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

net/publication/321773002

Business Models for Geographic Information

Chapter · January 2018

DOI: 10.1201/9781315154640-7

CITATIONS READS

0 1,196

3 authors:

Frederika Welle Donker Glenn Vancauwenberghe

Delft University of Technology KU Leuven
33 PUBLICATIONS   206 CITATIONS    37 PUBLICATIONS   218 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

B. Van Loenen
Delft University of Technology
101 PUBLICATIONS   907 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

SPATIALIST View project

Map of Open SDI View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Frederika Welle Donker on 13 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Business Models for Geographic Information

Glenn Vancauwenberghe
Frederika Welle Donker
Bastiaan van Loenen

Pre-print version of:

Vancauwenberghe, G., F. Welle Donker and B. van Loenen (2018). Business Models for Geographic
Information. GeoValue. The Socioeconomic Value of Geospatial Information. J. Kruse, J. Crompvoets
and F. Pearlman. Boca Raton FL 33487, CRC Press - Taylor & Francis Group: pp. 85-116., available
from: https://www.crcpress.com/GEOValue-The-Socioeconomic-Value-of-Geospatial-
Information/Kruse-Crompvoets-Pearlman/p/book/9781498774512

1 Introduction
In today’s information society, geographic information (GI) also referred to as spatial information is
extremely important to the operation of society, and thus very valuable. Citizens, businesses, and
government use GI for many of their day-to-day decisions. Most of the societal, economic, and
environmental challenges they face require spatial thinking and understanding.

Creating and capturing value from geographic data requires raw data to be turned into GI services and
products that are consumed by end users. Although GI will only be of value once it is used (Onsrud and
Rushton 1995), this value will be created through a number of stages during each of which a new value
is added to the original input by various activities (Longhorn and Blakemore 2008; van Loenen and
Zevenbergen 2010). Organizations can fulfill many different roles in the process of generating value
from geographic data, and many different GI business models exist.

Although business models determine how organizations create, deliver, and capture value, they should
not be regarded as permanent and invariable structures or settings. Business models are shaped by both
internal and external forces, and will only be successful if they are able to adapt to a changing
environment. In the GI domain, several technological, regulatory, and societal developments have
challenged the existing business models and opened up opportunities for new business models. Among
these developments are the establishment of spatial data infrastructures (SDIs) worldwide, the
democratization of geographic knowledge, and the move toward open source, open standards, and
open data. After the commercialization of GI technologies and the introduction of these technologies in
different kind of organizations, these trends have led to the introduction of new actors into the GI
domain and new ways of using and dealing with GI.

Since the development and implementation of SDIs in different parts of the world, much attention has
been paid to the need to find appropriate business models for GI, and in particular, for geographic
data providers in the public sector. Traditional business models in which public data providers were
selling their data to customers in the private industry and other public agencies were questioned,
because they restricted the opportunity for data sharing (Onsrud 1992). The concept of SDI is about
moving to new business models, where partnerships between GI organizations are promoted to allow
access to a much wider scope of geographic data and services (Warnest et al. 2003). A key challenge
in the development of these SDIs was the alignment of different existing business models of the actors
in the GI domain (Georgiadou and Stoter 2008). Moreover, the development and implementation of
SDIs also led to the emergence of new business models, which was even more the case with the more

1
 recent move toward open geographic data. Open data provided an additional resource for existing
business models in the GI domain, focused on the analysis, management, visualization, and
integration of data (Parycek et al. 2014). In addition, new infomediary business models connecting
data providers and end users aroused, focusing on creating and delivering value through the
development of services on top of the geographic data made available by governments and other data
providers (Janssen and Zuiderwijk 2014).

The aim of this chapter is to contribute to the understanding of the diversity of business models of
organizations dealing with GI. This chapter is structured as follows. After this introductory section, the
next section reviews the relevant literature on business models. Several existing business model
frameworks are presented and the importance of the value concept in business models is explained.
In Section 3, a comprehensive literature review of works on the value of GI is provided. Building further
on this literature review, Section 4 discusses the different elements and components of the value of GI.
Section 5 discusses the GI value chain, including the different actors, the roles, and value-adding
processes within this chain. The business models for GI are then synthesized into one table and are
analyzed in Section 6. We provide our conclusions in Section 7.

2 Business Model Theory

Business models determine how organizations can create and deliver value, for example, through the
provision or use of geographic data. Although many definitions of the concept of business model exist
and the literature on business models is developing largely in silos, some clear trends can be seen in
the existing literature (Zott et al. 2011; Bonina 2013). To begin, business models can be seen as a new
unit of analysis, in addition to traditional units or levels of analysis such as the product, the firm, or the
industry. Although the business model concept is centered on a focal organization, its boundaries are
wider than those of the organization (Zott et al. 2011). Moreover, business models express a more
systemic and holistic approach on how organizations act and do business. In general, business models
describe and explain how an organization creates, delivers, and captures value (Osterwalder and
Pigneur 2010). In that way, a business model is a conceptual tool that contains a set of interrelated
elements that allow organizations to create and capture value and generate revenues (Osterwalder
2004). Business models can also be regarded as the architecture of the core elements or components
for supporting business conduction. The development and implementation of an appropriate business
model are considered to be a key to the success of the organization and a crucial source for value
creation (Yu 2016).

2.1 Business Models Frameworks

Several business model frameworks have been developed and can be used by organizations as a starting
point for the definition of their own business model. Examples are the business model frameworks of
Osterwalder and Pigneur (2010), Shafer et al. (2005), and Hamel (2000). According to Osterwalder and
Pigneur (2010), a business model describes the rationale of how an organization creates, delivers, and
captures value. Their Business Model Canvas is a template that can be used for developing new or
describing existing business models. The Business Model Canvas contains nine building blocks: key
partnerships, key activities, key resources, value proposition, relationships with customers,
customers, channels, revenue stream, and cost structure. According to Shafer et al. (2005) a business
model in itself is not a business strategy, but a representation of it. In their view, a business model
consists of four main components: (1) strategic choices, (2) value creation, (3) value network, and (4)
capture value. Hamel (2000) sees a business model as a business concept that has been put into
practice. His business model framework focuses on four main elements — customer logic, strategy,
resources, and network — and three interconnecting components: (1) customer benefits, (2)
configuration, and (3) company frontiers. Hamel (2000) also proposes four factors that determine the
profit potential of an organization: (1) efficiency, (2) uniqueness, (3) appropriateness, and (4) profit

2
 accelerators.

2.2 Value Components of Business Models

Value proposition and value creation are often considered as the core con- struct of a business model.
Several authors have proposed the development of value-centric business models (Al-Debei and
Avison 2010; Yu 2016; Zeleti et al. 2016). Based on a comprehensive review of the literature, Al-Debei
and Avison (2010) derived a unified business model framework of which the fundamental dimensions
are value-based. In their view, there are four relevant aspects to the business model framework: (1)
value proposition, that is, the business logic for creating value for customers by offering products and
services for targeted segments; (2) value architecture, which refers to the architecture for the
technological and organizational infrastructure used in the provisioning of products and services; (3)
value network, which is about the collaboration and coordination with other organizations; and (4)
value finance, which refers to the costing, pricing, and revenue breakdown associated with sustaining
and improving the creation of value. In addition, Zeleti et al. (2016) distinguish six-core value-based
constructs that could be used to characterize a business model: value proposition, value adding
process, value in return, value capture, value management, and value network. In a similar manner,
Yu (2016) highlights the importance of value proposition, value creation, value capture, and value
assessment in the development of business models for open data applications.

In this chapter, we will focus in particular on three value components that are proposed by several
authors:

1. Value proposition is about the specification of the value that is delivered and offered to different
stakeholders by the organization. It includes product, services, distribution channels,
information, and price.
2. Value creation refers to the execution of particular actions to generate the desired value.
3. Value capture, which is the process of retaining some part of the value produced in the value-
adding process.

