![[Refereed]](http://www.istl.org/graphics/r2.gif){kind=small}
Planning for Change: A Maps and Geospatial Information Services Survey
Tara LaLonde
GIS Specialist
tll38@psu.edu
Nathan Piekielek
Geospatial Services Librarian
nbp104@psu.edu
Donald W. Hamer Center for Maps and Geospatial Information
Pennsylvania State University Libraries
University Park, Pennsylvania
Abstract
Geospatial services in academic libraries are now common at many institutions, especially in the United States. The challenge now faced by geospatial services providers is to evolve and adapt their skills and service offerings in response to changes in research, teaching, and learning communities. Online survey instruments are a common tool used to assess geospatial user needs; however, they often fall short of anticipating future user needs and in helping geospatial services providers strategically assess the trade-offs between service offerings. This paper reports on a user needs assessment survey with its design aimed to identify user preferences for existing and future geospatial services. Respondents indicated preferences for existing access to GIS software, data discovery, and reference web pages. High priority areas for potential future service offerings included centralizing the acquisition of licensed geospatial data and developing long-term storage and preservation solutions for geospatial data. These findings can inform future outreach events, instructional offerings, maps and geospatial resources, and maps and geospatial information access. We discuss changes implemented following the survey and make recommendations for future assessments.
Introduction
Geospatial services at academic institutions provide guidance to their teaching, research, and learning communities. For geospatial services providers, maintaining relevant resources and an expert skillset in a rapidly changing environment are major ongoing challenges (March & Scarletto 2017). Much of the existing library science literature on geospatial services focuses on service models (March 2011), collections (Kollen et al. 2013), partnerships (Fortin & Mueller 2013), and one-time needs assessments (Scarletto 2013). They largely fail to address the challenge of maintaining a contemporarily relevant suite of geospatial resources and services for multi-disciplinary academic audiences within the context of rapidly changing geospatial technologies. The continual assessment of how campus users learn about and interact with technologies and library resources is important for not only maps and geospatial topics, but also other library units that serve other data- and technology-focused disciplines. This paper presents the findings of a user needs assessment of map and geospatial services at one institution and discusses changes implemented as a result of the survey.
There is a recent and strong trend towards adoption of geospatial data and tools in academic disciplines new to using GIS (Fish & Piekielek 2016). In response to increased demand for GIS in academia and lack of training resources in many academic departments, academic libraries have adapted and expanded geospatial services to include individualized consultation, workshops, geospatial data repositories, and global positioning system (GPS) unit lending (Holstein 2015). Library geospatial services have responded by hiring personnel with specialized training and expertise (Xia & Wang 2014). At large research universities, keeping abreast of the many and diverse discipline-specific uses for GIS can be a challenge. Adapting geospatial services to a changing geospatial landscape requires continual assessment of user needs.
Background
The Pennsylvania State University (Penn State) supports a geographically dispersed residential and online student, faculty, and staff population across 24 campus locations with more than 160 undergraduate majors of study and enrollment of approximately 47,000 students at the University Park campus (Penn State at a Glance 2013). Although the Penn State University Libraries uses a liaison model where academic programs have a designated librarian liaison, geospatial services of the Penn State University Libraries serves students across all academic disciplines and units.
Penn State University Libraries was an early adopter of geospatial services, which were later downsized, and have recently been revitalized. Inspired by the successes of the ARL Geographic Information Systems Literacy Project in 1992, Penn State, along with peer institutions, hired a GIS Librarian to develop geospatial services in the libraries (Cline & Adler 1995; Soete 1997). Penn State University Libraries geospatial services at that time included the development of a GIS computer lab in 1996 in the former Maps Library (now Center for Maps and Geospatial Information), which partnered with the Department of Geography to provide undergraduate interns and graduate assistants to maintain the lab and assist patrons (Lamont 1997b). Another development at this time was the creation of a geospatial data repository that later became the Pennsylvania Spatial Data Access (PASDA) (www.pasda.psu.edu) service. However, these early successes at Penn State were short-lived, as personnel departed and shifting priorities led to space reorganizations. For much of the next 20 years, geospatial services at Penn State were limited to the provision of access to GIS software and government information distributed through the Federal Depository Library Program (FDLP). In 2013 and 2014, Penn State University Libraries hired a GIS Specialist and Geospatial Services Librarian to build capacity to support the use of geospatial data and technology. This more recent transition in geospatial personnel provided an opportunity to revisit the current GIS technology needs of campus users and re-invigorate geospatial services in a large, dispersed campus system. The authors report on the results of a geospatial service needs assessment survey at Penn State and provide a discussion of how these results have informed future geospatial services work.
