See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/222679581

Location Based Services and GIS in Perspective

Article in Computers Environment and Urban Systems · November 2006

DOI: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2006.02.003 · Source: DBLP

CITATIONS READS

209 4,303

2 authors:

Bin Jiang Xiaobai Yao

HKUST(GZ) University of Georgia
290 PUBLICATIONS 9,433 CITATIONS 67 PUBLICATIONS 1,282 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Bin Jiang on 22 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Model 1+

Computers, Environment and Urban Systems

30 (2006) 712–725
www.elsevier.com/locate/compenvurbsys

Location-based services and GIS in perspective

a,¤ b
Bin Jiang , Xiaobai Yao
a
Division of Geomatics, Department of Technology and Built Environment, Gävle GIS Institute,
University of Gävle, SE-801 76 Gävle, Sweden
b
Department of Geography, University of Georgia, Room 204 GG Building, Athens, GA 30605, USA

Abstract

This paper examines location-based services (LBS) from a broad perspective involving deWnitions,
characteristics, and application prospects. We present an overview of LBS modeling regarding users,
locations, contexts and data. The LBS modeling endeavors are cross-examined with a research
agenda of geographic information science. Some core research themes are brieXy speculated.
© 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: LBS; GIS; User modeling; Location modeling; Context modeling and data modeling

1. Location-based services: deWnitions, characteristics, and application prospects

Nowadays with the rapid development and widespread deployment of information and
telecommunication technologies integrated with lightweight mobile devices and terminals,
pinpointing location on the move has become a common exercise. The technologies
involve geographical information systems (GIS), global positioning systems (GPS), radio
frequency identiWcation, and various other location sensing technologies with varying
degrees of accuracy, coverage and cost of installation and maintenance. Some most recent
location sensing technology based on ultrawideband radio can even achieve accuracies on
the order of centimeters in an indoor environment. Meanwhile, the rapid evolution of cell
phone industry from initial simple talk services to multiple functions of multimedia

*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 26 64 8901; fax: +46 26 64 8828.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (B. Jiang), [email protected] (X. Yao).

0198-9715/$ - see front matter © 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2006.02.003
713 B. Jiang, X. Yao / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 30 (2006) 712–725

messaging and voice services with the emergence of broadband wireless infrastructure has
created tremendous demands for various location-based services (LBS).
What are LBS? There have been various deWnitions of LBS from diVerent perspectives.
One regards LBS as “any service or application that extends spatial information process-
ing, or GIS capabilities, to end users via the Internet and/or wireless network” (Koeppel,
2000), and another says that LBS are “geographically-oriented data and information ser-
vices to users across mobile telecommunication networks” (Shiode, Li, Batty, Longley, &
Maguire, 2004). From a GIS perspective, the former deWnition concentrates on the GIS
capabilities that are available in networked environments. The latter deWnition, on the
other hand, narrows down speciWcally to geographic data and information services that are
available in a mobile-networked environment. Both deWnitions emphasize that LBS are
services targeted to a wide range of users. According to these deWnitions, both online map
services (e.g. mapquest) and the Internet GIS can be considered important LBS applica-
tions, as they provide the kind of geographic information services via the Internet or
mobile-networked environments to mobile devices. LBS are indeed partially evolved from
the online map services and other Internet GIS applications, whereas current LBS mainly
rely on lightweight mobile devices such as personal digital assistants (PDA), smart phones
and wearable computers for delivering various services so as to provide added value to
users. A true LBS application aims to provide personalised services to mobile users whose
locations are in change. Location and context are the key players in LBS which are thereby
often called location-ware computing or context-aware services.
Any deWnition of LBS would overlap partially with some key terms in research Welds of
GIS and geoinformatics. Instead of presenting a new deWnition, it is important to capture
those distinct characteristics of LBS that diVerentiate it from other GIS applications. We
can compare them in regard to Wve commonly accepted components of GIS, i.e. hardware,
software, data, models, and people. In a comparison with conventional GIS, Karimi (2004)
elaborated the distinct characteristics of LBS (he used another term “telegeoinformatics”
to refer to LBS). From the hardware and software perspective, LBS are based on diverse
platforms and packages which involve the use of Internet, GIS, location-aware devices,
and telecommunication technologies. No conventional GIS applications involve so much
diversity of hardware and software in an interoperating environment. In regard to data,
LBS receive data from various sources such as remote sensing (including micro-sensors),
positioning systems, topographic maps, and traYc and transportation data sources. The
data from the various sources often need to be handled in LBS simultaneously and dynam-
ically. Thereby LBS are much more heterogeneous in nature comparing to most other GIS
applications. Because of various data sources involved, integrating the data and processing
them in a real-time fashion seem to be more challenging. Moreover, models for generaliza-
tion, visualization, and geoprocessing in general would also be imposed further research
challenges because the user’s locations are in constant change. Finally, human factors
should be taken into account for any LBS. Special considerations need to be taken for
interface design, visualization methods, and reasoning approaches. More than often, user
proWles and requirements need to obtain before and during any design and development.
Basic questions that LBS users are concerned about include: where am I currently?
What and where are the nearest locations of interest? How to get there? The questions may
arise in diVerent contexts. LBS applications range a wide spectrum from daily life scenarios
to specialized applications. A major application of LBS is to accurately position wireless
emergence calls through E911 in the United States (or European equivalent E112) for
B. Jiang, X. Yao / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 30 (2006) 712–725 714

