based methodology. American Journal of Public
Health 82(5): 703-10.
Krieger, N. 2003. Place, space, and health: GIS and epidemiology.
Epidemiology 14(4): 384-85.
Krieger, N., J. T. Chen, P. D. Waterman, D. H. Rehkopf, and S.
V. Subramanian. 2005. Painting a truer picture of U.S. so-
cioeconomic and racial/ethnic health inequalities: the Public
Health Disparities Geocoding Project. American Journal of
Public Health 95(2): 312-23.
Krieger, N., J. T. Chen, P. D. Waterman, M.-J. Soobader, S. V.
Subramanian, and R. Carson. 2002a. Geocoding and moni-
toring of U.S. socioeconomic inequalities in mortality and
cancer incidence: does the choice of area-based measure and
geographic level matter? American Journal of Epidemiology
156(5): 471-82.
Krieger, N., and D. Gordon. 1999. Re: Use of census-based ag-
gregate variables to proxy for socioeconomic group: evidence
from national samples. American Journal of Epidemiology
150(8): 894-6.
Krieger, N., P. Waterman, J. T. Chen, M.-J. Soobader, S. V.
Subramanian, and R. Carson. 2002b. Zip code caveat: bias
due to spatiotemporal mismatches between zip codes and
U.S. census-defined areas: The Public Health Disparities
Geocoding Project. American Journal of Public Health
92(7): 1100-2.
Krieger, N., P. D. Waterman, J. T. Chen, M.-J. Soobader, and S. V.
Subramanian. 2003. Monitoring socioeconomic inequalities
in sexually transmitted infections, tuberculosis, and violence:
geocoding and choice of area-based socioeconomic measures.
Public Health Reports 118(3): 240-60.
Kwok, R. K., and B. C. Yankaskas. 2001. The use of census data
for determining race and education as SES indicators: a
validation study. Annals of Epidemiology 11(3): 171-7.
Laender, A. H. F., K. A. V. Borges, J. C. P. Carvalho, C. B. Me-
deiros, A. S. da Silva, and C. A. Davis, Jr. 2005. Integrating
Web data and geographic knowledge into spatial databases.
In Y. Manalopoulos and A. N. Papadapoulos, eds., Spatial
databases: technologies, techniques and trends, Chap. 2.
(Hershey, PA: Idea Group Inc.), 23-47.
Lee, J. 2004. 3D GIS for geo-coding human activity in micro-
scale urban environments. In M. J. Egenhofer, C. Freksa, and
H. J. Miller, eds., Geographic information science. Third
International Conference, GIScience 2004, College Park,
MD, October 2004, 162-78.
Levesque, M. 2003. West Virginia Statewide Addressing and
Mapping Project. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual URISA
Street Smart and Address Savvy Conference, Providence, RI,
August 2003. http://www.urisa.org/Street Smart Confer-
ence/2003/LevesqueM.pdf.
Levine, N., and K. E. Kim. 1998. The spatial location of motor
vehicle accidents: a methodology for geocoding intersec-
tions. Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 22(6):
557-76.
Lind, M. 2001. Developing a system of public addresses as a
language for location dependent information. In Proceedings
of the 2001 URISA Annual Conference, Long Beach, CA,
October 2001. http://www.adresseprojekt.dk/files/Develop-
PublicAddress urisa2001e.pdf.
Lixin, Y. 1996. Development and evaluation of a framework
for assessing the efficiency and accuracy of street address
geocoding strategies. Ph.D. thesis, University at Albany,
State University of New York, Rockefeller College of Public
Affairs and Policy, 1996.
Locative Technologies. 2006. Geocoder.us: a free U.S. geocoder.
http://geocoder.us.
Lockyer, B. Office of the Attorney General of the State of Cali-
fornia Legal Opinion 04-1105. http://ag.ca.gov/opinions/
pdfs/04-1105.pdf.
URISA Journal • Goldberg,Wilson, Knoblock 45
Martin, D. J. 1998. Optimizing census geography: the separa-
tion of collection and output geographies. Int. Journal of
Geographical Information Science 12(7): 673-85.
Martin, D. J., and G. Higgs. 1996. Georeferencing people and
places: a comparison of detailed datasets. In D. Parker, ed.,
Innovations in GIS 3: selected papers from the Third Nation-
al Conference on GIS Research UK (Gisruk), Canterbury,
UK. London, UK: Taylor and Francis, 37-47.
Martin, D. J. 1999. Spatial representation: the social scientist’s
perspective. In P. A. Longley, M. F. Goodchild, D. J. Maguire,
and D. W. Rhind, eds., Geographical information systems,
Vol. 1, 2nd Ed. New York: Wiley, 6: 71-80.
McElroy, J. A., P. L. Remington, A. Trentham-Dietz, S. A. Rob-
ert, and P. A. Newcomb. 2003. Geocoding addresses from a
large population-based study: lessons learned. Epidemiology
14(4): 399-407.
Murphy, J., and R. Armitage. 2005. Merging the modeled and
working address database: a question of dynamics and data
quality. Proceedings of GIS Ireland 2005, Dublin, IE, Oc-
tober 2005.
Nicoara, G. 2005. Exploring the geocoding process: a municipal
case study using crime data. Master’s thesis, University of
Texas at Dallas, Dallas, TX.
Nuckols, J. R., M. H. Ward, and L. Jarup. 2004. Using geographic
information systems for exposure assessment in environmen-
tal epidemiology studies. Environmental Health Perspectives
112(9): 1007-15.
Oliver, M. N., K. A. Matthews, M. Siadaty, F. R. Hauck, and L.
W. Pickle. 2005. Geographic bias related to geocoding in
epidemiologic studies. Int. Journal of Health Geographics
4(29).
Olligschlaeger, A. M. 1998. Artificial neural networks and crime
mapping. In D. Weisburd and T. McEwen, eds., Crime map-
ping and crime prevention. Crime prevention studies, Vol.
8. Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press, 313-47.
Openshaw, S. 1989. Learning to live with errors in spatial da-
tabases. In M. F. Goodchild and S. Gopal, eds., Accuracy
of spatial databases. Bristol, PA: Taylor and Francis, 23:
263-76.
Oppong, J. R. 1999. Data problems in GIS and health. Pro-
ceedings of Health and Environment Workshop 4: Health
Research Methods and Data, Turku, Finland, July 1999.
http://geog.queensu.ca/hande/healthandenvir/FinlandWork-
shop Papers/OPPONG.DOC.
