ENV101 Geographical Information System
Assessment - Final project report Value: 85% of module mark
Learning outcome
A. understand basic concepts related to Global Positioning System (GPS) and GIS
B. familiarize common spatial analysis tools
C. construct geospatial data using proper mapping tools
D. apply GIS to solve simple real-world problems
E. identify the limitations of spatial analysis
1. Introduction
In this project you will have an opportunity to demonstrate your understanding of GIS-based spatial analysis using a “real-world” scenario. You need to locate suitable locations for renewable energy applications (cf. section 2) in one of the states in the US you have been assigned. The datasets you will use are located in the Learning mall as final_data.zip. Be sure to download and unzip the file to your own portable hard drive and explore all of the files available in the Data folders. Use the literature, previous labs, or implement your personal knowledge/views to establish criteria to achieve the objectives. Note that you may add to (or modify) the criteria listed for each project, but you must explain your reasoning and assumptions.
2. Project Problem: Suitable Locations for Renewable Energy Applications
Assume you have been consulted by the United States Department of Energy to select possible sites for solar and hydro power plants for each state. You will create a map that shows the suitable area for these renewable energy applications. The criteria to consider are:
· All the sites should be within “close proximity” to “major” towns to reduce the maintenance cost and to increase the service efficiency.
· The sites with solar cells should be located on the “suitable” terrain to achieve long solar exposure time.
· The solar cell sites should also have “relatively long” sun hours.
· The sites with hydro turbines should be located at rivers with “relatively steep” slopes.
Note: You must define what is meant by “relatively strong”, “major”, “suitable”, “relatively long”, “close proximity”, and “relatively steep” by checking related literature for reference.
3. Description of the Dataset
There are a number of datasets for you to use. You need to decide which datasets you will use for your own project. You may not need to use all of these layers in the analysis. Remember that vector and raster cannot be used together in overlay analysis. All the graphic datasets should be in WGS_1984_Albers with Datum WGS_1984. If you find the data is not in the correct spatial reference, then you must use the appropriate tools in ArcToolbox to convert or define the projections. The following table specifies the details of the datasets.
|
Datasets Name
|
Description
|
|
Station_list.xlsx
|
A table containing all weather stations in the US. Including station ID, latitude, longitude, altitude and English name of each station
|
|
climatedata.xlsx
|
A table containing climate data from the weather stations. Containing station ID, annual precipitation (precip, 0.1 mm), annual average wind velocity (mean_U, 0.1 m/s), annual average temperature (mean_T, 0.1ºC), annual average relative humidity (mean_RH, %), days with precipitation greater than 0.1mm (D_PGT01, 0.1 day), sun hours (sol_HR, 0.1 hour), maximum wind velocity (max_U, 0.1 m/s), maximum daily precipitation (Max_DP, 0.1 mm), and minimum relative humidity (Min_RH, %)
|
|
county_bnd.shp
|
Polygon shapefiles containing all counties in the US. The area, perimeter, name, province name, population, and average household income (in RMB/year) of each county are also included in the attribute table.
|
|
All_towns.shp
|
All towns and cities in the US in point shapefile. Its English Name, City or Town (CITY_TOWN_), Population (Urban_Resi), and other information are included in the attribute table. No data = -32766 or 32766
|
|
landuse.shp
|
US landuse map in polygon shapefile. Landuse are classified as Forest, Pasture/Grassland, Water/Wetland, Cultivated Land and Desert/Barren
|
|
major_rivers.shp
|
US major rivers in polylines. The names of the rivers are included in the attribute table.
|
|
small_rivers.shp
|
US level-5 rivers in polylines. The names of the rivers are included in the attribute table.
|
|
dem
|
10km resolution DEM of US, in ArcGIS grid format with z value in meters
|
4. Procedure
The problem you need to work on is outlined in section 2. When you finish this lab, you need to provide me the following products:
1. Final ArcMap documents saved with the name of the state you are assigned (e.g. Final_California.mxd). These documents will include the final layers used to create the map layouts.
2. A report whose format is detailed in section 5.
3. A table containing the final layer names with brief descriptions of their contents (Refer to Part VII).
5. Format for preparing your written report
The report should be typed, double-spaced, and contain page numbers. Please respect the word limit of 2000-2500 (excluding tables, captions and references). Submit a digital copy of the report to Learning mall. The project report is worth 50% of your final mark. The title page should include:
Project Title
Student number:
Due Date:
Word Count:
Use the following subheadings (in bold) to separate major sections of your report:
I. Introduction. You need to provide concrete information of the background and motivation after critically reviewing past literature, and describe your project objective here.