3 Literature on the Value of Geo-Information

As value should be regarded as the core concept of a business model, for the development of geo-
information business models it is essential to understand the notion of value of geo-information. Since
Didier’s (1990) work on the utility and value of GI, several studies have been conducted to determine
the value of GI (Genovese et al. 2009). The existing studies on assessing the value and impact of GI can
be classified into four main categories, according to the precise topic or subject of the study. A
distinction should be made between (1) studies on the value of geographic data and information, (2)
studies on the value of GI technologies, (3) studies on the value of GI infrastructures and SDIs, and (4)
studies on the value of the entire geo-information sector. In each of these four main categories,
studies can be found focusing on or addressing the social impact of GI and related technologies,
infrastructures, and sectors (Genovese et al. 2009).

3.1 The Value of Geographic Data and Information

Many studies aim to investigate the value of geographic data or information as a whole on a
macroeconomic level (ACIL Tasman 2008; Vickery 2011). Other studies focus on a particular dataset of
type of geographic data. For instance, several studies exist that deal with the measurement of the
benefits and economic value of meteorological data and information (Freebairn and Zillman 2002;
Fornefeld et al. 2008; Lazo et al. 2009; Pettifer 2009), topographic data (Oxera 1999; Coote and Smart
2010; Bregt et al. 2013), and geological information (Bernknopf et al. 1993, 1997; Ellison and Callow
1996; Garica-Cortés et al. 2005; Häggquist and Söderholm 2015). In 2010, a study was undertaken to
investigate the benefits of open address data in Denmark. The conclusion of the study was that the

3
 direct financial benefits from opening the data for society in the period 2005–2009 was around EUR
62 million, whereas the total cost of making the data open was around EUR 2 million (DECA 2010).
The value assessment only included the direct financial benefits for the parties directly getting access
to the address data. Recent work in the Netherlands include studies on the benefits of opening key
topographic data (Bregt et al. 2013, 2014; Grus et al. 2015), small-scale energy consumption data
(Welle Donker et al. 2016), and elevation data (Bregt et al. 2016).

3.2 The Value of Geographic Information Technologies

A second category of value-assessment studies especially focus on the technologies and systems used
to collect, manage, distribute, and/or use geographic data and information. Typical examples of these
are studies investigating the costs and benefits to implement and use a GI system within a particular
organization. In 2013, Esri described the added value of GI systems on the Return on Investment (Esri
2013). The Geospatial Information and Technology Association (GITA 2007) outlined a methodology
for the preparation of business cases for shared data and services for GI technologies. Other
interesting work is the study conducted by Booz Allen Hamilton in 2005 focusing on the Return on
Investment of geospatial interoperability. The study, which was delivered to NASA, compared the
costs, benefits, and the risks associated with two government applications of geospatial technologies:
one project utilizing a high degree of open geo-interoperable standards and another project
implementing few or none of these standards (Booz Allen Hamilton 2005).

3.3 The Value of Geographic Information Infrastructures

Much work has been done on developing and applying frameworks and methods to monitor and
measure the value of SDIs, and several interesting reports and articles have been published on this
topic. In the European Union, the so-called INSPIRE Directive (Directive 2007/2/EC establishing an
Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community [INSPIRE]) aims to create a
European Union spatial data infrastructure for the purposes of EU environmental policies and policies
or activities which may have an impact on the environment. INSPIRE builds on national SDIs
established by the Member States. As the overall technical coordinator of INSPIRE, the Joint Research
Centre of the European Commission launched a program of activities to identify frameworks that
could be used for assessing the impact of INSPIRE. Among the valuable work that has been done as
part of this program are analyses of the socioeconomic impact of the SDI of Catalonia (Garcia Almirall
et al. 2008) and the SDI of Lombardia (Campagna and Craglia 2012), a study on the use of spatial data
for the preparation of environmental reports in Europe (Craglia et al. 2010) and a case study on e-
cadastres to estimate the benefits of SDIs (Borzacchiello and Craglia 2013). In addition, several
European countries have published detailed reports on the value of their national spatial data
infrastructure in their country. In the Netherlands, a cost-benefit analysis of INSPIRE was conducted a
first time in 2009 (Ecorys and Grontmij 2009) and repeated in 2016 (Ecorys and Geonovum 2016). In
Sweden, particular effort was taken to assess and monitor the social value of the national SDI (Rydén
2013).

Prior to the implementation of INSPIRE, several scientific models and frameworks were developed to
assess SDIs, and the value of these infrastructures in particular. Rodriguez Pabon (2005) created a
theoretical framework for the evaluation of SDI projects through the identification and description of
common success criteria across different contextual backgrounds. Crompvoets (2006) developed and
implemented a procedure to assess the impacts of spatial data clearinghouses in the world. Giff and
Crompvoets (2009) proposed an approach for designing and using performance indicators to support
the assessment of SDIs, aiming to evaluate both the efficiency and the short-term and long-term
effectiveness of SDIs.

3.4 The Value of the Geographic Information Sector

In addition, the economic value of the geo-information sector has been the subject of many studies.
The so-called Pira study of 2000 on the commercial exploitation of Europe’s public sector information

4
 (PSI) estimated that the value adding market of GI in Europe at that time was extremely small
compared to North America (Pira 2000). In this study, the U.S. geo-information industry was estimated
to contribute significantly to the American economy, employing more than 3.2 million individuals and
generating sales of more than EUR 641 billion (Pira 2000, p. 50). The U.K. location market survey carried
out by ConsultingWhere (2013) in the United Kingdom estimated that the market for location-related
software, professional services, data, and hardware in 2012 was nearly EUR 1.5 billion. A study of the
U.S. geospatial industry suggests that it has generated at least 500,000 jobs in the United States and
that geospatial services deliver efficiency gains that are many times the size of the sector itself creating
a lasting source of competitive advantage for the country as a whole (Boston Consulting Group 2013).
In addition, in 2013, a forecast study was delivered by Market Info Group (2013) on the market of
location-based services between 2013 and 2020. An important EU-wide initiative was the smeSpire
study on the geo-ICT sector in Europe, in which the market potential of INSPIRE for geo-ICT companies
was investigated (Cipriano et al. 2013; Vancauwenberghe et al. 2014). ACIL Tasman analyzed the impact
of geospatial information technologies on the Australian economy and estimated this impact to be
between AUD 6.43 and 12.57 billion per annum (equivalent to 0.6%–1.2% of GDP) (ACIL Tasman 2008).
ACIL Tasman arrived at similar results for the impact on the New Zealand economy of NZD 1.2 billion
per annum or 0.6% of GDP (ACIL Tasman 2009). In Canada, Natural Resources Canada provided a
detailed analysis of the Canadian geomatics industry. The study concluded that the use of geospatial
information contributed CAD20.7 billion or 1.1% of GDP to the Canadian economy (Natural Resources
Canada 2016).

Although all these studies show positive impacts due to geospatial information, the results cannot
always be compared as many studies employ different methodologies and outcome criteria. Many of
these studies cannot be validated due to poorly described methodology and a lack of the underlying
data. In addition, some of these studies are based on questionable assumptions and/or selective
extrapolation of only best-case case studies. Thus, due to extrapolating the probably too optimistic
projections, the outcomes may be too optimistic and relatively small uncertainties become
increasingly important (van Loenen and Welle Donker 2014).

