Measurement differences resulting from analyzing natural resource spatial databases referenced to multiple map coordinate systems
Keywords:
GIS, map coordinate systems, map projections, geoprocessingAbstract
Map projection on-the-fly capability allows natural resource GIS analysts to geoprocess spatial data layers referenced to different map coordinate systems. This study's primary objective was to provide examples of spatial measurement differences that can result when point, line, and polygon natural resource spatial databases are referenced to different map coordinate systems and are used for a set of typical spatial analysis tasks. The GIS software used for evaluations was part of the ArcGIS product suite.
We performed three separate spatial analyses: the intersection of spatial line features to polygons, the identity of polygons with other polygons, and a spatial join analysis that involved several components. Four separate spatial databases representing gauges, streams, watershed boundaries, and forest ownerships were each referenced to four different map coordinate system settings. An initial assessment of distances, areas, and categories of features resulting from geoprocessing tasks involved only spatial databases referenced to the same map coordinate system. The measurement and categorical results of this initial assessment became comparative benchmarks. Subsequent analyses involved the same geoprocessing tasks but mixed databases referenced to different map coordinate systems. We found differences from the benchmark values in many of the comparisons between databases of different map coordinate systems.
There were relatively small measurement differences in the amount of line lengths measured within specific polygons resulting from overlay intersections between databases in different map coordinate systems. The identity of polygons with other polygons resulted in large area differences in some cases from initial baseline measurements, particularly when datums were substantially different (NAD 27 and WGS 84). Distance differences were greatest for the spatial joining of points to other point and line features when involving databases referenced to map coordinate systems with substantially different datums. Results indicate that GIS analysts using ArcGIS analysis tools should be cautious when analyzing spatial databases referenced to different map coordinate systems.
References
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). 2004. ArcGIS 9: Geoprocessing in ArcGIS. ESRI Press: Redlands, CA. 363 p.
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). 2008. ArcGIS 9: Using ArcMap. ESRI Press: Redlands, CA. 585 p.
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). 2010. An overview of map projections. Available at: http://webhelp.esri.com/arcgisdesktop/9.3/index.cfm?TopicName=An overview of map projections [accessed 16 September, 2010].
Theobald, D.M. 2007. GIS concepts and ArcGIS methods. Third Edition. Conservation Planning Technologies, Fort Collins, CO. 440 p.
Wing, M.G. 2008. Keeping pace with GPS technology in the forest. Journal of Forestry 106(6):332-338.
Wing, M.G. and P. Bettinger. 2008. Geographic information systems: Applications in natural resource management. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 272 pp.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors grant the journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) following the publication by the journal, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
