Project Portfolio

Project 1: Community Spatial Profile

Students will curate a two-project portfolio that demonstrates their ability to build web-based storytelling artifacts that combine maps, analyses, and presentations. The portfolio should be published with Google Sites or ArcGIS StoryMaps. For each project you will share the public link to the site and deliver a presentation tailored to a specific stakeholder audience. Detailed project briefs will be posted on the Course Website.

Presentations are 8-10 minutes and should clearly communicate how your map addresses the needs of policymakers, residents, emergency managers, administrators, or other stakeholders. Presentation Format: Hybrid students present during scheduled class meetings. Online students record and upload their presentation video to Yellowdig by 4:00 pm ET on the assigned presentation date.

Select a location you have a personal connection to (hometown, current city, or neighborhood of interest) and analyze one of the following themes: equity and access, demographic patterns, risk and vulnerability, or infrastructure. Using public datasets (e.g., Census, OpenStreetMap, TIGER/Line, PolicyMap), create an interactive map that visualizes spatial patterns and communicates findings for a relevant stakeholder group. This project emphasizes visualization, data integration, and storytelling with foundational GIS techniques.

Required Components
  • Project Introduction: Context and the key question or problem being addressed.
  • Target Audience: Identification of stakeholders, their priorities, and why this analysis matters to them.
  • Interactive Map: Polished, web-based map that follows cartographic principles for symbology, labeling, and projection.
  • Data Sources and Methods: Description of datasets (origin, units) and GIS techniques applied.
  • Key Findings: Summary of spatial patterns and implications for the target audience.
Evaluation Criteria
  • Interactive Map Quality (30%): Visual design, adherence to cartographic principles, and effective use of interactive features.
  • Storytelling and Communication (30%): Narrative tailored to stakeholders that clearly answers the guiding question.
  • Data and Methods Explanation (20%): Clear description of sources and techniques with accessible technical detail.
  • Presentation Delivery (20%): Professional, engaging delivery with purposeful visuals and audience interaction.

LLM Statement Required: Submit a short statement explaining any large language model or AI assistance you used, including the tool name and how its outputs shaped your work.

Criteria Excellent (95%+) Good (75%+) Fair (40%+) Needs Improvement Weight
Interactive Map Quality Cartography is polished, accessible, and optimized for the web; symbology, labels, scale, and interactivity reinforce the story seamlessly. Overall map design is strong with minor cartographic or usability issues that do not distract from the message. Map communicates the basics but contains noticeable design flaws (color choices, labeling, or responsiveness) that reduce clarity. Visualization is difficult to interpret, inconsistent across devices, or missing required interactive elements. 30%
Storytelling & Communication Narrative frames the community context, integrates evidence, and speaks directly to stakeholder needs with compelling calls to action. Storyline is coherent and audience-aware but could elevate stakes, transitions, or supporting details. Message is present yet generic, with limited references to the stated audience or unclear takeaways. Narrative is fragmented or audience is unidentified, leaving stakeholders unsure how to act. 30%
Data & Methods Explanation Sources are transparent, well-cited, and methods are explained in plain language that demonstrates confident command of the workflow. Most sources and steps are documented, though a few details or justifications are abbreviated. Documentation is partial, with limited detail on processing choices or dataset limitations. Key datasets are missing, unverifiable, or unexplained; readers cannot reproduce the work. 20%
Presentation Delivery Delivery is professional, paced for comprehension, and integrates visuals smoothly while inviting audience engagement. Delivery is confident overall but may rush, omit transitions, or rely heavily on notes. Presentation is uneven with noticeable filler, limited eye contact, or minimal use of visuals. Delivery undermines the content through disorganization, lack of preparation, or inaccessible audio/video. 20%
Project 2: Original Spatial Analysis

Design and execute an original spatial analysis that addresses a research question of your choosing. This project requires advanced GIS methods such as spatial regression, clustering, or route optimization. Assemble appropriate datasets, justify your analytical design, and translate the resulting insights into actionable guidance for stakeholders.

Required Components
  • Research Question and Rationale: Clearly articulate the question and why it matters.
  • Target Audience: Identify stakeholders and describe how findings inform their decisions.
  • Interactive Map: Publish a polished map that effectively visualizes analytical outputs.
  • Methodology: Detail data sources, spatial techniques (e.g., regression, clustering, optimization), and the justification for each choice.
  • Results and Interpretation: Present findings with clear explanations of statistical outputs, spatial patterns, and implications.
  • Limitations and Validity: Discuss data gaps, methodological constraints, and the reliability of conclusions.
Evaluation Criteria
  • Analytical Rigor (35%): Appropriate use of advanced methods, correct implementation, and thoughtful interpretation.
  • Methodological Justification (20%): Clear rationale for techniques and evidence that you understand when they are appropriate.
  • Interactive Map Quality (20%): Effective visualization of complex analytical outputs with sound cartographic design.
  • Research Design and Insights (15%): Well-defined question, coherent narrative, and actionable takeaways.
  • Presentation Delivery (10%): Professional communication that makes technical content accessible to the audience.

LLM Statement Required: Submit a short statement explaining any large language model or AI assistance you used, including the tool name and how its outputs shaped your work.

Criteria Excellent (95%+) Good (75%+) Fair (40%+) Needs Improvement Weight
Analytical Rigor Advanced techniques are executed correctly, assumptions are tested, and uncertainty is quantified with clear diagnostics. Approach is technically sound overall but omits one or two diagnostic checks or sensitivity tests. Some advanced steps are attempted but contain methodological gaps or superficial interpretation of outputs. Analysis misapplies methods, lacks verification, or produces uninterpretable results. 35%
Methodological Justification Explains why each dataset and tool was selected, highlighting tradeoffs and aligning methods with the research question. Provides reasonable rationale with limited discussion of alternatives or constraints. Mentions methods but with minimal explanation of appropriateness or assumptions. Techniques are listed without justification, leaving reviewers unsure why they were chosen. 20%
Interactive Map Quality Complex outputs are simplified into intuitive visuals; legends, annotations, and interactions guide non-technical audiences. Visuals are clear for most users but could improve in annotation, legend clarity, or responsiveness. Maps display results but rely on default styling or omit guidance needed to read advanced layers. Visualization obscures results or contains errors that mislead viewers. 20%
Research Design & Insights Question is tightly scoped, findings generate actionable policy or management insights, and limitations are candidly addressed. Design is clear with useful takeaways, though implications or limitation discussions remain surface-level. Question or conclusions feel generic, and links to stakeholder decisions are tenuous. Problem framing and insights are unclear, preventing stakeholders from applying the work. 15%
Presentation Delivery Presenter translates technical content for mixed audiences with confident pacing, visuals, and Q&A readiness. Delivery is organized with minor clarity or timing issues. Presentation covers essentials but lacks polish, energy, or adaptation to audience needs. Delivery is disorganized, hard to follow, or non-compliant with presentation requirements. 10%