4 Aspects of the Value of Geographic Information

A meta-analysis of existing studies on assessing the value and impact of the GI is provided by both
Genovese et al. (2009) and Trapp et al. (2015). Genovese et al. (2009) made a classification of the
literature on assessing the impact of GI based on an examination of 32 academic, business, and
government studies. Trapp et al. (2015) particularly focused on cost-benefit assessments and aimed to
explain the variation in returns on investments in GI. Their meta-analysis included 82 cost–benefit
assessments between 1994 and 2013. The comprehensive review of the academic and professional
literature on the value of GI made by Genovese et al. (2009) and Trapp et al. (2015) reveals three
important insights:

1. The precise topic of the value assessment can vary, and a distinction should be made between
studies dealing with the value of geographic data and the value of geographic data
infrastructures. This is not only expressed in the classification of studies according to the
topic by Genovese et al. (2009) but also in the meta-analysis of Trapp et al. (2015) on the
return on investment of geospatial data and systems. Trapp et al. (2015) make a comparison
between studies focusing on geospatial data-related investments and studies on investments
in SDIs. The results of their study show that the benefit–cost ratio of investments in SDIs was
slightly higher than that of investments into geospatial information. However, they also
pointed out that SDI studies often were based on theoretical assumptions or few experiences,
and the benefits still remain unclear.
2. Many different methods can be used for estimating and/or measuring the value. According

5
 to Genovese et al. (2009) GI assessment studies can also be classified according to the
approach followed. Approach refers to the kind of methodology applied in the analysis or
assessment. After a first identification of 11 different approaches, Genovese et al. (2009)
regrouped these approaches into four main categories: (1) consultation and references, (2)
evaluation techniques (e.g., value chain and value-benefit analysis, pricing, models, and
frameworks), (3) indicators and statistical analysis, and (4) cost–benefit analyses and return
on investment studies. Although Trapp et al. (2015) only addressed studies that investigated
both the costs and benefits of GI investments, they also identified different methodological
approaches that have been applied: cost–benefit assessments, return on investment, and
other metrics.
3. Finally, it is also important to notice that the value can be defined in different ways. For
instance, a distinction can be made between the financial value (monetary, exchange) and the
socio-economic value (Genovese et al. 2010), or between commercial, economic, and socio-
economic value (Longhorn and Blakemore 2008). The financial or exchange value of GI is
typically reflected in the price at which the data are traded and the consumer’s willingness to
pay for the data offered (Longhorn and Blakemore 2008). Socio-economic value of geo-
information refers to the value of an information good and service in achieving societal goals,
such as better governance, higher quality of life, or economic growth (Genovese et al. 2010).
Longhorn and Blakemore (2008) consider the economic value to include the revenues and the
number of people employed by the GI sector, whereas the socio-economic value also includes
non-commercial values, such as improving informed decision-making.

With regard to the third issue, several authors pointed out that information in itself has no value, and
it is only of value once it is used (Onsrud and Rushton 1995; Barr and Masser 1996). Moreover, the
value is rather related to the nature of the use, and less to the nature of the information. In addition,
other authors argued that the value of — geographic — information is different for different users
and for different applications (Longley et al. 2001). Longhorn and Blakemore (2008) add to this that
the value of — geographic — information also varies with time, as information that might be of great
value today, can become less or more valuable in the future. Another interesting perspective on the
value of GI provided by Longhorn and Blakemore (2008) is their identification of different components
of the value of GI. They distinguish:

• The value of the location attribute: The location attribute of GI provides special value to this
information, as it provides a spatial context to the other attributes in the information package,
and increase the value of data for applications where spatial awareness is essential.
• Time dependency value: Value of certain types of GI will be dependent on whether it is real-
time data, relatively invariant data, or historical data.
• Value determined by cost savings: The value of SDIs and other initiatives for data sharing is not
in the data itself, but in the cost-savings realized by duplications in the data collection.
• Value added through information management techniques and tools: The value of GI will
depend on the data format, the physical medium by which it is captured and stored, the
availability of metadata, and the application of — open — standards.
• Value due to legal or other mandatory use requirements: In legal jurisdictions, certain GI is
given an official or legal status for certain types of transactions.
• Value due to network effects: Some GI has added value simply because it is used by a large
group of users (e.g., Google Maps and other online maps).
• Value due to the quality of an information resource: Typical quality issues such as the
completeness of the data, timeliness of the information, or the accuracy of the data can add
or detract from the value of the information.

Longhorn and Blakemore’s identification of different components or dimensions of the value of GI

6
 also shows the complexity of measuring and assessing this value, and the need for new approaches
and techniques to ease empirical analysis and gain a better understanding of the value of GI.

5 The Geo-Information Value Chain

5.1 Geo-Information Value Chain Components

To provide a better insight into the process of adding value to GI, several authors have introduced and
applied the information value chain approach (Krek 2002; Longhorn and Blakemore 2008; Genovese
et al. 2010; van Loenen and Zevenbergen 2010). A value chain can be defined as the set of value-
adding activities that one or more organizations perform in creating and distributing goods and
services (Longhorn and Blakemore 2008). The value chain concept originally was developed for the
manufacturing sector, as a tool to evaluate the competitive advantage of firms (Genovese et al. 2010).
More recently, the value chain concept has been applied to other sectors, including information
technology where the good or service, and the benefits it provides, is less tangible in nature (Longhorn
and Blakemore 2008). According to Porter (1985), a value chain involves the progress of goods from
raw materials to finished products through a number of stages, during each of which a new value is
added to the original input by various activities. The value chain concept was extended into the
information market, with the information value chain referring to the set of activities adding value
to information and turning raw data into new information products or services. Especially important
in this context is the role of information and communication technologies (ICT), which have an impact
on all activities in the information value chain, such as information collection, processing,
dissemination, and use (Longhorn and Blakemore 2008). Some examples of information value chains
are the information value chain as defined by Oelschlager (2004) and the management information
value chain of Philips (2001).

In the context of GI, the value chain relates to the series of value-adding activities to transform raw
geographic data into new products that are used by certain end users (Genovese et al. 2010). Although
there are slightly different descriptions of the various steps of the GI value chain, in general, the
essential steps in the value chain are: acquisition of raw data, the application of a data model, quality
control, and integration with other sources, presentation, and distribution (cf. Van Loenen and
Zevenbergen 2010; Genovese et al. 2010). In recent years, particular attention has been paid to
different steps between the process of distributing data and the actual end use of an end-product of
GI. In addition, after the publication of the data, value can be added to the data in many different
ways. Value can be added by making data from different sources easily accessible through repositories
and data portals, by building and selling tailored solutions using the data to end users or by using
geographic data to improve existing products and services delivered to an end user. In certain cases,
this end-product will be the first step of a next value chain (Welle Donker and van Loenen 2016).

Van Loenen and Zevenbergen (2010) apply the value chain approach to compare the process of
adding value to two important types of GI, road center lines and parcel data sets, in Europe and in
the U.S. Their research found significant differences in the GI characteristics of governments in
Europe and the United States at the time of the study: European public sector GI was more accurate,
more up-to-date, and more comprehensive. The geo-information value chain study indicated that
the private sector datasets available in the United States were more comparable with the European
public sector datasets with respect to adding value to framework datasets than the public sector
data in the United States public sector. Van Loenen and Zevenbergen concluded that value adding
is influenced by the different roles government and market play in the GI value chain.

Another interesting value chain approach is the approach of Attard et al. (2016) who consider the data
value chain as a part of a data lifecycle, which consists of different processes of value creation. They

7
 identify six value- adding processes (Figure 1): (1) data creation, (2) data harmonization, (3) data
publishing, (4) data interlinking, (5) data exploitation, and (6) data curation. Within each of these
processes, various value creation techniques can be used. The approach of Attard et al. (2016) clearly
demonstrates how different value-adding processes and techniques can be considered to be the value
creation of the organizational business model.

publishing

Data generation Licensing Link discovery Analysis Data updating

Data
Data Format accessibility Data Reasoning Data cleaning
collection conversion interlinking
Visualization Metadata
Data enrichment
integration Interpretation

Figure 1: Value creation processes and techniques in the data value chain. (From Attard, J. et al., Value creation on open
government data, in Proceedings of the 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, IEEE, Kauai, HI, 2016, p.
10.)