Ordnance Survey. 2006. ADDRESS-POINT: Ordnance Survey’s
map dataset of all postal addresses in Great Britain. http://
www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/products/address-
point.
O’Reagan, R. T., and A. Saalfeld. 1987. Geocoding theory and
practice at the Bureau of the Census. Statistical Research
Report Census/SRD/RR-87/29. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Census Bureau.
Paull, D. 2003. A geocoded national address file for Australia:
the G-NAF what, why, who and when? http://www.addres-
sonline.com.au/addressonline/home/GNAF What Why
Who When.pdf.
Pohl, C., and J. L. Van Genderen. 1998. Review article: multi-
sensor image fusion. In Remote sensing: concepts, methods
and applications. Int. Journal of Remote Sensing 19(5):
823-54.
Ratcliffe, J. H. 2001. On the accuracy of TIGER-type geocoded
address data in relation to cadastral and census areal units.
Int. Journal of Geographical Information Science 15(5):
473-85.
Ratcliffe, J. H. 2004. Geocoding crime and a first estimate of a
minimum acceptable hit rate. Int. Journal of Geographical
Information Science 18(1): 61-72.
Rose, K. M., J. L. Wood, S. Knowles, R. A. Pollitt, E. A. Whitsel,
A. V. Diez-Roux, D. Yoon, and G. Heiss. 2004. Historical
measures of social context in life course studies: retrospec-
tive linkage of addresses to decennial censuses. Int. Journal
of Health Geographics 3(27).
Rushton, G., M. Armstrong, J. Gittler, B. Greene, C. Pavlik,
M. West, and D. Zimmerman. 2006. Geocoding in cancer
research—a review. American Journal of Preventive Medicine
30(2): S16-S24.
Schootman, M., D. Jeffe, E. Kinman, G. Higgs, and J. Jackson-
Thompson. 2004. Evaluating the utility and accuracy of a
reverse telephone directory to identify the location of survey
respondents. Annals of Epidemiology 15(2): 160-6.
Sheehan, T. J., S. T. Gershman, L. MacDougal, R. A. Danley,
M. Mroszczyk, A. M. Sorensen, and M. Kulldorff. 2000.
Geographic surveillance of breast cancer screening by tracts,
towns and zip codes. Journal of Public Health Management
Practices 6: 48-57.
Smith, G. D., Y. Ben-Shlomo, and C. Hart. 1999. Re: Use of
census-based aggregate variables to proxy for socioeconomic
group: evidence from national samples. American Journal of
Epidemiology 150(9): 996-7.
Soobader, M., F. B. LeClere, W. Hadden, and B. Maury. 2001.
Using aggregate geographic data to proxy individual socio-
economic status: does size matter? American Journal of Public
Health 91(4): 632-6.
Stage, D., and N. von Meyer. 2005. An assessment of parcel data
in the United States 2005 Survey results. Federal Geographic
Data Committee Subcommittee on Cadastral Data Report.
http://www.nationalcad.org/showdocs.asp?docid=170.
Stevenson, M. A., J. Wilesmith, J. Ryan, R. Morris, A. Lawson,
D. Pfeiffer, and D. Lin. 2000. Descriptive spatial analysis
of the epidemic of bovine spongiform encephalopathy in
Great Britain to June 1997. The Veterinary Record 147(14):
379-84.
46 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007
Toutin, T. 2004. Review article: Geometric processing of remote
sensing images: models, algorithms and methods. Int. Journal
of Remote Sensing 25(10): 1893-1924.
Tobler, W. 1972. Geocoding theory. In Proceedings of the Na-
tional Geocoding Conference, Washington D.C. Washing-
ton, D.C.: Department of Transportation, IV.1.
United Nations Economic Commission. 2005. A functional ad-
dressing system for Africa: a discussion paper. http://geoinfo.
uneca.org/Docs/Situs Addressing background paper-Draft.
pdf.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2006. Topologically integrated geographic
encoding and referencing system. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Census Bureau. http://www.census.gov/geo/www/tiger.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2000. Healthy
people 2010: understanding and improving health, 2nd Ed.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. http://
www.healthypeople.gov/Document/html/uih/uih 2.htm.
Veregin, H. 1999. Data quality parameters. In P. A. Longley,
M. F. Goodchild, D. J. Maguire, and D. W. Rhind, eds.,
Geographical information systems, 2nd Ed., Vol. 1, Chap.
12. New York, NY: Wiley, 177-89.
Vine, M. F., D. Degnan, and C. Hanchette. 1998. Geographic in-
formation systems: their use in environmental epidemiologic
research. Journal of Environmental Health 61: 7-16.
Ward, M. H., J. R. Nuckols, J. Giglierano, M. R. Bonner, C.
Wolter, M. Airola, W. Mix, J. S. Colt, and P. Hartge. 2005.
Positional accuracy of two methods of geocoding. Epidemiol-
ogy 16(4): 542-7.
Walls, M. D. 2003. Is consistency in address assignment still
needed? Proceedings of the Fifth Annual URISA Street
Smart and Address Savvy Conference, Providence, RI,
August 2003. http://www.urisa.org/Street Smart Confer-
ence/2003/WallsM.pdf.
Werner, P. A. 1974. National geocoding. Annals of the Association
of American Geographers 64(2): 310-7.
Wieczorek, J., Q. Guo, and R. J. Hijmans. 2004. The point-radius
method for georeferencing locality descriptions and calcu-
lating associated uncertainty. Int. Journal of Geographical
Information Science 18(8): 745-67.
Wu, J., T. H. Funk, F. W. Lurmann, and A. M. Winer. 2005. Im-
proving spatial accuracy of roadway networks and geocoded
addresses. Transactions in GIS 9(4): 585-601.
Yahoo! Inc., 2006, Yahoo! Maps Web Services - Geocoding API.
http://developer.yahoo.com/maps/rest/V1/geocode.html.
Yang, D.-H., L. M. Bilaver, O. Hayes, and R. Goerge. 2004.
Improving geocoding practices: evaluation of geocoding
tools. Journal of Medical Systems 28(4): 361-70.
 Analyzing the Usability of an Argumentation Map as a
Participatory Spatial Decision Support Tool
Christopher L. Sidlar and Claus Rinner

Abstract: Argumentation Maps support participants in geographically referenced debates as they occur, for example, as part of
urban planning processes. In a quasi-naturalistic case study, 11 student participants discussed planning issues on the University
of Toronto downtown campus. The analysis of this case study focuses on general usability aspects of an Argumentation Map
prototype, such as cost of entry, efficiency, interactivity, and connectivity. By applying usability analysis methods from the field
of human-computer interaction, we evaluate the learnability, memorability, and user satisfaction with this tool’s functionality.