emergency and rescue operations. Other applications include locating friends, locating
nearest printer services, tracking staV, monitoring patients for emergency response, mili-
tary training, asset tracking, and Xeet management, to mention a few examples. The vari-
ous information services can be delivered to the LBS devices in two diVerent modes. The
Wrst is “push” mode where services are pushed to the user end automatically without the
need of user request. The second is called the “pull” mode in which the user has to volun-
tarily request the information to be delivered from service centres. The market potential of
LBS has been enormous, and thus it represents a new source of revenue opportunity.
According to Allied Business Intelligence Research (http://www.abiresearch.com/), the
worldwide market for LBS is to reach as high as $40 billion by 2006.
LBS not only can identify locations of human beings who carry location-aware devices,
they also can track objects that are equipped with a tiny (and usually inexpensive) sensor
identiWer for delivering relevant services. For instance, products moving through the sup-
ply chain can be dynamically identiWed with embedded smart sensors, and massive prod-
ucts of such form a large-scale intelligent network (Swartz, 2001). Such a sensor network
has a better sense of customer’s need and is able to deliver the related services intelligently.
The sensor network described may sound very ambitious, but it represents some of current
developments in pervasive computing. Pervasive computing (Satyanarayanan, 2001) that
reXects Weiser’s initial vision on ubiquitous computing (Weiser, 1991) represents the oppo-
site of virtual reality, i.e. instead of letting people and objects immerse into the chips or
computers, chips and microprocessors are embedded into human body and objects. This is
likely to be a direction for future development of LBS. This paper is not intended to go any
further in regard to these future development directions. Instead, it strives to provide a per-
spective of the interplay between LBS and GIS in terms of modelling for LBS and to dis-
cuss research challenges that cut across the two Welds.

2. Modeling for LBS

A good collection of models has been proposed in the past to capture important system
components such as user, location, context, and data. These models are mostly introduced
in a broader context of interaction systems of which LBS is an emerging type. The review
that follows is based on the scholarly literature from relevant domains including ubiqui-
tous computing, context-aware computing, general interaction systems, and GIS.

2.1. User needs and modeling

Users are central to LBS and so LBS applications should be designed based on a user-
centered view. The user is a starting point for any LBS application design. It is the user
who needs location-based services in various situations. User needs, user behaviors, and
user proWles are important considerations in the course of designing LBS, since they deter-
mine what information should be provided and inXuence to a large extent the way systems
and interfaces should be designed. User modeling sounds a very new subject for LBS,
whereas it is an established domain in computer science for interaction systems (e.g. bien-
nial conference series on user modeling since 1994). User modeling is referred to as “ƒthe
acquisition or exploitation of explicit, consultable models of either the human users of sys-
tems or the computational agents which constitute the system” (Csinger, 1995, p. 32). This
deWnition was given in the context of intent-based authoring that clearly reXects user’s
715 B. Jiang, X. Yao / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 30 (2006) 712–725

purpose of information presentation. Basic questions about the users in LBS are: who are
the users? what are their needs? when and where do they need services? etc. Many studies in
user modeling (e.g. Jameson, 2001) have examined a wide range of user properties includ-
ing users’ current states, behaviors and even long-term properties.
It is not an easy task to thoroughly understand the users and user needs, as they usually
tend to be very diverse. Clustering the users in terms of interests, behaviors and personal
proWles is an important step towards a better understanding of the users. For instance, to
design a LBS application for a museum, the users can be classiWed in terms of the viewing
habits and interests. Sparacino (2002) developed a wearable computer, so-called the
museum wearable, to capture the user’s behavior in visiting a museum. Three categories of
the users can be identiWed, i.e. greedy users who need in-depth information on everything,
selective users who want in-depth information on selective items, and busy users who see a
little bit of everything. The information about users can also be captured by conventional
user studies through personal interviews and Weld evaluations (Kaasinen, 2003; Li, 2006). It
is important to note that user needs, interests, and behaviors are not static but rather in
constant change. Information of such changes would be valuable for the design of an adap-
tive LBS system. Ashbrook and Starner (2003) introduced a model for predicting user’s
future locations based on the user’s past locations. The model was veriWed by two scenarios
involving a single user and multiple users respectively; refer also to Liu and Karimi (2006)
for more recent advances on the issue. This kind of dynamic models would be highly
expected in the future for developing LBS applications with a high level of intelligent
responses and adaptation. The discussion of dynamics is probably more related to the next
issue: location modeling.