5.2 Roles and Activities within the Information Value Chain

Attard et al. (2016) also make a link between the value-adding activities and the different roles in the
information chain. They identify four roles in which different stakeholders can contribute to creating
value: Data producers and publishers are in charge of collecting or generating data and/ or making
the data accessible to other users. Data enhancers create value through the actual manipulation of
the data, which can be done in many different manners: through data harmonization, interlinking,
curation, or exploitation. Service creators use available data to provide a certain service. In most
cases, they exploit the data by providing additional analysis or visualization services. Facilitators,
finally, help other stakeholders in publishing, using, or exploiting through the provision of services or
technologies. Their classification compares well with the classification of the five archetype roles
within the information value chain proposed by Deloitte LLP (2012) of (1) suppliers, (2) aggregators,
(3) developers, (4) enrichers, and (5) enablers.

There are also particular identifications and descriptions of the different roles within SDIs. Hjelmager
et al. (2008) identified six general roles of stakeholders in the context of SDIs: policy-makers, producers,
providers, brokers, value-added resellers (VAR), and end users. For each of these stakeholders, several
subtypes can be distinguished (Cooper et al. 2011):

1. Policymaker: A stakeholder who sets the policy pursued by an SDI and all its stakeholders.
Subtypes of policymakers are decision- makers, legislators, promoters, and secretariat.
2. Producer: A stakeholder who produces SDI data or services. Sub-roles are captors of raw data,
database administrators, passive producers and submitters, or revision notices.
3. Provider: A stakeholder who provides data or services, produced by others or itself, to users
through an SDI. Main subtypes are data providers and service providers, whereas within both
subtypes a distinction can be made between providers of their own data or services,
distributors who make the data and services of other producers available, and arbiters, who
test, validate, and sometimes also certify datasets or services.
4. Broker: A stakeholder who brings end users and providers together and assists in the
negotiation of contracts between them. They are specialized publishers and can maintain
metadata records on behalf of an owner of a product. Their functions include harvesting

8
 metadata from producers and providers, creating catalogs, and providing services based on
these catalogs. Subtypes are facilitators, finders, harvesters, catalogers, and negotiators.
5. Value-added reseller (VAR): A stakeholder who adds some new feature to an existing product
or group of products, and then makes it available as a new product. Two main subtypes are
publishers and aggregators/integrators.
6. End user: A stakeholder who uses the SDI for its intended purpose. Here, a distinction is made
between naive consumers and more advanced users.

The identification and description of different roles within the — geographic — information value chain
shows how many different actors are involved in this chain and contribute in many different ways to the
creation of value.

6 Geo-Information Business Models

6.1 Previous Studies

Individual organizations can be active in different parts of this value chain, and can create and offer
value in many different ways. As a result, many different GI business models exist. Previous works on
business models for geographic data and open data show a great variety in perspective, structures,
and components used to describe business models as well as in identified business models (Yu 2016).
The work of Zeleti et al. (2016) and Welle Donker and Van Loenen (2016) focused on business models
for data providers, whereas Janssen and Zuiderwijk (2014), Magalhaes et al. (2014), and Yu (2016)
explored business models for infomediaries and enablers.

Ferro and Osella (2013) used a PSI-based value chain to identify different actors and positions within
the PSI-ecosystem. In their view, government organizations are mainly active in the chain and
ecosystem as data pro- viders and data users. Focusing on the roles and position of profit-oriented
actors, they distinguish four main types of businesses: (1) core reusers, enablers, (3) service
advertisers, and (4) advertising factories. Focusing on the revenue models of these actors, they
identified eight archetypes of business models for reusers of PSI: Premium, Freemium, Open Source
Like, Infrastructural Razor and Blades, Demand-oriented Platform, Supply-Oriented Platform, Free as
Branded Advertising, and White-Label development. Building further on the classification of Ferro
and Osella, Zeleti et al. (2016) see five categories of business models for open data providers:

• Indirect benefits: Release data to support the primary goal of the business.
• Cost savings: Aim to reduce the costs of opening and releasing data and/or increase the quality
of data through user participation.
• Parts of tools: Offer a first (incomplete) set of data at discount, but the complementary or
dependent data at a considerably higher price.
• Freemium: Provide limited data for free, and apply fees for additional requests for complete
higher quality data sets.
• Premium: Provide high quality and complete data at a certain cost.

Welle Donker and van Loenen (2016) researched the financial effects of open data policies for
geographic data providers in the public sector on their business model. Business models are also about
how organizations generate sufficient income to cover at least their operating costs. For government
data providers, the recent political and societal evolution toward releasing data as open data requires
a change in their existing business model. Welle Donker and Van Loenen (2016) demonstrated how
new business models for data providers in the public sector emerged as a result of the introduction
of open data.

9
 Although Welle Donker and Van Loenen (2016) and Zeleti et al. (2016) provide insight into different
business models for – geographic – data providers, other authors focused on the development of
business models for users and reusers (Janssen and Zuiderwijk 2014; Magalhaes et al. 2014; Attard et
al. 2015). Magalhaes et al. (2014) developed taxonomy of three open data users’ business model
archetypes: Enablers are businesses that provide customers with technologies, such as apps or
software programs, mainly built on or for the use of open government data. Facilitators support or
accelerate the access and exchange of data between the supply side and the user side by simplifying
and promoting the access of the open government data. Integrators refer to firms that integrate open
government data into their existing business models in order to further improve their existing offer.
Janssen and Zuiderwijk (2014) identified six atomic business models for the so-called infomediaries:
intermediaries connecting open data providers and users: single-purpose application developers,
interactive application developers, information aggregators, comparison models, open data
repositories, and service platforms. These atomic business models can be combined, for example, a
company may develop single-purpose applications in addition to interactive applications.

In this segment, we built further on the models identified and explored in the existing literature to
identify several business models in the geo-information model. In line with existing classifications, we
identify and describe three main categories of organizations: (1) providers, (2) enablers, and (3) end
users.

6.2 Geographic Data Providers

Geographic data providers are organizations that provide data or services, produced by themselves or
by other data producers, to other users. Data providers can be public sector organizations, but also
businesses, nonprofit organizations, and other types of organizations. For government data providers,
including providers of GI, the ongoing move toward more open data has mainly caused a change in
the value capture component of their business model. In the traditional cost recovery models, costs
incurred in the production, maintenance, and distribution of geographic data could be recovered from
retaining part of the value produced in providing the data by charging license fees. Different pricing
mechanisms could be used to set license fees, such as one-off fees, subscription fees, fixed access
fees, royalties, or a combination of different mechanisms (Welle Donker 2009). In current open data
models, in which data are provided free of charge and without license restrictions, there is no direct
revenue from supplying data for the data provider, and the data provider depends on other ways of
capturing (part of the) value. Four main business models for data providers can be distinguished: (1)
data providers for indirect benefits, (2) data providers for cost savings, (3) freemium data providers,
and (4) premium data providers.

Data providers for indirect benefits make their geographic data available as open data for strategic
reasons. Geographic data are released because opening them supports the primary goal of the
organization (Zeleti et al. 2016). For instance, government organizations make their geographic data
available as open data to stimulate the development of value-adding products and services on top of
their data, or to improve transparency to their own activities and processes. In most cases, they will
not directly benefit (financially) by making their data available. The loss of direct revenue is
compensated through other funding, such as (extra) funding from budget-financing or income from
supplementary fee-based products and services. In addition, public sector data providers may have
access to legal instruments to, for example, levy charges for compulsory register transactions. To
ensure sustainable open data business models for public sector data providers, it is essential that there
are such guaranteed main sources of revenues (Welle Donker and Van Loenen 2016).

Data providers for cost savings believe opening up their geographic data will lead to significant
internal efficiency gains, such as increased data quality or staff reductions. A particular example of
this business model is organizations that aim to take advantage of the input from other parties to
improve the quality of their data products. As such, the value creation process goes further than

10
 publishing the data, in some cases the quality of the data is improved by cleaning the data through
contributions from other parties (Welle Donker and Van Loenen 2016). The capture of value is in
the efficiency gains in internal processes, and in improvements to the data quality.