Our findings indicate that the participants were generally satisfied, but we include specific suggestions for improving the func-
tionality of Argumentation Maps, e.g., with respect to map navigation, display of discussion contributions, and online status of
participants. On a more general level, this case study contributes to the methods spectrum of research into participatory spatial
decision support systems as an example of user testing in a realistic decision-making context.

INTRODUCTION
The Argumentation Map (Argumap) concept was proposed by
Rinner (1999, 2001) to support planning processes by facilitat-
ing distributed, asynchronous discussions. Argumaps are based
on the combination of an online discussion forum and an online
geographic information system (GIS) component. Argumaps
were conceived as a method to formalize debates that have geo-
spatial elements in the discussion. Because of their distributed
nature, Argumaps benefit from a number of characteristics of
the Internet, for example the ability to share information with
many stakeholders (Laurini 2004) and the anonymity provided
in online discussions (Kingston et al. 1999).
Keßler (2004) implemented an Argumentation Map proto-
type as a proof of concept. This Web-based prototype integrates a
discussion forum and a simple mapping tool. Technology used in
the implementation includes the GeoTools Lite mapping tool kit,
a custom-built Java applet for the discussion forum, the MySQL
database for storage of geographically referenced discussion con-
tributions, and the University of Minnesota MapServer for the
supply of background map layers. Keßler chose these open-source
software tools on the grounds that they fulfilled the requirements
for the Argumap concept set out by Rinner (1999) and that they
minimized development costs.
The functionality of the prototype includes map naviga-
tion (zoom in/out, pan, zoom to full extent), layer manage-
ment (switching layers on and off ), and display of map labels
(e.g., building names). In the discussion forum, contributions
are displayed by their subjects, authors, and dates in lists with
indentations by discussion threads, and the body of a selected
contribution is displayed in a text window. When a contribution is
selected in the forum, its geographic references will be highlighted
on the map. Likewise, when a map object is selected, all discussion
contributions referring to this object will be highlighted in the
forum. The Argumap prototype also provides a full-text search
tool for the discussion forum and summary statistics when brows-
ing the map (number of contributions per map object). Finally, in
terms of participation in georeferenced debates, the tool offers a
log-in feature that enables the user to start a new discussion thread
or respond to existing contributions. When editing a message,
a set of geographic references can be specified in the map and is
stored together with the text of the message. The functionality
and architecture of the prototype is summarized in further detail
by Keßler et al. (2005).
The stakeholders in planning processes usually are heteroge-
neous groups with a variety of knowledge and skill levels (Healey
1997, Simão and Densham 2004). Because of the wide range of
possible users, any planning support system must be designed
in such a way that all are able to learn to use the majority of its
functions. This introduces a motivation for a usability analysis
for the Argumap prototype.
This paper provides a framework for usability analysis for
participatory spatial decision support tools such as Argumaps
and describes a case study. We investigated how Keßler’s (2004)
prototype was understood and used by a heterogeneous par-
ticipant population. The following sections describe the research
background, methodology, as well as the preparation and results
of the case study. Conclusions are then drawn in the form of
recommendations for improving the Argumap prototype. While
these recommendations are specific to the software tool being
analyzed, this research also provides an example for conducting
usability analyses for participatory GIS tools in general.
APPROACHES TO SOFTWARE
USABILITY ANALYSIS
“Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) is concerned with the de-
sign of computer systems that are safe, efficient, easy and enjoyable
to use as well as functional” (Preece 1993, 11). As long as there
have been computers, their developers have been concerned with
how the machine and its software will be used. The interaction
between computers and humans is outlined by Licklider (1960)

URISA Journal • Sidlar, Rinner 47

when he viewed the role of the human as formulating hypotheses
for problems, setting standards for the evaluation to follow, and
finally evaluating the output, while the role of the computer was
to facilitate the “routinizable work” to free time for analysis and
evaluation.
HCI evolved further through the work of Wilfred Hansen
with EMILY, a text-editing system for programmers, in the 1970s
(Pew 2003, 8). Hansen is accredited with pioneering the use of
the term user engineering principles (1971). Hansen’s principles
included knowing the user, minimizing memorization, optimiz-
ing operations, and engineering for errors. Hansen’s work was
later followed by that of Engle and Granda (1975) at IBM that
set out guidelines for various aspects including the display, re-
covery procedures, user entry, and response time. The evolution
of guidelines peaked with Smith and Mosier (1986) when such
a comprehensive set was released that the guidelines themselves
were contradictory.
By the late 1980s, the concept of user engineering principles
had not only become a consideration for programmers but had
also evolved into an iterative process that included the production
of prototypes, subsequent testing, and ultimately the production
of modified versions (Rosson and Carroll 2002). This spurred the
formation of usability engineering. “Initially, usability engineering
focused on the design of the user interface” (Rosson and Carroll
2002, 14). Since the personal computer revolution, usability
engineering has also made its way to software engineering with
the developers’ main concern being how the user interacts with
the software.
Study Types
This leads into the discussion on how best to study the use of a
software system. Systems can be evaluated using different levels of
controls. Kirkakowski and Corbett (1990) categorized evaluation
procedures into three types:
1. Naturalistic study,
2. Quasi-naturalistic study, and
3. Experimental study.
Studies that are observational, taking advantage of already
existing situational contexts, are considered naturalistic studies.
Naturalistic studies provide realistically applicable results but to
complete such a study the investigator must play a background
role, and, therefore, collecting the required information to pro-
duce the desired results proves taxing. Quasi-naturalistic studies
use a real-world context but are used with such controls so that
both evaluation and collecting of information are easier, and
therefore a deeper investigation can be achieved. Finally, experi-
mental studies use controls to focus on the independent variables
that the investigator wishes to study, while mitigating variables
that would cause errors in, or cloud, the results, but occur in the
least “realistic” context.
This classification scheme can be compared to that described
in Preece (1993). Preece outlines five categories of evaluation for
the purpose of usability evaluation: analytic, expert, observational,
48 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007
survey, and experimental. An analytical evaluation is described
as using “interface descriptions to predict user performance”
(Preece 1993, 109). An expert evaluation uses identified experts
in the field related to the prototype to analyze and evaluate it.