II. Methods. You need to demonstrate a) Approach and assumptions (e.g., in general, discuss your decisions related to which data you assume are important and which are not, which are weighted more heavily [if any]; give reasons "why" you made assumptions, you also need to use reference to justify the selections of criteria) and b) GIS analysis methods- this includes details of the methods [e.g., how did you buffer, reclassify; what modeling method did you use?]; include a flow chart
IV. Results e.g., demonstrate modeling final results in figures (maps) and/or tables; describe the general results and highlight exceptional cases in the text. Please note that you need to essential map elements (e.g. legend, north arrow, scale bar, captions, etc.) and table elements (caption, units, etc.) should be included.
V. Discussion e.g., interpretation on the spatial distribution of your results; strengths and weaknesses of your approach, other factors that might have been considered, cautions in use of results, implication and significance of your study, recommendations for actions
VI. Conclusion- you need to briefly summarize the main points (including methods, results and discussion) of your report.
VII. References – you need to list your references in Harvard format. Please note you will need to cite references from at least 5 credible sources, such as journal articles, and textbooks. Baidu Baike, Wikipedia are NOT credible sources.
VIII. Appendix- This section will contain a table that lists all final layer names with brief descriptions of their contents (Refer to the below table).
|
File Name
|
Location
|
Description
|
|
Slope.shp
|
\final_project\data\results\
|
Shapefile containing slope information derived from dem. In polygon format.
|
Suggestions: In your report, whenever possible use tables or maps to help guide the reader (to summarize datasets used, reclassification procedures used, results, etc.); write the report as if you are writing it for a real project. So don’t include details like clicking on the “+” sign to add a data layer, etc. Refer to all maps, figures and tables by a figure or table number cited in the text (e.g. Figure 1, Table 1, etc.).
6. Marking Scheme:
|
|
Presentation (10%)
|
Title and Intro (10%)
|
Methods (30%)
|
Results (10%)
|
Discussion (30%)
|
Conclusion (5%)
|
Appendix(5%)
|
|
90-100%
|
Dissertation organised & presented appropriately, clearly, succinctly
& professionally; could be published with only minor corrections.
References correctly cited and presented.
Information can be grasped at a glance; no duplication.
|
The motivation is described by critically analyzing relevant literature. Outstanding understanding of previous work. The project aim is correctly and clearly defined. Outstanding title demonstrating the topic clearly.
|
Concrete details of methods.
The research design is sound and creative; The criterion definitions are justified by multiple credible sources; Appropriate GIS tool selection and correct sequence of tools, as outlined in a flowchart.
|
The results are properly demonstrated in figures and/or tables, and fully summarized in text.
|
Sound explanations are given to the results. Error sources are fully discovered and correctly analyzed. Proper recommendations for actions are proposed based on the current situation.
|
Concise wrap-up, covering what has been done. Take home messages are consistent with aim.
|
All files are listed in the appendix table with name, location, and detailed descriptions.
|
|
80-89%
|
As 90-100 above but some corrections, deletions & amendments would be needed before publication. Style. of writing clear and perceptive.
|
As 90-100% above but less critically, showing still excellent understanding of previous work. An excellent title but the expression still can be improved.
|
As 90-100% except research design is less creative
|
As 90-100% but some results are over-stated.
|
As 90-100% but some evidence of over interpreting data.
|
As 90-100% except less concise recap, but still covering all important take home messages.
|
As 90-100% except over-detailed file description.
|
|
70-79%
|
Clear & easy to read, but not necessarily publishable.
Presentation first class but with occasional repetition. Some inadequacies of style, leading to occasional misunderstandings. Good organization of references but with occasional formatting errors.
|
As 80-89% above but still good understanding the previous work. Some critical analysis on previous literature were attempted. A good title but some imprecise words.
|
As 80-89% except no creativity was shown in the research design.
|
As 80-89, except some data could be demonstrated in a better way.
|
As 80-89% but less awareness on how to improve the present practice.
|
As 80-89% except some redundant information in the research recap.
|
As 80-89% except missing some minor information in file description.
|
|
60-69%
|
Very good, logical presentation; writing style. generally good, but some paragraphs obscure. Some repetition of both information & remarks. Overall easy to follow. Good organization of references but with some formatting errors.
|
The motivation is described by analyzing the background but without much critical thinking. The project aim is correctly and clearly defined. Good title but with some unrelated information.
|
As 70-79% except some minor issues found in the criterion definition or tool selection.
|
As 70-79% except some minor issues in data demonstration.
|
As 70-79% except minor issues found in 1-2 of the following items: 1) Interpretation of results; 2) evaluations on error sources; 3)
suggestions to improve current practice.
|
As 70-79% except some recap information is missing.
|
As 70-79% except missing some important information in file description.
|
|
50-59%
|
Good presentation, but writing style. not very good. Often inappropriate choice of illustrations, possibly too few or too many, too small, too complex, etc.