Literature Review
The FDLP planted the seeds for library geospatial services at academic institutions when it began to distribute GIS data in the late 1980s and early 1990s in electronic formats (e.g., GIS data formats such as TIGER line files) that were unfamiliar to many librarians (Cline & Adler 1995). The FDLP mission of providing public access to government information was difficult for library personnel to fulfill because they lacked the skills and tools necessary to access GIS data files distributed by the FDLP. In 1992, the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) partnered with Environmental Systems Research Institute (Esri) to provide U.S. academic libraries with GIS software and library personnel with training through the ARL Geographic Information Systems Literacy Project (Argentati 1997; Holstein 2015). Early in the implementation of geospatial services in academic libraries, key activities included partnerships, staffing, user education, data access, documentation guidance, and management of hardware and software (Argentati 1997; Lamont 1997a). A more thorough review of the development of geospatial services in North America is available from March and Scarletto (2017), which includes a timeline of key events from the early distribution of TIGER/Line files to the more recent use of web-mapping tools.
A common approach to assess map and geospatial needs in academic libraries has been through the use of surveys. The results of prior published geospatial needs assessment surveys documented increased interest in GIS and GPS technologies (March 2011) and assessed evolving needs for geospatial instruction (Scarletto 2013). Common themes of geospatial user needs assessment surveys frequently include technology use, campus users, support services, and data collection (Table 1).
Table 1. Summary of studies on library geospatial services
| Article | Population | Survey Description |
|---|---|---|
| Soete (1997) | ARL Libraries | Interview case reports on GIS services planning and offerings |
| Davie, et al. (1999) | ARL Libraries | Survey on GIS service offerings |
| Salem (2005) | ARL Libraries | Survey on GIS service offerings and collections |
| Kinikin and Hench (2005b) | Academic Librarians | Web survey with focus on GIS use and implementation in small libraries |
| Kinikin and Hench (2005a) | Academic Librarians | Follow-up to earlier survey (Kinikin and Hench 2005b) with narrow selection of small academic libraries to focus on GIS use and services |
| Gabaldon and Repplinger (2006) | Academic Librarians | E-mail survey aimed at assessing implementation of GIS in libraries within the Orbis Cascade Alliance and the Oberlin Group |
| March (2011) | Faculty and graduate students | Online survey of GIS and GPS needs at University of Tennessee |
| Scarletto (2013) | Faculty and graduate students | Focus group and online survey of GIS instructional needs at Kent State University |
| Barnes (2013) | "User Group" | E-mail survey with focus on GIS user needs of the Purdue University School of Management |
| Holstein (2015) | Academic Librarians | Online survey to investigate geospatial services and support at ACRL libraries |
Methods
Qualtrics software (https://www.qualtrics.com) was used to create a 27-item anonymous survey (Appendix A), which was distributed via e-mail to approximately 225 individuals, including 111 academic departmental heads and 114 known university GIS users compiled from an informal university GIS users group at Penn State. This sample population represented both active GIS users and those who had never used maps or GIS. All academic department heads were encouraged to send the survey link to their respective faculty, students, and staff. The survey was available from October 4th through October 31st 2016. Themes common to other geospatial services surveys (e.g., Holstein 2015 and March 2011) were included, but this survey also solicited input from users on potential future service areas. Survey questions covered the following themes: demographics; print map use; geospatial technology, concept, data, and software use; geospatial assistance; library geospatial material use; geospatial data acquisition; and geospatial services (Table 2). The Geographic Information Science and Technology Body of Knowledge (DiBiase et al. 2006) was used to organize geospatial concepts. Respondents were not required to answer questions beyond their informed consent to participate. As such, there was variation in the total number of responses per question. The Penn State Institutional Review Board (IRB) determined this survey to be non-human subject research.