2.2. Location modeling

If we unpack the term “location-based services”, it is clear enough that location is an

important part of LBS. Location is part of context (which will be further discussed in the
following section) and it determines what information and services the user may expect. A
location can be represented and perceived in diVerent ways. A location could be repre-
sented as geometric or symbolic on the one hand (Leonhardt, 1998), and it could also be
absolute or relative on the other (Hightower & Borriello, 2001). In GIS, locations are
georeferenced in continuous or discrete georeferencing systems. For instance, a major
entry of the University of Gävle is located at 17° 7⬘ 9.23629⬙E, 60° 40⬘ 7.53197⬙N using the
universal reference system, known as World Geodetic System 1984 (WGS84). The location
can also be represented as Kungsbäcksvägen 47, 801 76 Gävle, Sweden. The former is rep-
resented by coordinates in a continuous georeferencing system (WGS84 in this case) used
by the GPS, while the latter is a visiting or post address in a discrete georeferencing system.
These two location representations are actually two georeferencing methods in GIS. Most
indoor locations are represented in some local (rather than global) reference system. For
instance, a robot can be located given a pair of coordinates relative to speciWc origin in a
local reference system. The room numbered as 11:310 could indicate it is in the third Xoor
of the building 11, whereas it is relative to the above university address.
Location modeling deals with the basic issue of representing space (or more precisely
geographic space) for LBS. Two dominating methods in geographic representation are
emerged from absolute and relative views of space, which arose from Newtonian and Leib-
nizian physics respectively. The former view regards space as a set of individual locations
B. Jiang, X. Yao / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 30 (2006) 712–725 716

and objects, while the latter on how the individual locations and objects are interrelated
within space. Two distinctive models: geometric and symbolic models (Leonhardt, 1998)
are de facto reXection of the above two views of space. The geometric models treat loca-
tions and objects as points, areas and volumes within a reference coordinate system, and
they can support a range of queries regarding a position, nearest neighbors, and eYcient
paths among locations. Most existing GIS are actually based on the geometric models.
However, the geometric models face some limitations and diYculties for the general public
who are more used to linguistic expressions of spatial features, locations, and spatial rela-
tions. Research challenges in this regard will be discussed later. On the other hand, with the
symbolic models, locations are modeled as sets and located-objects as members of sets, and
interrelationships are established among a set of locations and a set of located objects.
Attempts have been made towards integration and extension of the geometric and sym-
bolic models in order to take advantages of both. For instance, Leonhardt (1998) devel-
oped a semi-symbolic model in which a located object is represented as both absolute
coordinates (as in geometric models) and memberships of named objects, i.e. symbols (as in
symbolic models). Hu and Lee (2004) have recently developed a semantic location model
that combines both geometric and symbolic aspects of locations based on location and exit
hierarchies. A major advantage of this model is that it can automatically create location
and exit hierarchy without human intervention. Along the same line of thoughts, we can
remark that a street topology based on a graph theoretic representation (Jiang & Clara-
munt, 2004) can support the kind of location modeling as well, since interconnection of
named streets are clearly embedded in the modeling eVort. The reader can refer to Becker
and Duerr (2005) for a comprehensive overview of various location models.

2.3. Context modeling and adapting

Context is deWned, for instance, as “location and the identity of nearby people and
objects” (Schilit & Theimer, 1994, quoted in Dourish, 2004), or “location, identity, environ-
ment and time” (Ryan, Pascoe, & Morse, 1997, quoted in Dourish, 2004). So location is
part of context, but context is far more than location (Schmidt, Beigl, & Gellersen, 1999).
Dey (2001) deWned context as “any information that can be used to characterize the situa-
tion of an entity,” where “an entity is a person, place, or object that is considered relevant
to the interaction between a user and an application, including the user and applications
themselves.” Context constitutes an important part, probably also the most diYcult part,
of LBS, as both the user and location are part of the context. Because of the importance of
context, LBS are often given other names, e.g. context-aware computing or context-aware
services.
Context has impacts on information retrieval, user actions, and user behaviors with
LBS applications. Contexts change persistently with mobile users, so context modeling
must be able to capture the changes and reXect current context whenever and wherever the
users are. Schmidt et al. (1999) introduced a model to better understand the concept of
context for context-aware computing. The model adopts a context feature space, which is
hierarchically organized. In the model, context is related to both human factors and physi-
cal environments surrounding the user. The human factors can be further subcategorized
into user, social environment and task; the physical environments can be subdivided into
conditions, infrastructure and location. The context related features can be further subcat-
egorized as well. For instance, location could involve absolute position, relative position
717 B. Jiang, X. Yao / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 30 (2006) 712–725

and co-location, etc. A similar consideration of context is made towards modeling people’s
perception of distance in situated contexts (Yao & Thill, 2005). To help context modeling
or situation abstraction, a context toolkit was suggested for building context-aware appli-
cations (Dey, 2001). Given the complex nature of contexts, it has been argued that an
empirical and user-centered approach should be adopted to understand mobile contexts
(Tamminen, Oulasvirta, Toiskallio, & Kankainen, 2004). In order to design mobile LBS
systems that adapt to the changing contexts, contexts must be captured via sensor technol-
ogy (Schmidt et al., 1999) or be taught through machine learning techniques (Laerhoven &
Aidoo, 2001). More recently Dourish (2004) presents an alternative model that focuses on
a view of interaction rather than representation. It presents a new perspective towards a
better understanding of contexts, although the model is not explicitly design- and techni-
cal-oriented.