An observational evaluation consists of evaluation of the behavior
and reactions of users in using the prototype. A survey evaluation
utilizes a questionnaire to solicit users’ opinions on the use of
the prototype. And, finally, an experimental evaluation, similar
to that of Kirkakowski and Corbett (1990), utilizes the scientific
practice of controls to analyze the prototype.
Evaluating Software Usability
Meister and Rabideau (1965) outline a seven-step procedure for
usability evaluation:
1. Determining what a successful application of the prototype
would be;
2. Identifying the ultimate goal of using the prototype;
3. Segmenting the goal of the prototype, so that it may be
analyzed as homogeneous functions;
4. Identifying and describing the functions of the prototype;
5. Deciding on criteria upon which the use of the functions is
to be assessed;
6. Allocating functions on the basis of whether they are user
functions or prototype functions; and
7. Performing the experiment and observing on the basis of the
identified criteria.
Shackel (1991) describes three types of variables that should
be investigated when considering the usability of a product:
dimensional, performance, and attitude criteria. Dimensional
criteria refer to the size of the product or its ergonomics, and
do not alone provide a mark of usability but must be consid-
ered in conjunction with the performance and attitude criteria.
Performance criteria refer to how well the product facilitates
its function, and attitude criteria refer to the feelings the user
has when using the specific product. Similar representations of
these criteria can be found in the evaluation procedures used by
Chapanis (1965, 1981, 1991), Meister and Rabideau (1965),
and Parsons (1972).
Wong and Chua (2001) investigate four beneficial aspects
of the Web that are likely to aid public participation GIS (PP-
GIS): low cost of entry, efficient data transfer, interactivity, and
connectivity. Wong and Chua also describe four barriers that are
particularly present in Web-based PPGIS: cost of interactivity,
user diversity, data and copyright costs, and trust and legitimacy.
They adapt this methodology to investigate the application of the
InfoResources project created by the Center for Community Part-
nership at the University of Pennsylvania while other researchers
(Harrison and Haklay 2002, Carver 2001, Andrienko et al. 2002)
employ a more classical method of usability analysis as defined by
human-computer interaction and usability engineers.
CASE STUDY METHODOLOGY
Following Kirkakowski and Corbett’s (1990) classification, this

Figure 1. Argumap prototype with University of Toronto campus
map to the left and discussion forum to the right (data source: DMTI
Spatial and University of Toronto, Cartography Office)
Figure 2. Argumap prototype with layers for personal geographic
references (red), other users’ geographic references (orange), and aerial
background image (data source: DMTI Spatial, University of Toronto,
Cartography Office, and J. D. Barnes First Base Solutions)
experiment was designed as a quasi-naturalistic study. This study
type was chosen on the basis that it allowed for Keßler’s (2004)
Argumentation Map prototype to be analyzed in a real-world ap-
plication while ensuring the case study was manageable enough
so that a substantial investigation could be achieved.
This study used the prototype in an early identification/ex-
ploration stage as an example of bottom-up planning. Participants
in the discussion were invited to identify planning ideas/concerns
with the University of Toronto St. George campus. A map of the
St. George campus was therefore used in the map component of
the Argumap application. Figure 1 shows the juxtaposition of the
University of Toronto campus map with the discussion forum of
this case study. Figure 2 shows the map and the list of layers. The
application provided the participants with the ability to shape the
planning process and express the concerns that were prevalent to
them. Participants were free to participate in the threads of the
discussion that most interested them, and were also given the abil-
URISA Journal • Sidlar, Rinner 49
ity to start new threads in the discussion forum. The discussion
was monitored for offensive posts by the investigators.
The participants were contacted using a snowball sampling
procedure. The objective in utilizing this procedure is to isolate
stakeholders by targeting campus users beginning from the investi-
gators and snowballing outward through contacts. The creation of
such a participant group is referred to as a “dutch study group” by
Jankowski and Nyerges (2001) in their description of the EAST2
method for GIS-supported participatory decision making. Invita-
tions were sent out via e-mail. Initially, 39 invitation e-mails were
sent out. A setback occurred when the e-mail was filtered as junk
mail by e-mail providers, such as hotmail and gmail. A follow-
up e-mail was released and in some instances, direct contact was
made to these participants informing them that the e-mail may
have been directed to their junk-mail box. From the 39 e-mails,
11 people replied within one week showing interest in the case
study, a 28 percent response rate. From these 11, the investigators
received two additional contacts, one of which showed interest in
the case study. In total, there were 12 participants in the study.
This response rate can be compared to the response rate achieved
in a similar study by Harrison and Haklay (2002) who achieved a
23 percent (19 of 82) response and an 11 percent (9 of 82) partici-
pation rate in their second study, which used a similar sampling
procedure. As a result of the comparable sampling procedures
and sample sizes, we are able to make the same conclusion that
the participants are “‘typical’, rather than representative” of their
publics (Harrison and Haklay 2002, 845).
Meetings were then set up with the participants. There
were two types of meetings: a group workshop and individual
meetings, but all participants were exposed to the same presen-
tation. Of the 12 participants, four attended the group session.
The introductory workshops lasted about 30 minutes, and the
participants were briefed about the concept and the case study
and shown how to access, log in, and make a contribution. At the
workshops, participants stated that they understood the functions
of the prototype and what was expected from them. At the end
of the session, participants were asked to fill out a prediscussion
questionnaire and an informed consent form. Of those who at-
tended the workshops, all filled out the required forms to become
participants.
We noticed that participants attending the individual
meetings tended to ask more questions than were asked in the
group session. In general, some people will shy away from ask-
ing questions in groups and are more likely to ask questions in
an individual setting. Another aspect of consideration is how
well a participant retains the instruction. This will be assessed
on the basis of their preexisting knowledge of skills related to
the case study (Internet forums, GIS, computers, geography,
and planning).
The method chosen for investigating the usability of the
Argumentation Map prototype involves a combination of the
previously explained usability methodologies. Usability of this
prototype, we feel, needs to be considered on two levels: the
general aspects of the tool and the specific functions offered. The
general usability aspects of the prototype were studied through
investigating
• cost of entry,
• efficiency,
• interactivity,
• connectivity, and
• intended users,
following a condensed version of the method employed by
Wong and Chua (2001). The specific functions of the prototype
are analyzed by investigating the
• learnability,
• memorability, and
• satisfaction of case-study participants.
This investigation focuses on the dimensional, performance,
and attitude criteria (Shackel 1991) expressed by the users.