Table 2. Survey question number by theme
| Question Theme | Question Number |
|---|---|
| Informed consent acknowledgement | Q1, Q2 |
| Demographics | Q24, Q25, Q26, Q27 |
| Print map use | Q3, Q4, Q14, Q15 |
| Geospatial technology, concept, data, and software use | Q5, Q6, Q7, Q8, Q9 |
| Geospatial assistance | Q10,Q11 |
| Library geospatial material use | Q12, Q13 |
| Geospatial data acquisition | Q16, Q17, Q18, Q19, Q20 |
| Geospatial services | Q21, Q22, Q23 |
Results
There were 117 total survey respondents, which corresponded to a response rate of approximately 52%. The actual response rate is likely much lower since initial recipients were encouraged to distribute the survey to their constituents, but no information is available to determine the extent to which that occurred. Since respondents were allowed to skip survey questions and some questions allowed for multiple responses, the number of responses for a given question varies and is noted when other than 117 responses. The results section is organized into six subsections according to the survey themes outlined in Table 2.
Demographics
Most survey respondents were affiliated with the College of Liberal Arts; College of Earth and Mineral Sciences; and College of Agricultural Sciences (Table 3). Responses that fell into the category "Other" included alumni and those working in the Agricultural Extension office. The "Not Applicable" category represented respondents who did not wish to indicate an affiliation. The "Undeclared" category represented respondents that had not yet designated a major. Of the respondents that reported their status (n=76), most were faculty (54%), followed by graduate student (20%), undergraduate student (13%), staff (11%), and other (3%). All but five respondents were affiliated with the University Park campus.
Table 3. Distribution of responses by academic unit (n=76)
| Academic Unit | No. of Responses (%) |
|---|---|
| Liberal Arts | 18 (24) |
| Earth and Mineral Sciences | 15 (20) |
| Agricultural Sciences | 12 (16) |
| Arts and Architecture | 6 (8) |
| Other | 6 (8) |
| Engineering | 4 (5) |
| Health and Human Development | 3 (4) |
| Not Applicable | 3 (4) |
| Undeclared | 2 (3) |
| Education | 2 (3) |
| Science | 2 (3) |
| Business | 1 (1) |
| Information Sciences and Technology | 1 (1) |
| Nursing | 1 (1) |
| Communications | 0 (0) |
Print Map Use
In response to a question about current print map use (n=112), 53% did not currently use print maps. For those respondents who did not currently use print maps and answered a follow-up question (n=57), 18% indicated interest in learning more about how they could. For those respondents who indicated their use of print and digital map resources (n=89), 31% of respondents indicated use of a print map, digital surrogate of a print map, or aerial photograph from the Center for Maps and Geospatial Information collections during the previous 12 months, while 43% indicated use of digital maps from other sources, such as the Library of Congress. When asked whether having a digital print map and aerial photograph georeferenced was important (n=54), 65% indicated this was very important. The following types of print maps were identified as important to their work through multiple selection of options (n=46): topographic maps (67%); environmental maps (59%); international maps (48%); US tourist maps (20%); aeronautic and navigation maps (17%); other maps (15%); and Sanborn maps (13%). In terms of the open-text responses, several respondents also mentioned that historic maps were important.
Geospatial Technology, Concept, Data, and Software Use
Seventy-two percent of respondents indicated they used geospatial technologies (n=107). From those who did not use geospatial technologies, seven respondents expressed interest in learning how they could. With respect to geospatial concepts, respondents reported using all five geospatial concepts through multiple selections and some concepts were indicated more frequently than others (Table 4). For the "Other" response option, open responses included comments related to "textual geocoding" and "GPS."
