Ecological Informatics 4 (2009) 183195

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ecological Informatics

j ourna l homepage: www.e lsev ie r.com/ locate /eco l in f

Free and open source geographic information tools for landscape ecology

Stefan Steiniger , Geoffrey J. HayDepartment of Geography, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada T2N1N4

Corresponding author. Department of Geography, UE-mail address: ssteinig@ucalgary.ca (S. Steiniger).

1574-9541/$ see front matter 2009 Elsevier B.V. Aldoi:10.1016/j.ecoinf.2009.07.004

a b s t r a c t

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 26 March 2009Received in revised form 5 July 2009Accepted 7 July 2009

Keywords:Free softwareOpen sourceGeographic information toolsLandscape ecologyDesktop GIS

Geographic Information tools (GI tools) have become an essential component of research in landscape ecology.In this article we review the use of GIS (Geographic Information Systems) and GI tools in landscape ecology,with an emphasis on free and open source software (FOSS) projects. Specifically, we introduce the backgroundand terms related to the free and open source software movement, then compare eight FOSS desktop GIS withproprietary GIS to analyse their utility for landscape ecology research. We also provide a summary of relatedlandscape analysis FOSS applications, and extensions. Our results indicate that (i) all eight GIS provide the basicGIS functionality needed in landscape ecology, (ii) they all facilitate customisation, and (iii) they all providegood support via forums and email lists. Drawbacks that have been identified are related to the fact that mostprojects are relatively young. This currently affects the size of their user and developer communities, and theirability to include advanced spatial analysis functions andup-to-date documentation. However,we expect thesedrawbacks to be addressed over time, as systems mature. In general, we see great potential for the use of freeand open source desktopGIS in landscape ecology research and advocate concentrated efforts by the landscapeecology community towards a common, customisable and free research platform.

2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1842. What does free software and open source mean?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184

2.1. Why does free and open source software exists? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1842.2. Free-of-cost vs. free and open source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

3. GIS and landscape ecology today . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1853.1. What GIS functions are used in LSE today? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1853.2. What GI tools and software are used in LSE today? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 186

4. Categories of GI tools useful for LSE analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1864.1. Core GI tools for LSE research and projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1864.2. Advanced GI tools for large LSE projects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187

5. Eight free and open source desktop GIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1886. Comparing the eight FOS desktop GIS with proprietary GIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

6.1. Analysis and comparison of functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1896.1.1. General functionality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1896.1.2. Comparing functionality with respect to special needs of the landscape ecologist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190

6.2. Comparing development and distribution models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1926.3. Comparing documentation and user support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

6.3.1. Documentation and general support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1926.3.2. Technical support . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192

6.4. Comparing user freedoms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1937. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193Appendix A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193194

niversity of Calgary, 2500 University Drive, NW, Calgary, Canada AB T2N 1N4. Tel.: +1 403 2108761; fax: +1 403 2826561.

l rights reserved.

mailto:ssteinig@ucalgary.cahttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoinf.2009.07.004http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/15749541

184 S. Steiniger, G.J. Hay / Ecological Informatics 4 (2009) 183195

1. Introduction

Modern landscape ecology research aims to study the variation inlandscapes over multiple spatial and temporal scales (IALE, 1998).Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are increasingly being used asthe principal tool for such digital exploration of variation in landscapes,as they provide the necessary functions for spatial data collection,management, analysis and representation (Turner et al., 2001; Longleyet al., 2005; Steiniger andWeibel 2009). While these tools provide newand critical ways of understanding our planet, we propose that GISsoftware used for Landscape Ecology (LSE) research should also fulfilseveral critical requirements other than simply providing basic GISfunctionality. Specifically, we advocate that (i) to ensure world widedevelopment, advancement and application of LSE principles andsolutions, sophisticated and customisable GIS software also need bemade available to developing nations that cannot afford expensiveproprietary software. (ii) Research should not be limited by thefunctionality provided by a GIS platform. That is, options for customisa-tion and functional enhancements are necessary to advance LSE scienceand solutions. (iii) GIS software should allow LSE experiments to berepeatable and results to be reproducible by other researchers afundamental requirement of science. This is only possible if allconditions of an experiment can be studied, i.e. data and algorithmimplementation. (iv) Furthermore, developed models and algorithmsshould not need to be reimplemented by others in order to continueresearch or validate previous results. Thus, researchers should haveaccess to libraries of the original models for analysis, validation,development and implementation.

Proprietary GIS software, such as ESRI's ArcGIS or Pitney Bowes'MapInfo, can fulfil the requirements of functionality, customisationand extensibility, and they may even have a low price tag (e.g.Manifold or IDRISI). However, they typically fall short with respect toresearch needs in terms of examinability of (algorithm) implementa-tion and the distribution/application of newly developed models,since the original software is required to run themodel. The reason forfailing those requirements is to be found in software licenses that areapplied by companies that offer proprietary software. Therefore, weadvocate that GIS software that could fulfil the proposed requirementsshould be distributed with licenses that grant more freedoms of useand that support openness, such as licenses used by Free and OpenSource Software (FOSS) GIS projects.

Over the last years the paradigm of Free and Open Source Softwaredevelopment has taken root in the GIS community, resulting in thecreationof several very sophisticatedGIS software projectswhose aim isto develop free software for numerous purposes, ranging from Internetmap server applications (e.g. the MapServer project), and spatialdatabase management systems to store geographic data (e.g. PostGIS),to desktop GIS for data editing and analysis (e.g.; QGIS, SAGA, etc.) Here,the term free software is not used in the sense of free-of-cost software.Rather it addresses the freedoms of the user to freely use, study, modify,and distribute software (and will be discussed more fully in lattersections).

While the emphasis of this paper is on free and open sourceGeographic InformationTools for Landscape Ecology (LSE),we note thatthis article is not thefirst todiscuss theutilityof open source software forenvironmental research. For example, Jolma et al. (2008a) outline fourcase studies (workflows) taken from the domain of environmentalmodelling and management, and describe how free and open sourcesoftware can be used to complete several workflow tasks, ranging fromdata collection, to simulation and map compilation. In two additionalarticles, SteinigerandBocher (2009) argue for theuseof opensourceGISin GIScience, and Rey (2009) des