Both data providers for indirect benefits and data providers for cost savings do not capture value
through direct revenues from making their data available. In both categories, the value created is
relatively limited, and is mainly found in publishing the data. In freemium and premium business
models for data providers, the value created is higher, whereas value is captured back by the provider
through direct revenues from selling data and data services. Freemium data providers offer a limited
version of the dataset free of charge, but apply fees for additional requests for complete and higher
quality data (Zeleti et al. 2016). The rationale behind this business model is that opening up some
datasets for free will lead to an increased demand for — and additional revenues from — high-quality
data. Additional value is created through better data maintenance or through the more sophisticated
data access services. Premium data providers do not offer any data for free, only high-quality,
complete, and up-to-date data are offered at a fee. In some cases, particular data needs of users are
fulfilled (e.g., 24/7 access) or additional support is guaranteed, which means additional value is created
and provided. Zeteli et al. (2016) clearly show how both freemium models and premium models
consists of many different subtypes. Although the freemium model is about offering limited data free
of charge but applying fees for additional requests, in practice, this can be organized in several
manners. For instance, fees may be charged for higher quality data, for the use of the data for
commercial purposes, or for changes made to the original product. The premium business model can
take many shapes; however, in all cases data are offered at a certain cost. The aim can be to meet
specific customer data needs or to guarantee support and additional services on top of the dataset.

6.3 Geographic Data Enablers

A second category of organizations involved in creating and delivering value in the GI value chain is
the category of enablers. Enablers are organizations that assist other organizations in managing,
publishing, and using geographic data. While the value creation process of most geographic data
providers is quite similar, that is, publishing basic and/or high-quality data, the value creation
processes of enablers are much more diverse. Most of the enabling organizations fulfill an
intermediary role between the providers or geographic data and the end users of these data. Three
main types of enablers can be distilled: (1) supply facilitators, (2) access facilitators, and service
creators.

Facilitators are organizations that provide support to data providers in making their data available and
to data users in getting access to available data. As such, a distinction can be made between supply
facilitators and access facilitators. Supply facilitators facilitate the process of providing and distributing
geographic data by providing technologies or services to data providers. In some cases, facilitators
also facilitate the management and curation of internal data sources of the data provider, and the
value creation process will not be limited to the publishing of data. Moreover, setting up data
visualization and analysis tools and services can create additional value to the data publishing
processes. An example of supply facilitators are companies that provide support to public
organizations in meeting the requirements laid down by SDI legislation and policies, such as creating
metadata, setting up web services, and harmonizing data according to predefined data specifications.

Facilitators not only provide value to data publishers through facilitating the publication of
geographic data, in a similar manner, they could also support data users in getting access to
geographic data from different sources. Access facilitators are different from supply facilitators
because they deliver value to users of data. Access facilitators offer users facilitated access to
available geographic data, which is realized through certain products and/or services. These
access facilitators do not operate on the request of or in collaboration with data providers, but
rather work together with particular users. Revenues are generated from selling products and/or

11
 services to users. In most cases, the work of access facilitators consists of structuring and
classifying available geographic data and facilitating access to these data through appropriate access
mechanisms. Aggregators can be regarded as a particular type of access facilitators, focusing on
pooling, combining and, also often, processing geographic data from different sources. In some
cases, facilitators enhance the data, which means they actually manipulate the data to create
additional value for the end user. This can be achieved through data harmonization, interlinking,
exploitation, and/or curation (Attard et al. 2016).

Service creators use geographic data to provide a service to certain target groups. Although in most
cases facilitators cooperate closely with data providers or data users, service creators work more
independently to develop their own products or services. The work of these creators strongly builds
on the geographic data of data providers, whereas their products or services are used by different
types of end users. It may be that service creators develop specific applications at the request of the
data providers. Service creators may also develop free applications as a calling card to demonstrate
their level of expertise in order to acquire fee-based orders. In some cases, even data provider
themselves create additional services on top of its data to facilitate the reuse of their data by end
users (Welle Donker and Van Loenen 2016). Service creators provide end users with more tailored
solutions on top of geographic data from one or more data providers (Magalhaes et al. 2014). It
should be noted that the category of service creators is very diverse, as many different types of
services can be created on top of geographic data. The revenue models and pricing mechanisms
employed for these services can also be very diverse. Examples of subtypes of the business model
of service creators are developers of single-purpose apps and developers of interactive apps (Janssen
and Zuiderwijk 2014).

6.4 Geographic Data End Users

Geographic data end users are different from enabling organizations such as service providers and
facilitators, because geographic data are not at the core of their processes and activities. End users
make use of geographic data products in support of their primary processes. Primary processes of
government agencies are related to the main tasks and activities of government and their services to
citizens and businesses. This includes services related to processes, such as maintaining registers of
citizens and of businesses, or granting concessions for exploitation and management of public
infrastructures. In some cases, primary processes of organizations will be decision-making processes.
In the private sector, end users will make use of geographic data in combination with other types of
data in order to support and augment their business capabilities (Magalhaes et al. 2014). These
businesses can operate in various sectors (e.g., insurance, real estate, banking, and manufacturing)
and can potentially extract extra value from geographic data in different stages of their organizational
value chain (Magalhaes et al. 2014). Geographic data will be a valuable resource but will not be at the
core of the value chain of the organization. The value created will mainly be in the primary activities
of the organization, whereas the value will be captured through a more efficient execution of internal
processes and through revenues from selling the main products and services of the organization.

An overview of the different geo-information business models and their value proposition, value
creation and value capture (cf. Osterwalder and Pigneur 2010) is presented in Table 1. The table
demonstrates the main differences between geo-information business models with regard to the
three main components of a business model: the value proposition, value creation and value capture.

6.5 Examples
To conclude this chapter, some examples of the different business models for geographic information
are shown in Boxes 1 through 3.

12
Table 1: Different Geo-Information Business Models and Their Value Components

Business Model Value Proposition Value Creation Value Capture

Data Providers Open data supporting Publishing data Improved outcomes of the
Data providers for strategic business organizations
indirect benefits objectives Lack of direct revenues
compensated through
other funding sources
Data Providers for cost- Availability of higher Publishing data Improved process and
savings quality data data
Cost savings
Freemium data Availability of limited data Publishing data Revenue from premium
providers for free and high-quality Data maintenance data and/or value-added
data and data services at services
More sophisticated data
some cost
access services
Premium data suppliers High-quality data at some Publishing data Revenue from all data and
cost Data maintenance advanced data services
Data meeting particular Data visualization services
user needs at some cost
Data analysis and
interlinking services
Enablers Facilitating in providing Publishing data Revenues from selling
Supply facilitators access to Harmonizing data products and/ or services
geographic data to data providers
Metadata creation
resources, through (different revenue and
(Basic) data visualization pricings models can be
provision of technologies
and/or services and analysis services adopted)

Access facilitators Facilitating in access to Structuring and classifying Revenues from selling
geographic data data products and/ or services
resources, through Aggregating data to data users (different
provision of technologies revenue and pricing
(Basic) data visualization
and/or services access to models can be adopted)
and analysis services
combined and/or
integrated data resources
Service creators Diversity of tailored Creating applications and Revenues from selling
solutions on top of other solutions on top of solutions to different kind
geographic data geographic data of end users
Revenues from
developing solutions at
the request of data
providers
End users No common value Data used within Improved business
Data users proposition, because of organizational processes processes and outcomes
diversity of public and and activities, value Revenues from main
private organizations that mainly created through products and services
can be considered as use of data in key delivered by the
users processes of the organization
organization

13
 BOX 1 DATA PROVIDER
The Spanish National Center of Geographic Information (CNIG) is an autonomous body under the
National Geographic Institute (IGN), whose main mission is to produce, develop, distribute, market,
and publish the data and services of the IGN. In 2014, the Center operated with a budget of
approximately EUR 6.6M and had about 100 employees. Several geospatial data products are
distributed by the CNIG: topographic database, images, land cover, raster maps, digital terrain
models (DTM), LiDAR data, administrative units, gazetteer data, geodetic points, and so on.

