Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 23, Issue 5–6, pp 669–685 | Cite as

A comprehensive reputation assessment framework for volunteered geographic information in crowdsensing applications

  • Nafaâ Jabeur
  • Roula Karam
  • Michele MelchioriEmail author
  • Chiara Renso
Original Article


Volunteered geographic information (VGI) is the result of activities where individuals, supported by enabling technologies, behave like physical sensors by harvesting and organizing georeferenced content, usually in their surroundings. Both researchers and organizations have recognized the value of VGI content, however this content is typically heterogeneous in quality and spatial coverage. As a consequence, in order for applications to benefit from it, its quality and reliability need to be assessed in advance. This may not be easy since, typically, it is unknown how the process of collecting and organizing the VGI content has been conducted and by whom. In the literature, various proposals focus on an indirect process of quality assessment based on reputation scores. Following this perspective, the present paper provides as main contributions: (i) a multi-layer architecture for VGI which supports a process of reputation evaluation; (ii) a new comprehensive model for computing reputation scores for both VGI data and contributors, based on direct and indirect evaluations expressed by users, and including the concept of data aging; (iii) a variety of experiments evaluating the accuracy of the model. Finally, the relevance of adopting this framework is discussed via an applicative scenario for recommending tourist itineraries.


Social sensors Reputation evaluation Feedback-based model Indirect feedback Volunteered geographic information Mobile crowdsourcing Tourism planning 



The Authors are thanking the colleague Prof. Gianfranco Lamperti for his very valuable help in supporting the work described in this paper, and the former student Eng. Marco Gusmini for developing the first prototypes of the proposed solution.


  1. 1.
    Aroyo L, Welty C (2013) Crowd truth: harnessing disagreement in crowdsourcing a relation extraction gold standard. WebSci2013 ACM 2013Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bishr M, Kuhn W (2013) Trust and reputation models for quality assessment of human sensor observations. In: Tenbrink T, Stell J, Galton A, Wood Z (eds) Spatial information theory: 11th international conference, COSIT 2013, Scarborough, UK, Proceedings. Springer International Publishing, Cham, pp 53–73. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bordogna G, Carrara P, Criscuolo L, Pepe M, Rampini A (2014) A linguistic decision making approach to assess the quality of volunteer geographic information for citizen science. Inf Sci 258:312–327. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boulekrouche B, Jabeur N, Alimazighi Z (2016) Toward integrating grid and cloud-based concepts for an enhanced deployment of spatial data warehouses in cyber-physical system applications. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 7(4):475–487. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brilhante IR, Macedo JA, Nardini FM, Perego R, Renso C (2015) On planning sightseeing tours with Tripbuilder. Inf Process Manag 51(2):1–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Brovelli MA, Minghini M, Zamboni G (2016) Public participation in GIS via mobile applications. ISPRS J Photogramm Remote Sens 114:306–315. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D’Antonio F, Fogliaroni P, Kauppinen T (2014) VGI edit history reveals data trustworthiness and user reputation. In: 17th AGILE international conference on geographic information Science (Short Paper)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dorn H, Törnros T, Zipf A (2015) Quality evaluation of VGI using authoritative data—a comparison with land use data in southern Germany. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf 4(3):1657–1671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goodchild MF (2007) Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 69(4):211–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Goodchild MF, Li L (2012) Assuring the quality of volunteered geographic information. Spat Stat 1:110–120. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Guo B, Wang Z, Yu Z, Wang Y, Yen NY, Huang R, Zhou X (2015) Mobile crowd sensing and computing: the review of an emerging human-powered sensing paradigm. ACM Comput Surv 48(1):7:1–7:31. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jokar AJ, Mooney P, Zipf A, Schauss A (2015) Quality assessment of the contributed land use information from openstreetmap versus authoritative datasets. In: OpenStreetMap in GIScience. Springer, pp 37–58Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jung JJ (2017) Computational collective intelligence with big data: challenges and opportunities. Fut Gener Comput Syst 66 (Supplement C):87–88. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keßler C, Trame J, Kauppinen T (2011) Tracking editing processes in volunteered geographic information: the case of openstreetmap. Identifying objects, processes and events in spatio-temporally distributed data (IOPE), workshop at conference on spatial information theory, p 12Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mooney P, Corcoran P, Ciepluch B (2013) The potential for using volunteered geographic information in pervasive health computing applications. J Ambient Intell Human Comput 4(6):731–745. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rodriguez MA, Egenhofer MJ (2003) Determining semantic similarity among entity classes from different ontologies. IEEE Trans Knowl Data Eng 15(2):442–456. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Senaratne H, Mobasheri A, Loai Ali A, Capineri C, Haklay M (2016) A review of volunteered geographic information quality assessment methods. International Journal of Geographical Information Science CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sherchan W, Nepal S, Paris C (2013) A survey of trust in social networks. ACM Comput Surv 45 (4):47:1–47:33. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Touya G, Antoniou V, Olteanu-Raimond AM, Van Damme MD (2017) Assessing crowdsourced poi quality: combining methods based on reference data, history, and spatial relations. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf 6(3):1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Veregin H (1999) Data quality parameters. Geogr Inf Syst 1:177–189Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Xiao C, Freeman DM, Hwa T (2015) Detecting clusters of fake accounts in online social networks. In: Proceedings of the 8th ACM workshop on artificial intelligence and security, ACM, New York, AISec ’15, pp 91–101.
  22. 22.
    Yao J, Tan W, Nepal S, Chen S, Zhang J, Roure DD, Goble C (2015) Reputationnet: reputation-based service recommendation for e-science. IEEE Trans Serv Comput 8(3):439–452. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ye B, Wang Y (2016) Crowdrec: Trust-aware worker recommendation in crowdsourcing environments. In: 2016 IEEE international conference on web services (ICWS), pp 1–8.
  24. 24.
    Yu B, Singh MP (2002) An evidential model of distributed reputation management. In: Proceedings of the first international joint conference on autonomous agents and multiagent systems: Part 1. ACM, pp 294–301Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Yu H, Shen Z, Leung C (2013) Bringing reputation-awareness into crowdsourcing. In: 2013 9th international conference on information, communications signal processing, pp 1–5.
  26. 26.
    Yu H, Shen Z, Leung C, Miao C, Lesser VR (2013) A survey of multi-agent trust management systems. IEEE Access 1:35–50. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhao Y, Zhou X, Li G, Xing H (2016) A spatio-temporal VGI model considering trust-related information. ISPRS Int J Geo-Inf 5(2):10CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.German University of Technology in Oman (GUtech)AthaibahOman
  2. 2.Department of Information EngineeringUniversità degli Studi di BresciaBresciaItaly
  3. 3.ISTICNRPisaItaly

Personalised recommendations