• Christopher J. ParkerEmail author
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Geography book series (BRIEFSGEOGRAPHY)


Various insights into the differences between VGI and PGI in terms of their content have been observed. Studies One and Two highlighted how VGI and PGI may vary in their use of standardised terminology, frequency of surveying/resurveying areas and quality control (amongst others).


Special Interest Group User Task Wheelchair User High Quality Content Consumer User 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Alonso O, Gertz M, Baeza-Yates R (2007) On the value of temporal information in information retrieval. ACM SIGIR Forum 41(2):35–41. Available at:
  2. Alonso O, Rose DE, Stewart B (2008) Crowdsourcing for relevance evaluation. ACM SIGIR Forum 42(2):9–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Badenoch D et al (1994) The Value of Information. In: Feeney M, Grieves M (eds) The value and impact of information. Bowker-Saur Limited, Chippenham, pp 9–78Google Scholar
  4. Bateson G (1988) Glossary. In: Mind and nature: a necessary unity. Bantam Books, New York, p 245–249Google Scholar
  5. Bevan N (1999) Quality in use: meeting user needs for quality. J Syst Softw 49:69–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bishr M, Kuhn W (2007) Geospatial information bottom-up: a matter of trust and semantics. In: Irina-Fabrikant S, Wachowicz M (eds) The European Information Society. Springer, Berlin, pp 365–387Google Scholar
  7. Bishr M, Mantelas L (2008) A trust and reputation model for filtering and classifying knowledge about urban growth. GeoJournal 72(3–4):229–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Budhathoki NR, Bruce B (Chip), Nedovic-Budic Z (2008) Reconceptualizing the role of the user of spatial data infrastructure. GeoJournal 72(3):149–160. Available at:
  9. Burns CM, Vicente KJ (1996) Judgements about the value and cost of human factors information in design. Inf Process Manage 32(3):259–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper AK (2011) Challenges for quality in volunteered geographical information. In: AfricaGEO 2011. AfricaGEO, Cape Town, p 13Google Scholar
  11. Coote A, Rackham L (2008) Neogeography data quality—is it an issue? In: Holcroft C (ed) Proceedings of AGI geocommunity’08. Association for Geographic Information (AGI), Stratford-Upon-Avon, p 1.
  12. Crone GR (1968) Maps and their Makers: an introduction to the history of cartography, 4th edn. W. G. East (ed), Hutchinson, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. Das T, Kraak MJ (2011) Does neogeography need designed maps? In: Proceedings of the 25th international cartographic conference and the 15th general assembly of the international cartographic association. International Cartographic Association (ICA), Paris, pp 1–6. Available at:
  14. DeGarmo EP, Black JT, Kohser RA (2003) Materials and processes in manufacturing, 9th edn. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  15. Doan A, Ramakrishnan R, Halevy AY (2011) Crowdsourcing systems on the world-wide web. Commun ACM 54(4):86–96. Available at: Google Scholar
  16. Flach JM (1998) An ecological approach to interface design. In: Proceedings of the 42nd annual meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, San Antonio, pp 295–299Google Scholar
  17. Flanagin AJ, Metzger MJ (2007) The role of site features, user attributes, and information verification behaviors on the perceived credibility of web-based information. New Media Soc 9(2):329–342. Available at:
  18. Flanagin AJ, Metzger MJ (2008) The credibility of volunteered geographic information. GeoJournal 72:137–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Goodchild MF (2007a) Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal 69(4):211–221. Available at:
  20. Goodchild MF (2007b) Citizens as voluntary sensors: spatial data infrastructure in the world of Web 2.0. Int J Spatial Data Infrastruct Res 2:24–32Google Scholar
  21. Goodchild MF (2008) Commentary: whither VGI? GeoJournal 72(3):239–244CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goodchild MF, Glennon JA (2010) Crowdsourcing geographic information for disaster response: a research frontier. Int J Digit Earth 3(3):231–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Grira J, Bédard Y, Roche S (2010) Spatial data uncertainty in the VGI world: going from consumer to producer. Geomatica 64(1):61–72Google Scholar
  24. Haklay M (2010) How good is volunteered geographical information? a comparative study of openstreetmap and ordnance survey datasets. Env plann B 37(4):682–703Google Scholar
  25. Haklay M, Ather A, Basiouka S (2010a) How many volunteers does it take to map an area well? In: Haklay M, Morley J, Rahemtulla H (eds) Proceedings of the GIS research UK 18th annual conference. University College, London, p 193–196Google Scholar
  26. Holone H, Misund G, Holmstedt H (2007) Users are doing it for themselves: pedestrian navigation with user generated content. In: Al-Begain K (ed) NGMAST 2007: international conference on next generation mobile applications, services and technologies. IEEE, Cardiff, pp 91–99. Available at:
  27. Idris NH, Jackson MJ, Abrahart RJ (2011a) Colour coded traffic light labeling: a visual quality indicator to communicate credibility in map mash-up applications. In: Presented at the international conference on humanities, social sciences, science & technology (ICHSST). Manchester, pp 1–7. Available at: publications/2011/Nurul_Idris_ICHSST_new.pdf
  28. ISO 9241-11 (1998) Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDT)s—Part 11: guidance on usability. International Standards Organisation, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  29. Keen A (2007) The cult of the amateur. Nicholas Brealey, FinlandGoogle Scholar
  30. Koops MA (2004) Reliability and the value of information. Anim Behav 67(1):103–111. Available at: Google Scholar
  31. Metzger MJ, Flanagin AJ (2011) Using Web 2.0 technologies to enhance evidence-based medical information. J Health Commun 16(Suppliment 1):45–58Google Scholar
  32. Mihalcea R, Chklovski T (2003) Building sense tagged corpora with volunteer contributions over the web. In: Nicolov N et al (eds) Recent advances in natural language proceedings III. John Benjamins, Philadelphia, pp 357–367Google Scholar
  33. Monmonier M (2006) From squaw tit to whorehouse meadow. The University of Chicago Press, USACrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Mummidi L, Krumm J (2008) Discovering points of interest from users’ map annotations. GeoJournal 72:215–227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Norman DA (2005) Emotional design. Basic Books, USAGoogle Scholar
  36. Obermeyer N (2007) Thoughts on volunteered (Geo)slavery. In: Goodchild MF, Gupta R (eds) NCGIA and Vespucci workshop on volunteered geographic information. The National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, Santa Barbara, pp 13–14.
  37. Ordnance Survey (2009) New revision programme for large-scale topographic data., 2009(Nov 3rd). Available at Accessed 3 Nov 2009
  38. Petty, Richard E, Cacioppo, John T (1986) "The Elaboration Likelihood Model of Persuasion." Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19: 123–162 Google Scholar
  39. Preece J (2002) Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  40. Pultar E, Raubal M, Goodchild MF (2008) GEDMWA: geospatial exploratory data. In: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGSPATIAL international conference on advances in geographic information systems (ACM GIS 2008). ACM, Irvine, p 499Google Scholar
  41. Ray NM, Ryder ME (2003) “Ebilities” tourism: an exploratory discussion of the travel needs and motivation of the mobility-disabled. Tour Manag 24:57–72CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reeves S, Sherwood S (2010) Five design challenges for human computation. In: Proceedings of the 6th nordic conference on human-computer interaction: extending boundaries. ACM, Iceland, p 383Google Scholar
  43. Rieh SY (2002) Judgment of information quality and cognitive authority in the Web. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 53(2):145–161. Available at:
  44. Rogers EM (2003) Diffusion of innovations, 5th edn. Free Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  45. Schilder F, Habel C (2001) From temporal expressions to temporal information: Semantic tagging of news messages. In: Proceedings of the workshop on temporal and spatial information processing, vol 13. Association for Computational Linguistics, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  46. Sheridan TB (1995) Reflections on information and information value. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 25(1):194–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shirky C (2009) How cellphones, Twitter, Facebook can make history. In: Frawley Bagley E (ed) TED@State. Washington, TED Talks. Available at:
  48. SozialHelden (2012) Wheelmap: Loughborough. Available at: Accessed 12 Nov 2012
  49. Stephens DW (1989) Variance and the value of information. Am Nat 134(1):128–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tapscott D, Williams AD (2008) Wikinomics: How Mass Collaboration Changes Everything. Atlantic Books, UKGoogle Scholar
  51. Tsou M-H (2005) An intelligent software agent architecture for distributed cartographic knowledge bases and internet mapping services. In Peterson MM (ed) Maps and the internet. Elsevier Ltd., Oxford, pp 229–243Google Scholar
  52. Van Exel M, Dias E (2011) Towards a methodology for trust stratification in VGI. In: VGI pre-conference at AAG. Association of American Geographers, Seattle, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  53. Warnick B (2004) Online ethos: source credibility in an authorless environment. Am Behav Sci 48(2):256–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wilson P (1983) Second-hand knowledge: an inquiry into cognitive authority. Greenwood Press, ConnecticutGoogle Scholar
  55. Wood D (2003) Cartography is dead (thank god!). Cartograph Perspect 45(Spring):4–7. Available at: Google Scholar
  56. Zook MA (2010) Volunteered geographic information and crowdsourcing disaster relief: a case study of the Haitian earthquake. World Med Health Policy 2(2):7–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Loughborough Design SchoolLoughborough UniversityLoughboroughUK

Personalised recommendations