Before 2008, users had to pay a fee to get access to the data, whereas researchers and research
groups were given a 90% discount. In 2008, the business model of CNIG was changed with the
adoption of the Ministerial Order FOM/956/200815 of March 31, 2008, which determines the
policy for public dissemination of the GI generated by the IGN. In this Ministerial Order a distinction
was made between two categories of IGN products: the digital GI included in the National
Reference Geographic Equipment, which includes geodetic and leveling points, administrative units
and gazetteers, and all other geographic data, such as topographic data, land cover data, LiDAR
data, and so on. The first category of data, that is, the data in the National Reference Geographic
Equipment, was defined as open data, and thus made available for free for any purpose. The data
were licensed under a Creative Commons attribution license (CC-BY), which means the IGN should
be mentioned as the origin and owner of the data. The rest of the geospatial data was licensed
under a Creative Commons attribution-noncommercial-sharealike license (CC-BY-NC-SA) and thus
only openly available for noncommercial purposes.

As a result of this change in their business model, only a very small part of the CNIG budget came
from revenues from the sale of geospatial data products. In 2014, revenues from selling data
constituted only 8% of the total budget of the CNIG. The main sources of income were government
budget financing (65%) and revenues from contract-based service delivery (25%), in addition to
project funding (5%) and revenues from training and consultancy (2%). In 2015, the business
model of CNIG again changed with the adoption of a new Ministerial Order, under which all digital
datasets and web services of the IGN were defined as open data. All data could be viewed and
downloaded for free on Internet, under a license compatible with CC-BY 4.0. As a result, the CNIG
now disseminates GI in five different manners, of which paper maps are the only dissemination
channel users have to pay for. Other ways of dissemination are files that can be downloaded, web
applications, mobile applications, and web services. The most downloaded files of CNIG are the
1:25 000 National Topographic Map (3.6 million users) and the cartographic drafts (1.1 million
users).

Sources: Lopez Romero (2013); Rodriguez (2016).

14
 BOX 2 SUPPLY FACILITATORS
Between 2012 and 2014, a study was undertaken of the geo-ICT sector in Europe in the context of
the SmeSpire project. The study provided an in-depth analysis of the diversity of geo-ICT companies
in Europe, with a particular focus on the involvement of these companies in the establishment of
national and regional SDIs. Data was collected on the activities, products and services, and
customers and business models of around 300 geo-ICT companies in Europe. The results of the
survey showed that the majority of these companies were users of GI and/or providers of
applications and related services to support the use of GI within organizations.

Approximately one-third of all companies were actively involved in the establishment of SDIs, and
could be considered as supply facilitators, that is, organizations providing products or services to
data providers to support them in making their geographic data available. Key activities undertaken
— or supported — by these organizations were data harmonization (26% of all companies), the
development of web map services (26%), and the establishment of metadata catalogs (21%). Other
products or services delivered by these supply facilitators were related to the creation and editing
of metadata, the setup of web feature services and the provision of training on SDI-related topics.

Although the majority of European geo-ICT companies strongly focused on customers within their
own country (mainly local and national public administrations), some examples exist of European
Geo-ICT providing support to the implementation of several national SDIs. The Dutch company
GeoCat contributes to the development of many national metadata catalog based on the open-
source software GeoNetwork. Several national spatial data infrastructures rely on the products and
services of the Finnish company Spatineo for monitoring and evaluating the performance of their
spatial web services. The German company wetransform provides professional support and
consulting for data harmonization with the HALE technology they have developed. The Italian SME
Epsilon Italia has created an INSPIRE Helpdesk to support public and private organizations in the
overall INSPIRE implementation process: from transformation and validation data and metadata to
the publication of web services. In recent years, similar supply facilitating companies have been
established throughout Europe.
Sources: Cipriano et al. (2013); Vancauwenberghe et al. (2014).

15
 BOX 3 ACCESS FACILITATORS
Established in 2011 and located in the United Kingdom, GeoLytix is a good example of a recently
created SME, which focuses on facilitating and enabling access to geographic data. GeoLytix aims
to solve problems where location matters, such as location decision support and network
strategies. The company offers a wide range of geospatial data products, including maps, boundary
data, and points of interest. In addition to this, analysis, training, and consultancy services are
provided to support customers in developing new commercial insight.

A large number of the company geodata products and services are based on open data, from data
sources such as the Land Registry, the Department of Health, the Department of Education,
OpenStreet Maps, and several transport agencies. GeoLytix tries to differentiate itself from other
data analytics company by also creating and releasing open geo-datasets themselves. For example,
GeoLytix gathered and mapped data on more than 10,000 supermarkets in the United Kingdom and
published it as open data—allowing supermarkets to identify market competition and opportunities
for new stores, and developers to create new services for shoppers. Other open datasets released
by the company include processed census data, postal sector boundaries, retail places, and
workplace data.

The Open Data Institute considers GeoLytix as one of the best examples of U.K. companies using
open data. Several other good examples of open geodata companies can be found in existing
repositories of open data impact case studies and use examples such as the Open Data Impact Map
and Open Data 500. The Open Data Impact Map is a public database of organizations that use open
government data from around the world, and currently contains 1765 organizations from 96
companies. Around one-third of the organizations included the Open Data Impact Map are in the
data/information technology and geo- spatial mapping sectors, for which geospatial data are the
most used type of data. Many of these organizations provide data analysis and visualization services
using geospatial and mapping data to provide geospatial intelligence. The Open Data 500 is a study
of companies that use open government data to generate new business and develop new products
and services. The study is currently undertaken in six different countries. The OD 500 U.S. focusing
on open data companies in the United States identified around 30 open data companies that
consider themselves as geospatial/mapping companies. Both initiatives clearly demonstrate the
importance of geospatial data companies in the current open data ecosystem.

Sources: Open Data Institute (2015); The OD500 Global Network (2017); Open Data
for Development Network (2017).

7 Conclusion
This chapter has provided an overview of business models for GI based on an extensive literature
review. Starting from the observation that business models are all about proposing, creating, and
capturing value, an overview and discussion was provided of the existing literature on the value of
GI, of GI technologies and infrastructures, and of the GI sector. The notion of the GI value chain was
used to provide better understanding of how value can be created and added to geographic data by
turning these raw data into information products and services for end users. Public, private, and other
organizations can be active in different stages of this GI value chain, and can create and provide value
to actors in later stages of the chain. Although value is created through the production and creation
of data, this value will be further enhanced through the harmonization, publication, interlinking,
curation, and exploitation of the data. These many different ways of proposing, creating, and
capturing value from geographic data and information result in different GI business models. Although
data providers, data enablers, and data end users could be seen as three main categories of GI

16
 business models, each of these categories consists of many different business models, as different
value propositions will exist, and value can be created and captured in several ways. In this chapter
on “Business Models for Geographic Information,” only a general introduction to the topic of GI
business models is given, which will be further explored in the forthcoming chapters.