Table 4. Ranking of geospatial concepts (n=71)
| Geospatial Concept | No. of Responses | % of Respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Cartography and Visualization | 58 | 82 |
| Analytical Methods | 48 | 68 |
| Data Modeling | 39 | 55 |
| Design Aspects | 26 | 37 |
| Conceptual Foundations | 21 | 30 |
| Other | 3 | 4 |
When the survey allowed for multiple responses (n=71), respondents indicated they mainly used publicly accessible spatial data (92%), followed by data they collected themselves (62%), and proprietary (i.e., licensed) spatial data (34%) from private, domestic or foreign data producers. When asked about software used to work with spatial data, and allowing multiple software selections, respondents primarily used ArcGIS Desktop software, followed by ArcGIS Online, and spatial libraries of R-statistical (Table 5). Other software mentioned in the open text response included LizardTech GeoExpress, Trimble Suite, Rhino/Grasshopper, Golden Software's Grapher and Surfer, Agisoft Photoscan, ArcGIS Pro, and Google Maps. Only 23% of the respondents used the subscription online mapping databases (PolicyMap, Social Explorer, DataPlanet, LandScan, and SimplyMap, which is now SimplyAnalytics) maintained by the University Libraries (n=70).
Table 5. Software used to work with spatial data (n=67)
| Software | No. of Responses | % of Respondents |
|---|---|---|
| ArcGIS desktop | 52 | 78 |
| ArcGIS online | 32 | 48 |
| R-Statistical spatial packages | 24 | 36 |
| Python | 15 | 22 |
| Web-mapping programs (i.e. Leaflet, CartoDB, Mapbox) | 15 | 22 |
| GeoDa | 7 | 10 |
| Other | 7 | 10 |
| QGIS | 6 | 9 |
| GRASS GIS | 3 | 4 |
| MapInfo | 0 | 0 |
| Saga GIS | 0 | 0 |
Geospatial Assistance
When seeking assistance with a geospatial task, respondents indicated they most often sought help from an individual acquaintance, followed by the use of online resources (including Esri resources), the University Libraries, and their home academic unit. Within the open text field, respondents mentioned contacts within individual departments. The Information Technology Services (ITS) department received the lowest number of responses. Based on selecting multiple responses, 31% indicated use of the University Libraries online geospatial research guides (LibGuides) (n=89).
Geospatial Data Acquisition
The majority of the respondents (77%) reported they did not purchase geospatial data from a proprietary source during the last 12 months (n=84). Of the respondents that indicated the cost of purchased data (n=17), 59% indicated the data cost less than $1,000. Data was primarily purchased from "other funds" (46%), followed by grant funds (31%) and department funds (23%) (n=13). In addition, these respondents indicated they primarily did not know of others at Penn State who would be interested in the geospatial data they had acquired.
Geospatial Services
In terms of importance of current geospatial services, 8 of the 12 geospatial services currently offered were considered very important or important by more than half of the respondents. Respondents considered other geospatial services offerings, such as teaching partnerships, in-person workshops, online workshops, and outreach events, as less important (Table 6).
Table 6. Current geospatial services rating by importance
| Service Offering | Number of Responses for Very Important and Important (%) | Number of Respondents |
|---|---|---|
| Access to geographic information system (GIS) hardware/software | 52 (71) | 73 |
| Geospatial data discovery assistance | 50 (69) | 73 |
| Promotion/coordination of university-wide geospatial activities at Penn State | 46 (63) | 73 |
| Maintaining reference web pages | 45 (63) | 72 |
| Access to web-mapping applications | 44 (61) | 72 |
| Research partnerships | 43 (59) | 73 |
| Engaged scholarship opportunities in the University Libraries for undergraduate students | 43 (59) | 73 |
| One-on-one research consultations/support | 38 (52) | 73 |
| Coordination and hosting of outreach events (e.g., GIS Day) | 34 (47) | 72 |
| Teaching partnerships | 34 (47) | 73 |
| In-person workshops | 31 (42) | 73 |
| Online workshops | 23 (32) | 71 |
Respondents were asked to rate seven potential future geospatial services as high, medium, or low priority. All seven future geospatial services received some percentage of the "high priority" rating (Table 7). Centralized acquisition and coordinated use of proprietary spatial datasets received the highest percentage (48%) with several others receiving similar high priority rankings (~ 40%).