The functionality of the tool was evaluated through surveys
that the participants were required to fill out at the beginning and
the end of the trial period. The prediscussion questionnaire asked
participants about their participation in Internet forums, famil-
iarity with GIS, geography and computer knowledge, previous
involvement in local planning decisions, as well as demographic
variables such as sex, year of study/tenure/occupation, age, and
hometown. The objective of the prediscussion questionnaire was
to identify the participant characteristics as well as their abil-
ity to understand and contribute to. geographically referenced
discussions. A postdiscussion questionnaire considered topics
that referred to the prototype such as its graphical user interface,
clarity of its functions, design and layout of the prototype, and
suitability of the prototype for the purpose of spatial planning.
The second questionnaire was geared toward analyzing the us-
ability of the prototype and whether it would be beneficial to
planning processes.
ANALYZING THE USABILITY OF
THE ARGUMAP PROTOTYPE
General Usability
On the general level, the prototype must be evaluated with
respect to the
• cost of entry,
• efficiency,
• interactivity,
• connectivity, and
• its intended users.
The cost of entry refers to the expenditure imposed on the
intended users and administrators when using the prototype.
The cost of the prototype includes the price of the prototype,
the tools needed to run it or access it, as well as the time it takes
to set it up or use it. Efficiency refers to the prototype’s ability
to fulfill its functions and objectives while taking a minimal
50 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007
amount of resources, albeit time or hardware. Interactivity is
measured through the users’ feedback on the responsiveness of
the prototype. Connectivity refers to how easy it is for a user to
access the prototype. The final criterion, intended users, includes
various aspects such as the involvement in using similar software
and processes as well as position in society and financial situation.
Of particular interest is the relationship between participants and
investigators and the level of trust that is present, and how this
is reflected in the participation.
Cost of Entry. Keßler’s (2004) Argumentation Map proto-
type is based on open-source software components, namely the
MySQL database and the GeoTools Lite mapping tool kit, and
was published under an open-source license itself. Like many
open-source projects, this software thus is available at no cost.
The prototype further adheres to GIS interoperability standards
as defined by the Open Geospatial Consortium (OGC 2005).
A Java applet is a program written in the Java language that
can be downloaded and executed as part of a Web page, provided
the user has a Java Runtime Environment (JRE) installed in a Web
browser. The prototype uses an applet to capitalize on functions
that cannot be implemented with HTML or JavaScript as well as
displaying file types not supported by Web browsers, e.g., ESRI
Shapefiles (Keßler, 2004). The Argumap package is downloaded
free of charge, and the required JRE is also freely available as a
download. Consequently, by using a client-side applet, the user
must endure the downloading of the applet. The downloading
time depends on the user’s Internet connection and computer
speed and will imply connection costs for some users.
On the server side, the prototype uses open-source software
including the Apache Web server, the tomcat Servlet engine,
the UMN MapServer, and the MySQL database. All these
components can be downloaded free of charge. The cost to the
administrator is incurred through the requirement of Web server
hardware and Web space. The processing speed of the server
will affect the performance of the prototype; depending on the
load that will be received, an appropriate server is needed. This
case study used a 3GHz Intel Pentium 4 with Hyper-Threading
technology with 1 GB of DDR RAM.
The cost of entry for this prototype must be examined from
two angles—from the client and from the server or administrator.
From the client side the cost of entry is minimal; it depends on
having a computer with a typical configuration and a high-speed
Internet connection (this will be explained in the following con-
nectivity section). This need can be circumvented, for the user
could use public terminals in Internet cafés or libraries to access
the prototype, ultimately eliminating the cost of entry for the
user/client. As for the administrator, the only cost incurred is that
of a Web server and Web space, for the programs and administra-
tion tools are all available online as free downloads.
Efficiency. The efficiency of this prototype can be understood
in two ways. Efficiency can be measured via a qualitative analysis
of the discussion, as well as from explicit feedback from the users.
The context of this case study was to express and discuss problems
or concerns about the university campus. Threads with more posts,
by a number of different of users, could be thought of as being more
popular than others with fewer or no replies. Therefore, the rate of
replies can indicate the importance of the topic being discussed. In
the case study there were 20 threads. Of these, only three threads
had three or more replies, while the majority of threads had only
one or two replies. The three most popular threads consist of 25
contributions or 42 percent of all contributions. Because of the
importance that these three threads had to the overall discussion,
they will be analyzed in-depth. One indication why these were the
most important threads was the length of the case study. If the case
study had been longer, then the threads started later in the discus-
sion may have garnered more attention, but these three threads
began within the first two days of the case study and therefore
experienced more exposure to discussion.
One aspect of efficiency is whether the discussion was kept
concise and to the point. The in-depth analysis indicates an effi-
cient discussion. One of the three important discussion topics was
concerned with the crossing from one side of campus to the other
across Queen’s Park. Starting off as a suggestion, with replies in
the form of other suggestions, the thread stayed on topic discuss-
ing different methods that would make it safer to cross Queen’s
Park Crescent. The second of the important threads related to
the aesthetics of the Architecture Building at the corner of Huron
and College Streets. This thread was more of an opinion thread as
users with conflicting views met. Although the conclusion was that
the building needed repairs, some participants thought that the
architecture program could benefit even from a building in need
of renovations. The third important thread focused on parking
on the campus. This thread was started with a general question,
followed up by more specific questions and suggestions for park-
ing as well as alternatives to driving. With this discussion there
was an obvious separation between the participants who drive
to campus and those who take public transportation, involving
back-and-forth replies.
An analysis of user feedback, acquired with the postdiscus-
sion questionnaire, shows a different understanding. Participants
expressed concerns that the discussion was too general and that
it would have been better if the ability to start new threads
would be restricted or left to the administrator. For example, one
participant wrote that “One main issue I would identify is the
difficulty in maintaining a sense of continuity on a topic,” while
another stated, “…The prototype would have been enhanced by
organizing the threads by topic in the discussion list so that the
threads relating to one topic are grouped and seen altogether.”
Others felt that it was tedious to manually click to expand each
thread, needing to select the contribution to read it and look for
new posts. Contrarily, some participants liked the nested discus-
sion forum and felt that it was easy for them to find replies to
threads that they had started themselves.
Interactivity. Participants were asked a variety of questions
in the postdiscussion questionnaire with reference to how they
interacted with the prototype. Overall, participants were satisfied
with how the prototype facilitated and handled the discussion.
Participants found that the prototype “did it well” and “It was
URISA Journal • Sidlar, Rinner 51
helpful to be able to see a map of the campus and visualize the
relation between all the buildings. Also, it helped that when there
was a posting about a building, that building was highlighted.”