References
ACIL Tasman (2008). The value of spatial information. The impact of modern spatial information
technologies on the Australian Economy, p.221. http://www.acilallen.com.au/cms_files
/ACIL_spatial%20information_economicimpact.pdf, Accessed January 23, 2016.
ACIL Tasman (2009). Spatial information in the New Zealand economy. Realising productivity gains,
p.153. http://www.acilallen.com.au/cms_files/ACIL_spatial%20information_NewZealand.pdf
Accessed November 21, 2013.
Al-Debei, M.M. and D. Avison (2010). Developing a unified framework of the business model concept.
European Journal of Information Systems 19(3): 359–376. doi:10.1057/ejis.2010.21.
Attard, J., F. Orlandi, and S. Auer (2016). Value creation on open government data. In Proceedings of
the 49th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (p. 10). Kauai, HI: IEEE.
Attard, J., F. Orlandi, S. Scerri, and S. Auer (2015). A systematic review of open government data
initiatives. Government Information Quarterly 32: 399–418. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2015.07.006.
Barr, R. and I. Masser (1996). The economic nature of geographic information: A theoretical
perspective. In: Proceedings of GIS Research U.K. 1996 Conference. University of Kent, April
1996, pp. 59–66.
Bernknopf, R.L., D.S. Brookshire, M. McKee, and D.R. Soller (1993). Societal value of geologic maps,
U.S. Geological Survey, Virginia (Circular No. 1111).
Bernknopf, R.L., D.S. Brookshire, M. McKee, and D.R. Soller (1997). Estimating the social value of
geologic map information: A regulatory application. Journal of Environmental Economics and
Management 32(2): 204–218.
Bonina, C.M. (2013). New business models and the value of open data: Definitions, challenges and
opportunities. London, London School of Economics and Political Science, p.30.
http://www.nemode.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Bonina-Opendata-Report-FINAL.pdf,
Accessed December 4, 2015.
Booz Allen Hamilton (2005). Geospatial interoperability return on investment study. National
Aeronautics and Space Administration—Geospatial Interoperability Office, p.80.
http://www.ec-gis.org/sdi/ws/costbenefit2006/reference/ROI_Study.pdf, Accessed March 8,
2017.
Borzacchiello, M.T. and M. Craglia (2013). Estimating benefits of spatial data infrastructures: A case
study on e-Cadastres. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 41: 276–288.
doi:10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2012.05.004.
Boston Consulting Group (2012). Putting the U.S. geospatial services on the map. Mountain View, CA,
Google Technical Report.
Bregt, A., L. Grus, and D. Eertink (2014). Wat zijn de effecten van een open basisregistratie topografie
na twee jaar? Wageningen, the Netherlands, Wageningen University, p.49.
http://www.wageningenur.nl/upload_mm/6/0/9/059a4c74-d6ac-4f6e-9e47-
df138bf9e221_Effecten%20van%20een%20open%20BRT%20analyse%202014.pdf, Accessed
October 13, 2014.

17
Bregt, A.K., W. Castelein, L. Grus, and D. Eertink (2013). De effecten van een open basisregistratie
topografie (BRT). Wageningen, the Netherlands, p.40. http://edepot.wur.nl/278625, Accessed
July 8, 2013.
Bregt, A.K., L. Grus, T. van Beuningen, and H. van Meijeren (2016). Wat zijn de effecten van een open
Actueel Hoogtebestand Nederland (AHN)? Onderzoek uitgevoerd in opdracht van het
Ministerie van Economische Zaken, p. 53. http://edepot.wur.nl/393158, Accessed October 31,
2016.
Campagna, M. and M. Craglia (2012). The socioeconomic impact of the spatial data infrastructure of
Lombardy. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 39(6): 1069–1083.
doi:10.1068/b38006.
Cipriano, P., C. Easton, E. Roglia, and G. Vancauwenberghe (2013). A European community of SMEs
built on environmental digital content and languages. Final Report, p.160.
http://www.smespire.eu/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2014/03/D1.3_FinalReport_1.0.pdf,
Accessed December 1, 2014.
ConsultingWhere (2013). UK location market survey 2012. Press announcement.
Cooper, A.K., S. Coetzee, and D.G. Kourie (2011). An Assessment of Several Taxonomies of Volunteered
Geographic Information (pp. 21–36). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
Coote, A. and A. Smart (2010). The value of geospatial information to local public service delivery in
England and Wales. Final Report, ConsultingWhere Ltd and ACIL Tasman, p.128.
http://www.acilallen.com.au/cms_files/ACIL_Geospatial_UK.pdf, Accessed November 1, 2013.
Craglia, M., L. Pavanello, and R.S. Smith (2010). The use of spatial data for the preparation of
environmental reports in Europe. Ispra, Joint Research Centre - Institute for Environment and
Sustainability, p. 45. doi:10.2788/84003.
Crompvoets, J. (2006). National spatial data clearinghouses: Worldwide development and impact. Ph.D.
Dissertation, Wageningen, the Netherlands, Wageningen University, p.136.
http://edepot.wur.nl/121754, Accessed March 30, 2016.
DECA [Danish Enterprise and Construction Authority] (2010). The value of Danish address data: Social
benefits from the 2002 agreement on procuring address data etc. free of charge, p.8.
http://www.adresse-
info.dk/Portals/2/Benefit/Value_Assessment_Danish_Address_Data_UK_2010-07-07b.pdf,
Accessed August 13, 2010.
Deloitte LLP (2012). Open growth: Stimulating demand for open data in the UK. A briefing note from
Deloitte Analytics. London, Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, p.12.
https://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/uk/Documents/deloitte-analytics/open-
growth.pdf, Accessed March 14, 2017.
Didier, M. (1990). Utilité et valeur de l’information géographique. Paris, France, Presses universitaires
de France.
Ecorys and Geonovum (2016). Actualisatie KBA INSPIRE. Rotterdam, the Netherlands, p.73.
http://cdr.eionet.europa.eu/nl/eu/inspire/reporting/envvzwiiw/160511_Actualisatie_KBA_INSPIR
E_final_versie.pdf, Accessed March 8, 2017.
Ecorys Nederland BV and Grontmij Nederland BV (2009). Kosten-batenanalyse INSPIRE. Eindrapport.
Rotterdam, the Netherlands, p.77. http://www.geonovum.nl/sites/default/files/
20091123_KBA_INSPIRE_definitief.pdf, Accessed March 8, 2017.
Ellison, R.A. and R. Callow (1996). The economic evaluation of BGS geological mapping in the UK,

18
 British Geological Survey.
Esri (2013). Return on investment: Ten GIS case studies. Redlands, CA, p.40.
http://www.esri.com/library/ebooks/return-on-investment.pdf, Accessed March 8, 2017.
Ferro, E. and M. Osella (2013). Eight business model archetypes for PSI re-use. “Open Data on the
Web” Workshop Shoreditch, London, UK, p.13.
http://www.w3.org/2013/04/odw/odw13_submission_27.pdf, Accessed November 29, 2013.
Fornefeld, M., G. Boele-Keimer, S. Recher, and M. Fanning (2008). Assessment of the re-use of public
sector information (PSI) in the geographic information, meteorological information and legal
information sectors—Final report. Study commissioned by EC in 2007. Dusseldorf, Germany:
MICUS, p. 101. http://ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=1258., Accessed
January 28, 2009.
Freebairn, J.W. and J.W. Zillman (2002). Economic benefits of meteorological services. Meteorological
Applications 9(1): 33–44.
Garcia Almirall, P., M. Moix Bergadà, P. Queraltó Ros, and M. Craglia (2008). The socio- economic impact
of the spatial data infrastructure of Catalonia. M. Craglia (Ed.). Ispra, JRC Joint Research Centre,
p.62. http://www.ec-gis.org/inspire/reports/ Study_reports/catalonia_impact_study_report.pdf,
Accessed April 4, 2008.
Garica-Cortés, A., J. Vivancos, and J. Fernández-Gianotti (2005). Evaluación económica y social del Plan
MAGNA. Boletín Geológico y Minero 116(4): 291–305.
Genovese, E., G. Cotteret, S. Roche, C. Caron, and R. Freick (2009). Evaluating the socio-economic
impact of geographic information: A classification of the literature. International Journal of
Spatial Data Infrastructures Research 4: 218–238. doi:10.2902/1725-0463.2009.04.art12.
Genovese, E., G. Cotteret, S. Roche, C. Caron, and R. Feick (2010). The EcoGeo Cookbook for the
Assessment of Geographic Information Value. International Journal of Spatial Data
Infrastructures Research 5: 120–144 doi:10.2902/1725-0463.2010.05.art5.
Georgiadou, Y. and J. Stoter (2008). SDI for public governance—Implications for evaluation research.
In A Multi-View Framework to Assess SDIs, J. Crompvoets, A. Rajabifard, B. Van Loenen, and T.D.
Fernández (Eds.). Melbourne, Australia, Melbourne University Press, pp. 51–68.
Giff, G. and J. Crompvoets (2008). Performance indicators a tool to support spatial data infrastructures
assessment. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 32(5): 365–376.
GITA [Geospatial Information & Technology Association] (2007). Building a business case for shared
geospatial data and services: A practitioner’s guide to financial and strategic analysis for a multi-
participant program, p. 69. https://www.fgdc. gov/initiatives/50states/roiworkbook.pdf, Accessed
March 8, 2017.
Grus, L., A. Bregt, and D. Eertink (2015). De effecten van open data BRT na 3 jaar, Wageningen
University and the Kadaster, p. 7. https://www.kadaster.nl/web/ artikel/download/De-effecten-
van-open-data-BRT-na-3-jaar-1.htm, Accessed January 4, 2016.
Häggquist, E. and P. Söderholm (2015). The economic value of geological information: Synthesis and
directions for future research. Resources Policy 43: 91–100.
doi:10.1016/j.resourpol.2014.11.001.
Hamel, G. (2000). Leading the Revolution. New York: Lille Economy and Management.
Hjelmager, J., H. Moellering, and A. Cooper (2008). An initial formal model for spatial data
infrastructures. International Journal of Geographical Information Science 22: 1295–1309.