Table 7. Potential future geospatial services rating by priority
| Service Offering | Number of Responses for High Priority (%) | Number of Responses for Medium Priority (%) | Number of Responses for Low Priority (%) | Number of Respondents |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Centralized acquisition and coordinated use of proprietary spatial datasets | 33 (48) | 26 (38) | 10 (14) | 69 |
| Geospatial data storage, archiving and long-term preservation | 32 (46) | 29 (42) | 8 (12) | 69 |
| Development of a Geographic Information System (GIS) and data visualization facility | 31 (45) | 29 (42) | 9 (13) | 69 |
| Geospatial dataset production (e.g., assembly of commonly used datasets) | 29 (42) | 29 (42) | 11 (16) | 69 |
| Collaboration/partnership on research projects (sponsored or otherwise) | 28 (41) | 28 (41) | 13 (19) | 69 |
| Research grade Global Positioning System (GPS) lending and training | 23 (34) | 31 (46) | 14 (21) | 68 |
| Involvement in local, county and state government geospatial data initiatives | 21 (30) | 30 (43) | 18 (26) | 69 |
Discussion
The survey results described current user needs, identified future needs, and helped plan for the implementation of future geospatial services. Since academic institutions are idiosyncratic and user needs vary, geospatial services are likely implemented differently at each institution in important ways, though previous multi-institutional library surveys of GIS services and resources suggest some common elements. Of note, the respondents were primarily faculty, who may already be accustomed to interacting with the library for instructional, outreach, and information resources. It can take time to create familiarity with new services and buy-in of influential campus users. We present the following discussion based on survey results, activities we undertook in response to the survey, and recommendations for future research.
Survey findings were reviewed in relation to March (2011) and Scarletto (2013), since those two studies surveyed similar university populations. Like March and Scarletto, Penn State respondents primarily used Esri products although use of other software beyond Esri products varied among the three institutions. In addition to Esri products, a number of Penn State users indicated using R-statistical spatial packages, which was not mentioned in March or Scarletto. Unlike March and Scarletto, Penn State users did not mention AutoCAD. Some of these differences may be due to the availability of licenses and emergence of competing software. For instance, Penn State respondents used web-mapping products, such as ArcGIS Online. The findings of the Penn State survey were similar to Scarletto in terms of user preferences for geospatial resources, and web guides. March queried users more on their use and preferences for recreational and mapping grade GPS units, but the Penn State survey found the lending of a research grade GPS unit to be a lower priority. Similar to March, the Penn State respondents preferred assistance from GIS vendor sources or from their own academic departments. In addition, the March respondents indicated a preference for centralized access and use of GIS services, which was also a preferred topic of Penn State respondents.
Survey respondents indicated the importance of geospatial services providers spending time promoting and coordinating university-wide geospatial activities. University-wide geospatial activities would require university units to form partnerships. All university partners would need investment, motivation, and support from home units for these initiatives to be successful. Some challenges exist in the coordination of university-wide geospatial activities at large institutions due to the many differing motivations, resource allocations, time, and budgetary constraints. Determining new areas of coordination and promotion of geospatial activities and coordinating geospatial service offerings with other strategic initiatives on campus, such as international programming, learning technologies, software and data licensing, and research data management may be fruitful to elevate the impact of geospatial services.