2.4. Geospatial data processing and modeling

Geospatial data are one of the key components of LBS, as in essence LBS are a kind of
data or information services. There has been increasing availability and continuous update
of geospatial data over the past decades due to the advances in geospatial technology.
Based on the projection of the National Research Council (2003) of the United States, the
volume of geospatial data will increase by several orders of magnitude over the next
decade. However the existing geospatial data infrastructure is not particularly suitable for
LBS applications. For instance the data collected and maintained by the national mapping
agencies do not match very well along the country boundaries. The data management and
map symbols are not particularly designed for small mobile devices. All these impose chal-
lenges for data processing and modeling for LBS. Because of limited resources of mobile
devices (e.g. limited size of screen and storage space), on-the-Xy visualization and general-
ization are inevitable for mobile devices. In this respect, GiMoDig project (http://gimo-
dig.fgi.W/index.php) made eVorts to develop various methods of delivering geospatial data
and to provide data service infrastructure for LBS applications, although it is mainly lim-
ited to topographic data maintained by national mapping agencies.
While the existing geospatial data provide basic data layers, more data sources are
needed depending on speciWc LBS applications. For instance, for LBS applications
designed for tourist guide, all physical attractions including historic sights and shopping
locations should be collected. Furthermore, some speciWc LBS applications have speciWc
requirements for data modeling in some particular contexts. For instance it is found that
landmarks are far more required than other information such as distance and street names
(May, Ross, Bayer, & Tarkiainen, 2003) in a pedestrian navigation context. Major chal-
lenges for geospatial data processing and modeling include how to present information on
a small screen in a clearly understandable way, and how to design maps adapting to chang-
ing contexts. No single map mode is for everyone, so multiple map modes are essential for
various users. A visualization method that combines both 2D view and 3D view for wear-
able computers with navigation or wayWnding activities seems a solution (Suomela, Roi-
mela, & Lehikoinen, 2003).
For the sake of convenience, we introduced the above modeling attempts from diVerent
perspectives involving the user, location, context, and data. Nevertheless, we must be aware
of the fact that the considerations from all these perspectives should be integrated in the
design and modeling process for any LBS application. For instance, prediction of a user’s
B. Jiang, X. Yao / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 30 (2006) 712–725 718

future location is discussed from both user modeling and location modeling perspectives.
Both the user and locations are part of the context, therefore in essence they are insepara-
ble in modeling processes. All in all, the four aspects should be coherently considered with
a comprehensive conceptual modeling towards a systematic model for any LBS applica-
tion.

3. Research challenges for LBS

The modeling attempts outlined in the above sections represent state-of-the-art research
around LBS. The models are mainly proposed in the domain of ubiquitous computing with
a few exceptions on geospatial data modeling conducted in GIS. LBS continue to be a hot
topic in GIS, e.g. three short-term research priorities proposed by University Consortium
of Geographic Information Science (UCGIS) are LBS related, i.e. LBS, social implications
of LBS, and pervasive computing. In this section, we try to assess how the modeling issues
briefed above actually constitute a series of long-term research challenges of geographic
information science (GIScience). Table 1 lists the current ten UCGIS long-term research
challenges (McMaster & Usery, 2005). We shall Wrst examine the connection between the
research agenda and the modeling demands for LBS.
As LBS can be regarded as a special kind of geographic information services, it is no
surprise that the UCGIS research agenda clearly has close links to the modeling issues for
LBS. For instance, research on spatial ontologies with focus on ontological foundations for
geographic information has at least two implications to the development of LBS applica-
tions. At one level, it can help to set up a common ontology for LBS for knowledge sharing
among diverse users. At another level, it can help conceptualize design and modeling pro-
cesses. Both location modeling and context modeling are related to the fundamental issue
of geographic representation in GIScience. It concentrates on how geographic space should
be represented conceptually and logically. The research issue is more challenging for LBS,
because unlike other GIS applications where users’ locations are not of particular concern,
LBS are targeted to the users with constantly changing locations. Another UCGIS
research priority, spatial data acquisition and integration, is also directly relevant to LBS.
As a matter of fact, spatial data acquisition and integration is an integral part of data pro-
cessing and modeling in LBS. Moreover, LBS applications often have unique requirements
for data collection, integration, and accuracy analysis. Particularly, the issue of uncertainty
of geographic information is closely linked to the data processing and modeling in LBS.

Table 1
UCGIS long-term research challenges
(1) Spatial ontologies
(2) Geographic representation
(3) Spatial data acquisition and integration
(4) Scale
(5) Spatial cognition
(6) Space and space/time analysis and modeling
(7) Uncertainty in geographic information
(8) Visualization
(9) GIS and society
(10) Geographic information engineering
Source: McMaster and Usery (2005).
719 B. Jiang, X. Yao / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 30 (2006) 712–725

A more relevant topic is probably spatial cognition, which is inherited from long stand-
ing research interests in human environmental perception and cognition, map perception
and interpretation, human spatial behavior, and wayWndings in complex built environ-
ments. The studies along this line can provide valuable inputs to the design and develop-
ment of LBS in regard to human-environment interaction, human-map and -system
interactions, user interface, and visualization methods. The challenge of visualization is
closely linked to data modeling, and how geographic information is perceived, either via
visual display or audio broadcasting. Due to the size constraint of mobile devices, graphic
information should be represented in a simpliWed way but without loss of overall informa-
tion. For the basic requirement, generalization linking to scale issue can help retain the
simpliWed graphic forms. Furthermore research on space/time analysis and modeling could
provide a powerful reasoning capability for more innovative value-added services. From a
societal aspect, LBS are a key instrument for the improvement of the quality of life and
personal productivity. On the other hand, societal impacts of LBS also include surveillance
and invasion of personal privacy, and changes in human spatial behavior (Dobson &
Fisher, 2003).
Having elaborated on the close links of the research agenda of GIScience and modeling
issues in LBS, we want to ask this question: what is special about LBS? Indeed, LBS repre-
sent some very special attributes of geospatial technology. For instance, most users of LBS
are the general public; the user’s behavior, location, and context are in constant change,
and the systems must be adaptive to the changes. All these special characteristics are typi-
cally not dealt with in conventional GIS. In the rest of the section, we suggest a few
research themes for future investigations, whereas the list of research themes is not
intended to be exclusive.