Another participant noted that “Having a map, and being able
to interact with the map and post comments that way makes the
prototype very user-friendly, and would probably make it more
likely that people will participate in the planning process.” Con-
trarily, a participant noted that the topic failed to fully engage
the participants, while also saying that “The geographic aspect
was nice but in this case it didn’t seem too useful, as most par-
ticipants knew the involved buildings very well already. If only
the message board was there . . . that would have worked just as
well with these users.” But this same participant went on to say
that “Combining a map with a message board is the main point
of the prototype, which it succeeds in doing.” Such comments
lead to a general indication that the prototype provides sufficient
interaction to fulfill the objective it has been set out for.
Connectivity. Because the prototype is a Web-based applica-
tion, the potential users of the Argumentation Map prototype
ultimately include anyone who has an Internet connection. To
support interoperability, Keßler (2004) designed the applet us-
ing the platform-independent Java programming language. The
participant should have a high-speed Internet access to ensure a
reasonable connection time for the whole applet must be down-
loaded at the beginning of each session. Even under this condi-
tion, it took 1.5 to 2 minutes to load the prototype. Normally,
HTML developers intend to keep their pages loading in under
seven seconds as a rule of thumb. Once the applet is loaded refresh
times for the map depend on the complexity of the shapefiles and
images the applet has to load from the Web Map Server.
Intended Users. Keßler developed this prototype to increase
public participation in the planning process. Therefore, the pro-
totype “facilitates participation for citizens and stakeholders and
gives the planners an opportunity to retrieve, store and organize
local knowledge. It must be stated that it is not going to be an
expert tool, but rather the opposite—it should be usable by as
many people as possible, especially laypersons” (Keßler 2004, 9).
In the formation of this usability study, the intended audience was
kept in mind for our participants varied widely in backgrounds
and skill levels.
The case study had a mean age of 22.6 and a median age of
22. The largest occupation group was undergraduate students,
36 percent of the group or 4 of 11 participants. Of those who
were graduates, no one had graduated more than two years ago,
making the group ideal for discussing the university campus. Of
the participants, 73 percent (8 of 11) of them had expressed that
they did have experience with Internet discussion forums on a
wide range of topics (no trends within forum usage emerged). Fur-
thermore, only two had stated ever participating in the planning
process, the majority citing the reason that they had never had
the opportunity. Lastly, 64 percent (7 of 11) of the participants
expressed experience with GIS. The users were therefore qualified
to participate in discussions relevant to the campus, while being
diverse enough to obtain differentiated views on the prototype.
Functional Usability
Usability of the specific functions of the prototype builds upon
three main pillars:
• learnability,
• memorability, and
• satisfaction.
Learnability focuses on how easy it is for a user to understand
and recognize the usefulness of the prototype or tools in the
prototype. This factor must be analyzed in conjunction with the
participants’ general education level and knowledge of specific
topics that directly deal with the use of the prototype. Memora-
bility denotes how well users are able to retain what they have
learned about using the prototype and how they can reapply this
knowledge on another use of the prototype. And satisfaction is a
broad category that encompasses both how the users felt while
using the prototype, thus relating back to the learnability and
memorability of the functions of the prototype, and how the
users felt the prototype facilitated its functions.
Learnability. The participant group included only two
people (or 18 percent) who had experience with the planning
process. Furthermore, the majority of participants (8 of 11) cat-
egorized themselves as being either experts or advanced users of
computers. Also, 7 of 11 participants had GIS experience, rang-
ing widely from GIS beginners to GIS experts. To analyze how
different types of users receive the prototype, the participants are
categorized on the basis of planning experience, GIS experience,
and level of computer knowledge. Those who are well versed in all
these fields will be considered experts; participants who either lack
one of the bases but are skilled in the other two will be considered
as intermediate users; while low representation in two or three
fields will be considered as lay users or beginners. Typical planning
meetings attract a few experts, a larger number of involved citizens,
and a few citizens who are new to the process. Reasons for the
low number of beginners is often attributed to an overwhelming
unfamiliarity with, or intimidation by, the process, which leaves
the majority of issue-championing to “active publics” (Harrison
and Haklay 2002) or, in this case, intermediate users.
Because of the limited number of participants in the case
study, the numbers in the categories are also low, but similar to the
distribution present in the actual planning process. In this study
one of our participants can be categorized as an expert, nine as
intermediate and one as a beginner. It is important to note that
the time to learn the prototype is estimated, based on the user’s
self-rated learning time. The participants were also asked whether
they felt that the learning time was too long, which works as a
better indication of patience for learning the tool. Harrower et
al. (2000) note an interesting finding on the learnability of a
geographic visualization tool in that “understanding the purpose
of a tool and recognizing when it is useful to solve a problem are
two quite different issues” (298). Therefore, we must be cautious
when we say that a user has learned the Argumentation Map tool,
and whether the user actually uses the tool as Rinner (1999, 2001)
had conceptualized it.
52 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007
From the perspective of the expert, it took less than ten min-
utes to “get totally familiar with the prototype,” as he put it. This
participant felt that the learning time was excellent and the way
this participant used the prototype indicates a full understanding
of the tool, as a variety of its functions were used.
For the nine intermediate users, the learning time ranged
from 10 to 30 minutes with a median of 10 minutes. The gen-
eral indication received from the users is that the learning time
was not too long, while only a couple had noted differently.
One participant stated that “Good software should be usable
in one to three minutes” while learning took this user 10 to 15
minutes. Another intermediate user found the time to learn the
basic functions acceptable but took longer to learn the more
advanced functions.
From the perspective of the participant who was categorized
as a beginner, it took a “few” minutes to learn how to use the
prototype. This echoes the point brought up before of how much
of the tool was understood by this user, as it was hypothesized that
experts would find it easier to learn the tool than beginners were.
The participant noted that the “few” minutes it took to learn the
tool were not too long, which is potentially the better indication
of how easy the user felt the tool was to learn. On investigation
into the actual contributions of this user, only the basic functions
of selecting buildings and making posts were used. Also, the posts
had no more than one geographic reference selected, with only
the initial map layers being visible. Therefore, the user did not
take advantage of the more advanced functions such as zooming,
multiple georeferences, and layer management.
Memorability. To properly test memorability, the partici-
pants need to undergo a significant time away from the prototype.
Because of restrictions on the case study and study period, such a
break in the middle of the case study was impossible to organize.