In terms of geospatial topics to include in instruction areas, the survey results indicated the topics of cartography, analytical methods, and data modeling as highly used geospatial concepts. These topics can be included in general instructional workshops and expanded upon with more in-depth offerings. Despite the foundations concept category receiving a lower number of responses, it is likely users are applying foundational concepts in their daily activities; however, respondents may not regularly consider their application. Geospatial services providers may see users seeking resources and guidance from any level of geospatial concept development.
The responses on software use were also helpful in determining specific software needed to support GIS researchers and instruction activities on campus. The broad use of software including commercial, open source, and online types indicated all of these may appeal to users. Additionally, it was informative to see open text responses of geospatial software use, as discipline-specific software may be helpful in different contexts. In addition to online mapping and commercial products, there is interest in open source geospatial software, which warrant awareness and inclusion as options for meeting the needs of users. Therefore, developing examples using various GIS software (e.g., commercial and open source) would appeal to a more diverse group of GIS users.
The survey results highlighted areas where users may benefit from a greater awareness of the geospatial resources available, especially library subscription databases, as few respondents indicated using such resources (e.g., SimplyMap, Social Explorer, etc.). However, responses did indicate the use of online resources, such as LibGuides and digital maps. Respondents also indicated that having digital resources such as aerial photos or maps georeferenced was important to some degree. This can inform the geospatial data obtained or created for use by library patrons. In addition, respondents used primarily topographic, international, and environmental maps, which can inform future collection development and digitization projects.
Following the Completion of the Survey
Following the completion of the survey, the Center for Maps and Geospatial Information developed new approaches to connect with geospatial users on campus. The most notable was the formation of an informal GIS user group, which helped to promote innovative geospatial activities for campus users and units through recurring meetings. In addition, the Center for Maps and Geospatial Information collaborated with academic geospatial units for the coordination of training sessions by Esri representatives. New web sites (https://libraries.psu.edu/maps and https://sites.psu.edu/mapsgislib/) were created, highlighting services, resources, and projects to connect new and potential users with maps and geospatial information. In addition, the Center for Maps and Geospatial Information reached out through social media posts on specific resources and topics to targeted audiences to connect library geospatial resources, data, and services to users. These examples of new outreach activities help to integrate geospatial services with the wider campus community.
In addition, a number of improvements have been made to instruction, LibGuides, and geospatial resources. Recurring instructional sessions are now more focused and place greater emphasis on activities associated with specific geospatial concepts, software, and geospatial data sources from library subscriptions and publicly available sources. Enhancements were made to existing LibGuides on open source GIS and GIS data sources, as well as expanded listings of geospatial data sources and software resources. There have also been new acquisitions, including digital aerial images, digital international maps, and print historic maps, which respondents expressed interest in for research and teaching.
Future Research
Although user needs assessment surveys can identify some current and future geospatial user needs, this assessment did not include references to emerging technologies, including mobile technologies and geospatial sensors, such as those discussed by the National Geospatial Advisory Committee (2016). These topics would be helpful to include in future conversations with users and surveys of campus users. Future assessments may also occur with new and potential users at earlier stages of their interests in geospatial information, as these may be areas were greater opportunities for impact exist.
Conclusion
The geospatial community is at a transformative time, where geographic information is obtained from increasingly diverse sources. In addition, users have many options to be content creators. The challenge is to keep geospatial services relevant as users and technologies change. This survey of maps and geospatial information users enabled the Penn State University Libraries to gain a clearer picture of initiatives and activities to move the maps and geospatial service activities into directions of interest and importance to users. Adapting to changing user needs is important to the planning of future geospatial services and activities.
References
Argentati, C.D. 1997. Expanding horizons for GIS services in academic libraries. Journal of Academic Librarianship 23(6): 463-468. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-1333(97)90170-1
Barnes, I. 2013. Geospatial services in special libraries: A needs assessment perspective. Public Services Quarterly 9(2): 180-184. DOI: 10.1080/15228959.2013.785904
Cline, N.M. & Adler, P.S. 1995. GIS and research libraries: One perspective. Information Technology and Libraries 14(2): 111-115.