3.1. Naïve users and next-generation GIS

A distinct characteristic of LBS is that they are generally oriented to naive users. Poten-
tially everyone may become a user and therefore no assumption can be made about a
user’s prior knowledge of GIS or the spatial environments. While this fact provides a great
opportunity for ubiquitous use of GIS, it also challenges GIS to cater for the particular
needs of naive users. An average citizen usually has qualitative abstractions of the environ-
ment (Cohn & Hazarika, 2001). Naive users tend to acquire commonsense, often qualita-
tive, knowledge about the spatial structure of the geographical world through experiences
without concentrated eVorts. The knowledge may be incomplete or inaccurate at times, yet
they still can be very powerful in making useful conclusions (Kuipers, 2004). The common-
sense geographical knowledge is usually expressed in linguistic terms such as place names
(e.g. Atlanta, White House, Main street, etc.) and spatial relations (e.g. north, in, near, etc.).
Therefore for the general public, the next-generation GIS not only should have the metric
data handling capabilities, but also should be receptive to qualitative information and
make best conclusions out of it.
The idea of next-generation GIS for naive users has close ties to several lines of intellec-
tual investigations in the literature. Particularly, naive geography (Egenhofer & Mark,
1995) provides the theoretical foundation for the next-generation GIS for naïve users.
Naïve geography concerns with formal modeling of commonsense geographic world and
the design of GIS for average citizens without major training in GIS or geography. A
considerable amount of research has been made to contribute to naive geography. For
B. Jiang, X. Yao / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 30 (2006) 712–725 720

example, Yao and Thill (2006) proposed a framework to handle locations referenced by
qualitative spatial relations in GIS. Research achievements from a number of associated
threads of investigation make direct or indirect contributions to naïve geography. These
Welds include qualitative spatial reasoning, perception and cognition of space, studies of
the relationship between natural language and perceptual representation of space, compu-
tational models of spatial cognitive maps, uncertainties in spatial boundaries, as well as
research on place names and digital gazatteer (e.g. http://www.alexandria.ucsb.edu/gazet-
teer/). Researchers from computer science have also shown great interests in dealing with
qualitative spatial information (e.g. McGranaghan, 1993; Wang, 2003).
In spite of the research eVorts that have been made, current LBS and GIS applications
are still in its quantitative-dominant stage. Coherent and consorted research is in great
demand towards the realization of the next-generation GIS that cross between qualitative
and quantitative paradigms. Research issues include mapping mechanisms between quali-
tative data and quantitative data, the design of user interface, interpreting semantics of lin-
guistic expressions in LBS, incorporating qualitative spatial and temporal reasoning
models in LBS, and visualization of qualitative location information, to name a few exam-
ples.

3.2. Spatio-temporal analysis and mining of mobile geospatial data

The geospatial data captured by mobile devices such as PDAs, mobile phones and wear-
able computers have been proliferating with the rapid development of LBS. This emerging
data source has enormous potential to play an important role for our understanding of
human activities and human behaviors in the environments. For instance, the Amsterdam
RealTime project (http://www.waag.org/realtime/) collected massive data of individuals’
whereabouts. From the datasets, researchers can track the spatio-temporal trajectories of
the individual’s activities. Spatial-temporal data mining algorithms can be used for the
extraction of patterns from the datasets. An example of such patterns may be that many
individuals in the study area go shopping on the way from work to home. Findings of
human activity patterns and other spatial characteristics of human behavior can greatly
facilitate the planning and decision-making processes, as these human activities and trajec-
tories are sensitive to physical and cultural infrastructures (Ahas & Mark, 2005). LBS pro-
vide a revolutionary data source of such data because they can collect spatio-temporal
data that otherwise have to be obtained from very expensive data collection processes. This
new data source will certainly stimulate more research towards what Miller (2005) called
people-based GIS, with which spatio-temporal analysis and data mining is a major vehicle.
Spatio-temporal modeling is likely to gain reviving research interests with the emergence of
LBS.
Spatial-temporal analysis and data mining typically involve the use of vast amount of
data and high computation load. Thus eYcient data structures and algorithms need to be
tailored for the LBS devices, which are typically not the top-of-the-notch computing envi-
ronments in terms of storage volume or computation speed. In this regard, LBS data pro-
vide great opportunities as well as challenges for spatial data mining of human behavior
data. Future research along this line include the development of data mining algorithms
tailored for LBS data, design and implementation of data structures of activity-based
location data, exploratory analysis of such data, and knowledge discovery from the data
mining practices.
721 B. Jiang, X. Yao / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 30 (2006) 712–725