Graphs & tables not very well laid out. Repetition or poor organization of ideas & information. Significant formatting errors were found in references.
|
As 69-60% but some important literature is missing. No critical analysis was made. Title is generally consistent with the topic but not exact.
|
As 60-69% except some major issues found in tool selection.
|
As 60-69% except some major issues in data demonstration.
|
As 60-69% except minor issues found all three items: 1) Interpretation of results; 2) evaluations on error sources; 3)
suggestions to improve current practice.
|
As 60-69% except a few important take home messages were missing or the whole research recap is missing.
|
As 60-69% except missing a small number of file descriptions.
|
|
40-49%
|
Overall impression satisfactory & gives a reasonable knowledge of the major findings of the project, but poor presentation, e.g. graphs with bad scales and/or too few points, illustrations not well chosen, written style
unclear, poor organization of references etc.
|
As 59-50% but a large portion of important literature is missing. Title covers the broad area of the topic but not specific.
|
As 50-59% except some major issues found in the research design.
|
As 50-59% except many major issues in data demonstration, but, on the whole, data comprehensively presented.
|
As 50-59% except major issues found in one of the three items: 1) Interpretation of results; 2) evaluations on error sources; 3)
suggestions to improve current practice.
|
As 50-59% except sizable portion of take home messages were missing but still with research recap.
|
As 50- 59% except missing a large number of file descriptions.
|
|
30-39%
|
Presentation with many inadequacies, difficult to ascertain all that has been discovered.
However, a significant portion of the report is reasonably understandable.
|
As 40-49% except the aim was mentioned but without much background information. Title is partially related to topic.
|
As 40-49% except many issues found in the research design but still with a general framework.
|
As 40-49% except missing a large portion of results, but some major results were demonstrated and described.
|
As 40-49% except major issues found in two of the three items: 1) Interpretation of results; 2) evaluations on error sources; 3)
suggestions to improve current practice.
|
As 40-49% except missing most of take home message. Some attempts in recapping this research.
|
As 40- 49% except missing most file descriptions.
|
|
20-29%
|
Inadequate presentation. Information mixed up & not sensibly organized. Painful reading and, at the end, little clear idea of the major findings of the investigation.
|
The aim was not mentioned or incorrectly identified. Only a little relevant background information was mentioned. The title is marginally related to the topic.
|
As 30-39% except missing a large portion of methods and fail to make research design.
|
As 30-39% except most major results were missing.
Inadequate description of most results.
|
As 30-39% except major issues found in all of the three items: 1) Interpretation of results; 2) evaluations on error sources; 3)
suggestions to improve current practice.
No literature awareness
|
As 30-39% except no or almost no attempts in recapping this research.
|
As 30- 39% except missing almost all file descriptions.
|
|
10-19%
|
Very poor presentation. Information unorganized into any logically apparent sequence. Findings incoherent.
|
Missing aim and very little background information. Title is not consistent with topic, but with a few relevant words.
|
As 20-29% except only a few patches of methods were described.
|
Very few results were demonstrated or described.
|
Very few relevant discussions were made.
|
As 20-29% except no or almost no take home messages but still with some attempts in recapping this research.
|
Only file names were reported.
|
|
0-9%
|
No evidence in organization.
|
Irrelevant or no background information. Irrelevant or no aim and title.
|
No or irrelevant methods were described.
|
No or irrelevant results were demonstrated or described. No or almost no attempt in data handling
|
No or irrelevant discussions.
|
No or irrelevant information provided.
|
No or irrelevant file information was provided.
|
Note: Please respect the word limit (2000-2500 words excluding references, acknowledgements, appendix, and table and figure captions). Too long or too short reports will result in the deduction of 1 mark/100 words. All submissions should be made through ICE. According to the University policy, late submission can result in the deduction of 5% of available marks per working day. No submissions are allowed after 5 working days without University approved excuses.