Davie, D.K., Fox, J. & Preece, B. 1999. The ARL Geographic Information Systems Literacy Project, SPEC Kit 238. Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, Office of Leadership and Management Services.
DiBiase, D., DeMers, M., Johnson, A., Kemp, K., Luck, A.T., Plewe, B. & Wentz, E. 2006. Geographic Information Science and Technology Body of Knowledge. Washington DC, Association of American Geographers and University Consortium for Geographic Information Science. Available from http://www.aag.org/galleries/publications-files/gist_body_of_knowledge.pdf
Fish, C.S. & Piekielek, N.B. 2016. Targeting disciplines for GIS outreach using bibliometric analysis. Journal of Map & Geography Libraries 12(3): 258-280. DOI: 10.1080/15420353.2016.1221870
Fortin, M. & Mueller, J. 2013. The library as research partner and data creator: The Don Valley historical mapping project. Journal of Map & Geography Libraries 9(1-2): 157-174. DOI: 10.1080/15420353.2013.767765
Gabaldon, C. & Repplinger, J. 2006. GIS and the academic library: A survey of libraries offering GIS services in two consortia. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship 48. DOI: 10.5062/F4QJ7F8R
Holstein, A.L. 2015. Geographic information and technologies in academic libraries: An ARL survey of services and support. Information Technology and Libraries 34(1): 38-51.
Kinikin, J. & Hench, K. 2005a. Follow-up survey of GIS at smaller academic libraries. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship 43. DOI: 10.5062/F4S46PWT
Kinikin, J. & Hench, K. 2005b. Survey of GIS implementation and use within smaller academic libraries. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship 42. DOI: 10.5062/F4SX6B56
Kollen, C., Dietz, C., Suh, J. & Lee, A. 2013. Geospatial data catalogs: Approaches by academic libraries. Journal of Map & Geography Libraries 9(3): 276-295. DOI: 10.1080/15420353.2013.820161
Lamont, M. 1997a. Managing geospatial data and services. The Journal of Academic Librarianship 23(6): 469-473. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-1333(97)90171-3
Lamont, M. 1997b. Using partnerships to develop a new GIS service at Penn State. In: Soete, G.J., editor. Transforming libraries: Issues and innovations in geographic information systems, volume 2. SPEC Kit 219. Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, Office of Management Services.
March, G.H. 2011. Surveying campus GIS and GPS users to determine role and level of library services. Journal of Map & Geography Libraries 7(2): 154-183. DOI: 10.1080/15420353.2011.566838
March, G. & Scarletto, E. 2017. The evolution of GIS services within North American academic libraries: Documenting change through the decades (1995-2016). Journal of Map & Geography Libraries 13(2): 222-245. DOI: 10.1080/15420353.2017.1313803
National Geospatial Advisory Committee. 2016. Emerging Technologies and the Geospatial Landscape. Available from https://www.fgdc.gov/ngac/meetings/dec-2016/ngac-paper-emerging-technologies-and-the.pdf
Penn State at a Glance. [Internet]. University Park (PA): Pennsylvania State University, Office of Strategic Communication; c2013 [Cited 2018 August 12]. Available from https://stats.psu.edu
Salem, J.A. 2005. Spatial data collections and services, SPEC Kit 291. Washington, D.C: Association of Research Libraries, Office of Leadership and Management Services.
Scarletto, E. 2013. Data driven program planning for GIS instruction. Issues in Science & Technology Librarianship, 73. DOI: 10.5062/F4R49NRF
Soete, G.J. 1997. Transforming libraries: Issues and innovations in geographic information systems, volume 2. SPEC Kit 219. Washington, D.C.: Association of Research Libraries, Office of Management Services.
Xia, J. & Wang, M. 2014. Competencies and responsibilities of social science data librarians: An analysis of job descriptions. College & Research Libraries 75(3), 362-388. DOI: 10.5860/crl13-435
Appendix
Appendix A: Pennsylvania State University Libraries Geospatial Services Survey (PDF)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. 