3.3. On-the-Xy generalization and visualization

LBS can be characterized as map-centered geographic information services, as location

information and services are most likely to be shown in mobile terminals. Conventional
cartography, which was initially developed for stationary map displays, is rather insuY-
cient to the particular needs of LBS. Distinct from a stationary cartographic system, the
maps for LBS have various constraints such as small screens, persistent change of loca-
tions, and egocentric views. Special considerations should be given to these constraints for
map rendering. For instance, the small screen constraint means that the conventional map
with a great amount of details cannot be directly rendered for LBS applications. Mobile
maps must be more simpliWed or generalized while retaining the necessary information.
For this consideration, route maps or schematic maps (Agrawala & Stolte, 2000; Avelar &
Mueller, 2000) are highly advantageous developments. Persistent change of locations
implies the constant retrieval and update of the base map. Meanwhile, the retrieval and
update must be adapted to the user’s location and context. These issues have never been
researched in conventional cartography, although the research issue of on-the-Xy general-
ization has been explored for web mapping (e.g. Cecconi & Galanda, 2002). In consider-
ation of the abovementioned particular constraints and characteristics of LBS, more
eYcient algorithms are to be developed for on-the-Xy and context-sensitive generalization
and visualization.
It will also be interesting to investigate whether other visualization approaches, such as
animation, multimedia, and multimodal geographical information presentation, are feasi-
ble for designing LBS applications. To adapt to the user’s dynamic location, egocentric
representations such as Wsh eye and variable scale maps, and panoramic view of the sur-
rounding from the user’s current position are appropriate. A recent book edited by Meng,
Zipf, and Reichenbacher (2004) presents a state of the art of the research and development
along the line of map-based services. Many issues are still kept open for further research.
These issues include human cognition of the new types of mobile maps, the usability of
these maps, as well as the eVectiveness of the mobile visualization methods. As the devices
used for LBS are very compact, they typically do not include powerful input–output
peripheries such as keyboards and mice. This brings about extra research challenges to
facilitate human-device interactions that are necessary for advanced visualization meth-
ods.

3.4. Interoperability issues

Interoperability has been a challenging issue for GIS (Goodchild, Egenhofer, Fegeas, &
Kootman, 1999). Heterogeneity is also one important feature of LBS. The heterogeneity
can be seen from various perspectives involving network protocols, hardware, software,
positioning technologies, users, data sources and formats, and application semantics. Het-
erogeneity can be achieved through standardization. Currently many organizations are
making contributions to the standardization of LBS to facilitate interoperability. Among
them two bodies, Location Interoperability Forum (LIF) and Open Geospatial Consor-
tium (OGC), have devoted signiWcantly to location interoperability. LIF approaches loca-
tion interoperability from the perspective of wireless network, while OGC targets the same
issue from a geospatial angle. The two bodies endorse mutually some location interopera-
bility standards. It is important to note that LBS are a collection of services oVered by a
B. Jiang, X. Yao / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 30 (2006) 712–725 722

value chain of interconnected companies from IT and geospatial industries. The companies
include data providers, hardware and software providers, service providers, positioning
data providers and so forth. The standards and open speciWcations signiWcantly improve
the eYciency of developing some LBS applications. In the future, more work needs to be
done in order to achieve cross-standards interoperability.
For the development of LBS, it is rather important to ensure the meanings of concepts
and data intended by the designer are eVectively communicated from service suppliers to
consumers (Kuhn, 1996, cited from Raubal, 2005). These are fundamental for semantic
interoperability. Among the various types of interoperability, the semantic one is probably
most diYcult to achieve because of the linguistic sophistication and delicacy. It is challeng-
ing to catch and communicate semantic meanings across systems and among people. Rau-
bal (2005) suggests adopt a people-oriented approach to solve semantic interoperability, as
essentially meaning is not independent of people’s understanding and cognition. More
research along the line is anticipated in the future.

3.5. Privacy and social issues

Although LBS indeed have enormous application potential for enhancing safety, conve-
nience, and utility in our daily lives, people are wary of any abuse of the technology and
location information. If not well guarded, LBS, like any other technology, may be reversed
into the opposite of what was originally designed for (Sui, 2004). LBS, as well as other loca-
tion related geospatial technologies, threaten people and the society’s privacy, or location
related privacy to be more speciWc. The threat has been widely recognized and is vividly
termed as “geoslavery” (Dobson & Fisher, 2003). The concern has enormous impacts on
people’s attitude towards using and adopting LBS. Current research on the issue of rela-
tions between the user’s conceptions of privacy and intentions to use LBS is important for
the development and deployment of LBS (Junglas & Spitzmuller, 2005). Thirteen privacy
issues related to the collection, retention, use and disclose of location information and
technologies (Minch, 2004) provide a full spectrum of understanding of location privacy.
The privacy issues could be used as a foundation to build up a theory of LBS privacy as
part of general theory of privacy in the information age (Moor, 1997). Safeguard necessary
for protecting rights of individuals must be provided to avoid abuse of location informa-
tion and technologies, and to further facilitate the healthy development of LBS products
and services.
Currently, research towards the privacy of LBS has been sporadic, among them most on
conceptual and a few on empirical studies. For instance, the conceptualization of LBS as
new media (Sui, 2004) contributes to a complete and holistic perspective on LBS. In partic-
ular the detailed tetradic analysis of LBS based on McLuhan’s laws of media provides
some deep insights into social and spatial impacts of LBS on individuals and society as a
whole. To alleviate users privacy fears, industry has started to implement some regulations
to get rid of users’ privacy concerns. The Privacy Management Code of Practice deWned by
Vodafone for instance allows the users to anonymize location requests by mapping the cell
phone number to an alias (Spiekermann, 2004). It also provides an interface option for the
users to turn on or oV localization. More research is needed on users’ conception of privacy
and how they shape their attitude towards LBS products and services. Future development
of LBS and the fulWllment of their potential rely much on the advances around study, stan-
dards, and legislation about location related privacy.
723 B. Jiang, X. Yao / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 30 (2006) 712–725

