GIS Network Model in Geospatial Analysis

  • Ko Ko Lwin
  • Yuji Murayama


Geographic information systems (GIS) provide both theory and methods that have the potential to facilitate the development of spatial analytical functions and various GIS data models. There are several network models in GIS, such as river networks, utility networks and transportation or road networks. Among these, GIS road network data models are important for solving problems in urban areas such as transportation planning, retail market analysis, accessibility measurements, service allocation and more. Understanding the road network patterns in urban areas is important for human mobility studies, because people are living and moving along the road networks. A network data model allows us to solve daily problems such as finding the shortest path between two locations, looking for the closest facilities within a specific distance or estimating drive times. Although many network models are conceptually simple they are mathematically complex and require computational resources to model the problem.


Geographic Information System Road Network Transportation Planning Normalize Different Vegetation Index Close Facility 
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. Bell M, Iida Y (1997) Transportation network analysis. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhat C, Handy S, Kockelman K, Mahmassani H, Gopal A, Srour I, Weston L (2002) Development of an urban accessibility index: formulations, aggregation, and application. Center for Transportation Research, The University of Texas at Austin. Report no. FHWA/TX-02-4938-4Google Scholar
  3. Dijkstra EW (1959) A note on two problems in connexion with graphs. Numerische Mathematik 1:269–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dill J, Portland OR (2003) Measuring network connectivity for bicycling and walking. In: Joint congress of ACSP-AESOP, LeuvenGoogle Scholar
  5. Fischer M (2004) GIS and network analysis. In: Hensher D, Button K, Haynes K, Stopher P (eds) Handbook of transportation geography and spatial systems. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 391–408Google Scholar
  6. Frank LD, Engelke P (2005) Multiple impacts of the built environment on public health: walkable places and the exposure to air pollution. Int Reg Sci Rev 28:193–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Frank LD, Stone B Jr, Bachman W (2000) Linking land use with household vehicle emissions in the central Puget Sound: methodological framework and findings. Transp Res Part D 5:173–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Handy S, Niermeier DA (1997) Measuring accessibility: an exploration of issues and alternatives. Environ Plann A 29:1175–1194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hansen WG (1959) How accessibility shapes land use. J Am Plann Inst 25:73–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hess PM, Moudon AV, Snyder MC, Stanilov K (1999) Site design and pedestrian travel. Transp Res Rec 1674:9–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hillier B (1996) Space is the machine: a configurational theory of architecture. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Hillier B, Hanson J (1984) The social logic of space. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jiang B (1999) SimPed: simulating pedestrian crowds in a virtual environment. J Geogr Inf Decis Anal 3:21–30Google Scholar
  14. Lee J (2005) 3D GIS in support of disaster management in urban areas. Retrieved from
  15. Leslie E, Coffee N, Frank L, Owen N, Bauman A, Hugo G (2007) Walkability of local communities: using geographic information systems to objectively assess relevant environmental attributes. Health Place 13:111–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Levinson DM, Krizek KJ (2005) Access to destinations. Elsevier, KidlingtonGoogle Scholar
  17. Lwin KK, Murayama Y (2009) Interactive online micro-spatial population analysis based on GIS estimated building population. In: URISA’s 2009 annual conference & exposition, Anaheim (student paper award)Google Scholar
  18. Lwin KK, Murayama Y (2011) Modelling of urban green space walkability: eco-friendly walk score calculator. Comput Environ Urban Syst 35:408–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moudon AV, Lee C, Cheadle AD, Garvin C, Johnson DB, Schmid TL, Weathers RD (2007) Attributes of environments supporting walking. Am J Health Promot 21:448–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. O’Sullivan D, Morrison A, Shearer J (2000) Using desktop GIS for the investigation of accessibility by public transport: an isochrone approach. Int J Geogr Inf Sci 14:85–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Peponis J, Zimring C, Choi YK (1990) Finding the building in wayfinding. Environ Behav 22:555–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pirie GH (1979) Measuring accessibility: a review and proposal. Environ Plann A 11:299–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Reilly MK (2002) The influence of urban form and land use on mode choice: evidence from the 1996 bay area travel survey. Presented at the annual meeting of the Transportation Research Board, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  24. Rodrigue J-P, Comtois C, Slack B (2009) The geography of transport systems, 2nd edn. Routledge, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  25. Sherman L, Barbara B, Kondo W (1974) Method for evaluating metropolitan accessibility. Transp Res Rec 499:70–82Google Scholar
  26. Taaffe EJ, Gautheir H Jr (1973) Geography of transportation. Prentice-Hall, Englewood CliffsGoogle Scholar
  27. Wachs M, Kumagi TG (1973) Physical accessibility as a social indicator. Socio Econ Plann Sci 7:437–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Zhan FB, Noon CE (1998) Shortest path algorithms: an evaluation using real road networks. Transp Sci 32:65–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Zhu Q, Li Y, Tor YK (2006) 3D dynamic emergency routing. GIM-Int 20(6).

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Spatial Information Science, Graduate School of Life and Environmental SciencesUniversity of TsukubaTsukubaJapan

Personalised recommendations