This is, therefore, an aspect that should be investigated further
at another time in either a longer case study or by asking the
participants of this case study to use the same prototype again,
but this time without an introductory session.
Satisfaction. To study satisfaction with the tool, we asked the
participants to rate their overall experience with the prototype on
a scale from 1 to 5 with 1 being the lowest score and 5 being the
highest score. The responses varied only slightly, for the overall
mean was 3.41. This indicates that the participants did see a
benefit in the prototype but also noted some aspects that should
be addressed to increase the satisfaction level.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Using a quasi-naturalistic case study, we have analyzed the us-
ability of an Argumentation Map prototype from two perspec-
tives: on a general overview of the tool and on a functional level.
When considering the general aspects of the tool, its usability is
high. It costs nothing to prepare or use the tool; its loading time
is acceptable for the amount of information being loaded, and
was not a complaint of the participants; and the audience had
little to no problems using it. While quantitatively the discus-
sion looked to be efficient, participants had expressed feelings
of confusion with reference to thread organization, in particular
concerning who could start new threads. Also, the tool generally
engaged the users as indicated by participants’ suggestions for
further applications of the tool.
In a specific review of its functionality, the tool also fares well.
It did not take the participants a long time to learn how to use the
tool. But there seemed to be a discrepancy between learning the
functionality and applying this knowledge, for the rate of advanced
functions was limited. This would indicate that a simplification of
the tool is in order. Because of its short duration, the case study
could not be used to measure the retention of what the participants
learned while using the tool over a longer period of time, therefore
not fully evaluating the memorability of the tool. With respect to
the satisfaction level, the rating of 3.4 out of 5 indicates that the
participants were not overly enthusiastic by the use of the tool while
they were still relatively satisfied with its functions.
Participants were also asked questions referring to confusing
events while using the tool, as well as about the most useful and
any missing functions. From the responses to these questions, and
the comments/questions that were e-mailed to the investigators
or brought up in the orientation sessions, a variety of additions
and alterations to the prototype can be suggested.
The largest concern among participants was that once a
selection of reference objects on the map had been made, there
was no way of deselecting objects. Given the present design of
the study, we could not deduce whether the lack of a deselection
button reduced the number of contributions or increased the
number of selected geographic elements.
Another concern expressed by participants was that the
discussion was complicated or tedious to read, for it required the
user to select each comment. Participants requested a button that
would expand all nested elements at once or a way to read all the
comments as one contribution, similar to functions present in
news readers and Internet forums. Also, participants expressed
a concern with the lack of order in the discussion. Because our
case study was conducted in an exploratory planning stage, this
critique is difficult to avoid. Currently, everyone can start a new
thread on the main level. This option could be removed and
the administrator left with the ability to add general root topics
(e.g., parking, noise, safety, construction). Users could also ask
the administrator to add a root topic. Along similar lines, par-
ticipants should be given a means to contact the administrator
(e.g., via e-mail), whether to obtain help with an issue, to report
offensive material, or to provide comments to make the tool
more user-friendly.
The participants also expressed a wish to be able to see all
the comments that they made themselves. One participant felt
that the planning process would be enhanced with drawings and
pictures attached to discussion contributions. Thus the ability to
upload images and embed them in the contributions should be
developed. Users also requested a way of formatting contributions.
For this, investigation towards a database structure that will store
user formatting is suggested.
Other usability concerns dealt with the user interface ele-
ments themselves, particularly regarding nested comments in
the discussion forum. Participants suggested that this element
be changed to standard user interface design (i.e., a plus denot-
ing nested elements). Also they stated that the zoom function
was difficult to manage. An alternative to a traditional GIS-type
zoom function could be predefined zoom levels similar to popu-
lar Web mapping sites. Also, the participants were confused by
the scale bar for it displayed incorrect units throughout the case
study. A minor issue was the label on the “answer” button; users
commented that the label should rather read “reply.” More of a
concern was the limited amount of information shown in the tool
tips for buildings. When contributions are made, the name of the
building should be preserved in addition to contribution titles.
Other users wanted to see information such as the occupants of
the building and built characteristics (e.g., number of floors).
The users also had wanted to be able to select/draw areas, thus
supporting the expansion of the drawing tools beyond just points,
with emphasis on polygons over lines/polylines.

Table 1. Recommendations Derived from Participant Feedback on Argumap Prototype

Function Group Function Description
MAP NAVIGATION Zoom tool Provide separate zoom out button and/or predefined zoom levels
Scale bar Show correct units and scale
Map tool tips Provide both feature label and number/title of contributions in tool tips
for reference objects
FORUM NAVIGATION Message display Filter messages by author and keep track of unread/read status
DISCUSSION Discussion moderation Require moderator approval for new threads and provide general e-mail
PARTICIPATION contact option
Message formatting Offer HTML formatting when editing messages
Multimedia content Enable upload and inclusion of images in discussion messages
User communication Identify users currently online
GEOREFERENCING OF Reference feature types Allow for different feature types in reference object layer
MESSAGES Deselection Reference objects can be deselected
GENERAL SYSTEM Help menu Provide a help system
PROPERTIES

URISA Journal • Sidlar, Rinner 53

 Although the tool was developed to be used in an asynchro-
nous and distributed manner, participants wished to visualize
who and how many people were logged into the discussion at
any time. Participants also expressed concerns about the number
of tabs and felt that the three tabs could be consolidated into
one screen. Most participants generally liked the layout of the
user interface.
The recommendations for improving the Argumap prototype
that were derived from user feedback are summarized in Table 1.
By applying usability analysis methods from HCI to the evaluation
of an Argumentation Map prototype, we also hope to provide
an example for user-centered development of participatory GIS.
Additional Argumap case studies could help to bridge the gap
between existing participatory GIS technology and user needs. We
are specifically interested in real-world (naturalistic) case studies
dealing with current urban planning issues, in the comparison
of the usability of different participatory spatial decision support
tools, and in understanding the utility of Argumentation Maps
as a general information system concept.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the participants in the case study for their
contribution to this research project. We are indebted to Carsten
Keßler for his support in adapting and setting up the Argumap
application for the case study. Lauren Beharry and Amrita Hari
provided valuable help with preparing the manuscript. Partial
funding of this case study from the Natural Sciences and Engi-
neering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) and the GEOIDE
Network of Centres of Excellence in Geomatics is gratefully
acknowledged.