4. Conclusion

This paper strives to capture the current developments in LBS, an emerging and fast
developing Weld cutting across the boundaries of geospatial, mobile, and information tech-
nologies. We have seen from the previous review that increasing eVorts have been made by
both geospatial scientists and computer scientists towards the advancement of LBS. We
have also seen a series of issues and challenges imposed on LBS research from both tech-
nological and societal perspectives. The need and importance of many GIScience research
topics Wnd more justiWcations with LBS. Meanwhile these research topics also see new
challenges with LBS. More cross-disciplinary endeavors are anticipated in the future par-
ticularly at the intersection of information technology, geospatial technology, and increas-
ing awareness of social impacts of the technologies.
There is no a clear-cut boundary of LBS and GIS, as many fundamental research issues
of GIScience are those of LBS as well. The boundary could be even more blurry in the
future when conventional GIS advances to invisible GIS in which GIS functionalities are
embedded in tiny sensors and microprocessors. As speculated by Sui (2005), conventional
GIS concepts may disappear, but instead GIS functionalities may appear in a pervasive
fashion when the idea of ubiquitous computing comes true. The evolution of GIS concepts
clearly reXects the shift of computing platforms from mainframe, to desktop, and nowa-
days to an increasingly pervasive fashion. It is the shift that makes LBS and GIS research
special, challenging, and exciting.

Acknowledgements

We thank Daniel Z. Sui and Hassan A. Karimi, who read an early version of this paper,
for their constructive comments and suggestions. However, any errors and inadequacies of
the paper remain solely the responsibility of the authors.

References

Agrawala, M., & Stolte, C. (2000). A design and implementation for eVective computer-generated route maps.
In AAAI symposium on smart graphics, March 2000, pp. 61–65.
Ahas, R., & Mark, U. (2005). Location-based services—new challenges for planning and public administration?
Futures, 37, 547–561.
Ashbrook, D., & Starner, T. (2003). Using GPS to learn signiWcant locations and predict movement across multi-
ple users. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 7, 275–286.
Avelar, S., & Mueller, M. (2000). Generating topologically correct schematic maps. In Proceedings of the 9th
SDH, Beijing 10–12 August 2000, IGU, pp. 4a.28–35.
Becker, C., & Duerr, F. (2005). On location models for ubiquitous computing. Personal and Ubiquitous Comput-
ing, 9, 20–31.
Cecconi, A., & Galanda, M. (2002). Adaptive zooming in Web cartography. Computer Graphics Forum, 21(4),
787–799.
Cohn, A. G., & Hazarika, S. M. (2001). Qualitative spatial representation and reasoning: An overview. Fundamen-
tal Informaticae, 46(1–2), 1–29.
Csinger, A. (1995). Users models for intent-based authoring. Dissertation, The University of British Columbia.
Dey, A. K. (2001). Understanding and using context. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 5, 4–7.
Dobson, J. E., & Fisher, P. F. (2003). Geoslavery. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine, 22(1), 47–52.
Dourish, P. (2004). What we talk about when we talk about context. Personal and ubiquitous computing, 6, 19–30.
Egenhofer, M. J., & Mark, D. M. (1995). Naïve geography. In A. U. Frank & W. Kuhn (Eds.), COSIT ’95 proceed-
ings: Spatial information theory: A theoretical basis for GIS (pp. 1–15). Berlin: Springer.
B. Jiang, X. Yao / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 30 (2006) 712–725 724

