|
Project Description, Fall 2009
The purpose of the class project is to use GIS to answer a question
that can only be, or is best, answered using GIS methods. Making a map might only be a small part of this.
Simply collecting data from the web and using it to make a map
misses the point. Data should be used in a way that creates
new information, and this new information should be used to answer a question. The question need not be profound but needs to be more than “can
these data be overlain to make a map?”.
GIS software provides a powerful way to quantify all sorts of
spatial relationships and data; volumes, areas, statistical trends, and
myriad other quantities can all be summarized, graphed and compared.
Quantifiable results should be a part of the goal of your project; if
possible find a way to ask questions about "how much...",
"how many...", etc. rather than just "where is...?".
The project can be broken down into several areas:
[1] Problem formulation (20 points)
Did you clearly state the question and outline the techniques/methods for arriving at an answer?
You should be able to state your question (i.e. hypothesis) in no more
than 2 short sentences. Can
the result(s) be quantified? If so, how and by what measure?
[2] Data collection (20 points)
Did you utilize readily available GIS data appropriate to the study area? Did you supplement GIS data with importable point data appropriate
to the study? Did you get, utilize and store applicable metadata (i.e. feature definitions, spatial and aspatial precisions/accuracies, age of data,
datum/projection)? Metadata should be visible in ArcCatalog, even if
no more than a brief description (abstract) of the data and it's source.
[3] Data preprocessing (20/0 points)
Did you appropriately convert GIS data into an ArcGIS-readable format? (For example,
E00 interchange format => uncompressed coverage.)
Did you appropriately process and import point data? The preprocessing step can involve considerable time and effort,
and this needs to be recognized in grading. [In the event that a project reasonably involves no
preprocessing step, the points for this section will be distributed evenly to sections 4, 5, and 6.]
[4] ArcGIS processing (30/36 points)
Did you develop an ArcGIS processing scheme appropriate to the study? ArcGIS steps should be fully documented in the write-up.
[5] Data presentation (30/36 points)
Did you make one or more maps or otherwise present results in a graphically
legible and attractive manner? Depending
on the question addressed, making a single integrated map may be an appropriate subgoal. In other
cases, a series of ArcMap screen captures that document the ArcGIS processing might be more appropriate.
A common oversight is omission of figure captions and figure numbers that
can be cited in the text. Another common problem is figures too
small to show intended features. The software can be used to
generate compelling maps and nicely labeled and annotated figures. I
expect nothing less.
[6] Write-up (40/48 points)
Did you clearly state the question addressed, summarize the data collected to
address it, document the data preprocessing, describe in detail
the ArcGIS processing, and answer the question? Did you quantify your results in graphs or tables? Was
your write-up in a form compatible with web-posting (i.e., in
html-format with all related graphics saved as .gifs or .jpgs)?
For further details, consult the project grading template.
|
***