About The Authors
Christopher Sidlar is a master’s of science in planning student
in the Department of Geography and Program in Planning
at the University of Toronto (Canada). His current research
interests include incorporating GIS into the planning process
as a tool to assist public participation. He is also interested
in the economic and social impacts of transportation in-
frastructure projects with a particular focus on developing
countries.
Corresponding Address: Harrower, M., A. M. McEachren, and A. L. Griffin. 2000.
Department of Geography Developing a geographic visualization tool to support earth
University of Toronto science learning. Cartography and Geographic Information
100 St. George Street Science 27(4): 279-93.
Toronto ON M5S 3G3, Canada Healey, P. 1997. Collaborative planning: shaping places in frag-
E-mail: chris.sidlar at utoronto.ca
Claus Rinner is an assistant professor in the Department of Ge-
ography at Ryerson University (Toronto, Canada). Within
the area of participatory Geographic Information Science, he
developed the concept of Argumentation Maps in his Ph.D.
thesis and subsequently implemented and refined it. He su-
pervised several Argumentation Map case studies as part of his
contribution to a GEOIDE network project on “Promoting
Sustainable Communities through Participatory Spatial Deci-
sion Support.” He also works on geographic visualization and
multicriteria evaluation methods to support decision making
in urban applications and public health planning.
Corresponding Address:
Department of Geography
Ryerson University
350 Victoria Street
Toronto ON M5B 2K3, Canada
E-mail: crinner at ryerson.ca
References
Andrienko, N., G. Andrienko, H. Voss, F. Bernardo, J. Hipolito,
and U. Kretchmer. 2002. Testing the usability of interac-
tive maps in common GIS. Cartography and Geographic
Information Science 29(4): 325-42.
Carver, S., A. Evans, R. Kingston, and I. Turton. 2001. Public
participation, GIS, and cyberdemocracy: evaluating online
spatial decision support systems. Environment and Planning
B: Planning and Design 28(6): 907-21.
Chapanis, A. 1965. Research techniques in human engineering.
Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins Press.
Chapanis, A. 1981. Evaluating ease of use. Proceedings of IBM
Software and Information Usability Symposium. Pough-
keepsie, NY: IBM, 105-20.
Chapanis, A. 1991. Evaluating usability. Human factors for in-
formatics usability. B. Shackel and S. Richardson, eds. New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Engle, S. E., and R. E. Granda. 1975. Guidelines for man/display
interfaces. IBM Technical Report TR 00.2720. Poughkeep-
sie, NY: IBM.
Hansen, W. 1971. User engineering principles for interactive
systems. AFIPS Conference Proceedings 30, Fall Joint Com-
puter Conference. Montvale, NJ: AFIPS Press, 523-32.
Harrison, C., and M. Haklay. 2002. The potential of public
participation geographic information systems in UK envi-
ronmental planning: appraisals by active publics. Journal of
Environment Planning and Management 45(6): 841-63.
mented societies. London: Macmillan Press.
Jankowski, P., and T. Nyerges. 2001. Geographic information
systems for group decision making: towards a participatory,
geographic information science. New York, NY: Taylor and
Francis.

54 URISA Journal • Vol. 19, No. 1 • 2007

Keßler, C. 2004. Design and implementation of argumentation
maps. Münster, Germany: Diploma Thesis, Westfälische
Wilhelms-Universitäty Münster, Germany. Available online
at http://www.carstenkessler.de/argumap/.
Keßler, C., C. Rinner, and M. Raubal. 2005. An argumenta-
tion map prototype to support decision making in spatial
planning. In F. Toppen and M. Painho, eds., Proceedings of
AGILE 2005—8th Conference on Geographic Information
Science, 26-28 May 2005, Estoril, Portugal, 135-42.
Kingston, R., S. Carver, A. Evans, and I. Turton. 1999. A GIS
for the public: enhancing participation in local decision
making. GIS Research UK (GISRUK’99). Available online
at http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/papers/99-7/.
Kirkakowski, J., and M. Corbett. 1990. Effective methodol-
ogy for the study of HCI. New York, NY: Elsevier Science
Publishers.
Laurini, R. 2004. Computer systems for public participation.
Available online at http://www.gisig.it/vpc_sommet/CD_
Sommet/ws3/articololaurini.pdf.
Licklider, J. C. R. 1960. Man-computer symbiosis. IRE Transac-
tion on Human Factors in Electronics. HFE-1, 4-11.
Meister, D., and G. F. Rabideau. 1965. Human factors evalu-
ation in system development. New York: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc.
Open Geospatial Consortium. 2005. Available online at http://
www.opengeospatial.org/about/?page=vision.
Parsons, H. M. 1972. Man-machine system experiments. Balti-
more, MD: The John Hopkins Press.
Pew, R. 2003. Evolution of human-computer interaction: from
Memex to Bluetooth and beyond. The human-computer
interaction handbook: fundamentals, evolving technologies
and emerging applications. J. Jacko and A. Sears, eds.. Mah-
wah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
URISA Journal • Sidlar, Rinner 55
Preece, J., ed. 1993. A guide to usability: human factors in com-
puting. Don Mills, ON: Addison-Wesley.
Rinner, C. 1999. Argumentation maps—GIS-based discussion
support for online planning. GMD Research Series No. 22.
Sankt Augustin, Germany: University of Bonn. Available
online at http://docserver.fhg.de/gmd/1999/research/022.
pdf.
Rinner, C. 2001. Argumentation maps: GIS-based discussion
support for online planning. Enivironment and Planning
B: Planning and Design 28(6): 847-63.
Rosson, M. B., and J. M. Carroll. 2002. Usability engineering:
scenario-based development of human-computer interaction.
New York, NY: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Shackel, B. 1991. Usability—context, framework, definition,
design and evaluation. Human factors for informatics us-
ability. B. Shackel and S. Richardson, eds. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Simão, A., and P. Densham. 2004. Designing a Web-based public
participatory decision support system: the problem of wind
farms location. Proceedings CORP 2004 and Geomulti-
media 04, 9th International Symposium on ICT in Urban
and Regional Planning. M. Schrenk, ed. Available online at
http://corp.mmp.kosnet.com/CORP_CD_2004/archiv/pa-
pers/CORP2004_SIMAO_DENSHAM.PDF.
Smith, S. L., and J. N. Mosier. 1986. Guidelines for designing
user interface software. Technical Report ESD TR-86-278.
Hansom Air Force Base, MA: USAF Electronic Systems
Division.
Wong, S., and Y. L. Chua. 2001. Data intermediation and be-
yond: issues for Web-based PPGIS. Cartographica 38(3/4):
63-80.