Goodchild, M., Egenhofer, M., Fegeas, R., & Kootman, C. (Eds.) (1999). Interoperating geographic information
systems. Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hightower, J., & Borriello, G. (2001). Location systems for ubiquitous computing. IEEE Computer, 33(8), 57–66.
Hu, H., & Lee, D. (2004). Semantic location modeling for location navigation in mobile environment.
In Proceedings of the 2004 IEEE international conference on mobile data management (MDM’04).
Jameson, A. (2001). Modeling both the context and the user. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 5, 29–33.
Jiang, B., & Claramunt, C. (2004). Topological analysis of urban street networks. Environment and Planning B:
Planning and design, 31, 151–162.
Junglas, I. A., & Spitzmuller, C. (2005). A research model for studying privacy concerns pertaining to location-
based services. In Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, January 3–6,
2005, Big Island, Hawaii.
Kaasinen, E. (2003). User needs for location-aware mobile services. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 7, 70–79.
Karimi, H. A. (2004). Telegeoinformatics: Current trends and future direction. In H. A. Karimi & A. Hammad
(Eds.), Telegeoinformatics: location-based computing and services. CRC Press.
Koeppel, I. (2000). What are location services? From a GIS Perspective, ESRI white paper.
Kuhn, W. (1996). Semantics of geographic information. Department of Geoinformation, Vienna.
Kuipers, B. (2004). Making sense of common sense knowledge. Ubiquity, 4(45). Available from www.acm.org/
ubiquity.
Laerhoven, K. V., & Aidoo, K. (2001). Teaching context to applications. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 5, 46–49.
Leonhardt, U. (1998). Supporting location-awareness in open distributed systems. Ph.D. thesis, Department of
Computing, Imperial College London.
Li, C. (2006). User preferences, information transactions and location-based services: A study of urban pedestrian
way Wnding. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 30(6), 726–740.
Liu, X., & Karimi, H. A. (2006). Location awareness through trajectory prediction. Computers, Environment and
Urban Systems, 30(6), 741–756.
May, A. J., Ross, T., Bayer, S. H., & Tarkiainen, M. J. (2003). Pedestrian navigation aids: Information require-
ments and design implications. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 7, 331–338.
McGranaghan, M. (1993). Applications of artiWcial intelligence to extracting and reWning locality information. In
R. Fortuner (Ed.), Advances in Computer Methods for Systematic Biology: ArtiWcial Intelligence, Databases,
Computer Vision. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
McMaster, R. B., & Usery, E. L. (2005). A research agenda for geographic information science. CRC Press.
Meng, L., Zipf, A., & Reichenbacher, T. (Eds.) (2004). Map-based mobile services: theories, methods, and implemen-
tations. Berlin: Springer.
Miller, H. J. (2005). What about people in geographic information science? In P. Fisher (Ed.), Re-presenting geo-
graphic information systems. John Wiley.
Minch, R. P. (2004). Privacy issues in location-aware mobile devices. In Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii interna-
tional conference on system sciences, 5–8 January 2004, Big Island, Hawaii.
Moor, J. H. (1997). Towards a theory of privacy in the information age. Computers and Society, 27(3), 27–32.
National Research Council (2003). IT Roadmap to a geospatial future. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press.
Raubal, M. (2005). Mappings for cognitive semantic interoperability. In AGILE 2005—8th AGILE conference on
geographic information science.
Ryan, N., Pascoe, J., & Morse, D. (1997). Enhanced reality Weldwork: the context-aware archeological assistant. In
V. GaVney, M. van Leusen, & S. Exxon (Eds.), Computer applications in archeology. British Archaelogical
Reports, Oxford, UK.
Satyanarayanan, M. (2001). Pervasive computing: Vision and challenges. IEEE Personal Communications, 8(4),
10–17.
Schilit, B., & Theimer, M. (1994). Disseminating active map information to mobile hosts. IEEE Network, 8(5), 22–32.
Schmidt, A., Beigl, M., & Gellersen, H. W. (1999). There is more to context than location. Computers and Graphics,
23(6), 893–901.
Shiode, N., Li, C., Batty, M., Longley, P., & Maguire, D. (2004). The impact and penetration of location-based ser-
vices. In H. A. Karimi & A. Hammad (Eds.), Telegeoinformatics: location-based computing and services (pp.
349–366). CRC Press.
Sparacino, F. (2002). The museum wearable: Real-time sensor-driven understanding of visitors’ interests for
personalized visually-augmented museum experiences. In Proceedings of museums and the Web (MW 2002),
Boston, MA, April 17–20, 2002.
725 B. Jiang, X. Yao / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 30 (2006) 712–725

Spiekermann, S. (2004). General aspects of location-based services. In J. Schiller & A. Voisard (Eds.), Location-
based services (pp. 9–26). Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
Sui, D. (2004). The media and the messages of location-based services (LBS): death of distance or the revenge of
geography? Journal of Geographical Information Sciences, 10(2), 166–174.
Sui, D. (2005). Will ubicomp make GIS invisible. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 29(1), 361–367.
Suomela, R., Roimela, K., & Lehikoinen, J. (2003). The evolution of perspective view in WalkMap. Personal and
Ubiquitous Computing, 7, 249–262.
Swartz, J. (2001). E-commerce and megamachines: indenWtication, connectivity and inference engines. Technology
in Society, 23, 159–175.
Tamminen, S., Oulasvirta, A., Toiskallio, K., & Kankainen, A. (2004). Understanding mobile contexts. Personal
and Ubiquitous Computing, 8, 135–143.
Wang, F. (2003). Handling grammatical errors, ambiguity and impreciseness in GIS natural language queries.
Transactions in GIS, 7, 103–121.
Weiser, M. (1991). The computer in the 21st century. ScientiWc American, September, 1991.
Yao, X., & Thill, J. C. (2006). Spatial queries with qualitative locations in spatial information systems. Computers,
Environment and Urban Systems, 30(4), 485–502.
Yao, X., & Thill, J. C. (2005). How far is too far? A statistical approach to context-contingent proximity modeling.
Transactions in GIS, 9(2), 157–178.

View publication stats