19
Janssen, M. and A. Zuiderwijk (2014). Infomediary business models for connecting open data providers
and users. Social Science Computer Review 32(5): 563–576. doi:10.1177/0894439314525902.
Krek, A. (2002). An agent-based model for quantifying the economic value of geo- graphic information,
GeoInfo Series Vienna 26.
Lopez Romero, E. (2014). CNIG Spain & ePSI: Perspective and Experience. INSPIRE Conference 2014.
Aalborg, Denmark.
Lazo, J.K., R.E. Morss, and J.L. Demuth (2009). 300 billion served. Sources, perceptions, uses, and values
of weather forecasts. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 90(6): 785–798.
doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2604.1.
Longhorn, R.A. and M. Blakemore (2008). Geographic Information: Value, Pricing, Production, and
Consumption. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group.
Longley, P.A., M.F. Goodchild, D.J. Maguire, and D.W. Rhind (2001). Geographic Information Systems
and Science. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.
Magalhaes, G., C. Roseira, and L. Manley (2014). Business models for open government data.
Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic
Governance. Guimaraes, Portugal: ACM, pp. 365–370.
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2691273.
Market Info Group (2013). Location based services—Market and technology outlook – 2013–2020.
http://marketinfogroup.com/location-based-services- market/, Accessed 20 January, 2017.
Natural Resources Canada (2016). Value study findings report. Canadian geospatial data
infrastructure, Information Product 48e, 148 pages. doi:10.4095/297711.
Oelschlager, F. (2004). Enterprise information integration. Enabling the information value chain to
achieve business optimization.
http://www.teamplay.primavera.com/partners/files/Enterprise_Information.pdf.
Onsrud, H.J. (1992). In support of cost recovery for publicly held geographic information. GIS Law 1(2):
1–7. http://www.spatial.maine.edu/~onsrud/pubs/Cost_recovery_for_GIS.html, Accessed
August 1, 2008.
Onsrud, H.J. and G. Rushton (1995). Sharing Geographic Information. New Brunswick, NJ: Centre for
Urban Policy Research.
Open Data Institute (2015). Open data means business: UK innovation across sectors and regions.
http://theodi.org/open-data-means-business-uk-innovation-sectors-regions, Accessed 18
January, 2017.
Open Data for Development Network (2017). Open Data Impact Map.
http://www.opendataimpactmap.org/, Accessed 15 January, 2017.
Osterwalder, A. (2004). The business model ontology: A proposition in a design science approach.
Universite de Lausanne Ecole.
Osterwalder, A. and Y. Pigneur (2010). Business Model Generation. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
OXERA [Oxford Economic Research Associates Ltd] (1999). The economic contribution of ordnance
survey, p.54. http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/aboutus/reports/oxera/oxera.pdf,
Accessed August 1, 2008.
Parycek, P., J. Höchtl, and M. Ginner (2014). Open government data implementation evaluation. Journal
of Theoretical and Applied Electronic Commerce Research 9(2): 80–99.

20
Pettifer, R.E.W. (2009). PSI in European Meteorology—An unfulfilled potential. In 7th Eastern
European eGov Days: eGovernment & eBusiness Ecosystem & eJustice Conference. Prague,
Czech Republic, European Projects and Management (EPMA) (CZ).
http://www.primet.org/ckfinder/userfiles/files/EU%20PSI%20Working%20Groups/PSI%20in%2
0European%20Meteorology%20-
%20an%20unfulfilled%20potential%20distribution%20copy.pdf, Accessed May 6, 2009.
Philips, R.L. (2001). The management information value chain. Perspectives 3.
Pira International Ltd, University of East Anglia and Knowledge View Ltd (2000). Commercial
exploitation of Europe’s public sector information—Final report. Pira International Ltd,
European Commission Directorate General for the Information Society, p.132.
ftp://ftp.cordis.lu/pub/econtent/docs/commercial_final_report.pdf, Accessed November 20,
2006.
Porter, M.E. (1985). Competitive Advantage, Creating, and Sustaining Superior Performance. New York:
The Free Press.
Rodriguez Pabon, O. (2005). Cadre théorique pour l’évaluation des infrastruc- tures d’information
géospatiale, Ph. D. Thesis, Département des Sciences Géomatiques, Faculté de Foresterie et de
Géomatique, Laval University, Québec.
Rodriguez, A.F. (2016). A New Data & Services Policy for the IGN Spain. INSPIRE Conference 2016.
Madrid, Spain.
Rydén, A. (2013). Assessing social benefits in Sweden. INSPIRE Conference 2013. Florence, Italy. PPT
presentation.
Shafer, S.M., H.J. Smith, and J.C. Linder (2005). The power of business models. Business Horizons 48(3):
199–207. doi:10.1016/j.bushor.2004.10.014.
The OD500 Global Network (2017). Open Data 500. http://www.opendata500.com, Accessed 18
January, 2017.
Trapp, N., U.A. Schneider, I. McCallum, S. Fritz, C. Schill, M.T. Borzacchiello, C. Heumesser, and M.
Craglia (2015). A meta-analysis on the return on investment of geospatial data and systems: A
multi-country perspective. Transactions in GIS 19: 169–187.
van Loenen, B. and F. Welle Donker (2014). Open data beoordelingsraamwerk. Deel: review kosten-
batenanalyses. Delft, the Netherlands, Kenniscentrum Open Data, p.32.
http://www.bk.tudelft.nl/-leadmin/Faculteit/BK/Over_de_faculteit/Afdelingen/OTB/Kennisce
ntrum_Open_Data/Open_data_beoordelingsraamwerk_Review_kosten-batenanalyses.pdf,
Accessed December 1, 2017.
van Loenen, B. and J. Zevenbergen (2010). Assessing geographic information enhancement.
International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research 5: 244– 266. doi:10.2902/1725-
0463.2010.05.art10.
Vancauwenberghe, G., P. Cipriano, M. Craglia, C. Easton, G. Martirano, and D. Vandenbroucke (2014).
Exploring the market potential for geo-ICT companies in relation to INSPIRE. In Connecting a
Digital Europe through Location and Place. Proceedings of the AGILE 2014 International
Conference on Geographic Information Science, AGILE Conference on Geographic Information
Science, J. Huerta, S. Schade, and C. Granell (Eds.), Castellón, Spain, June 3–6.
Vickery, G. (2011). Review of recent studies on PSI re-use and related market developments. Paris,
France, Information Economics, p. 44. http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/news/review-
recent-studies-psi-reuse-and-related-market- developments, Accessed November 1, 2011.

21
 Warnest, M., A. Rajabifard, and I. Williamson (2003). Understanding inter-organizational collaboration and
partnerships in the development of national SDI. URISA 2003, October 11–15, Atlanta, GA.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/44f9/d8e26e91a 044770e26f6cf848d6b43723eb8.pdf.
Welle Donker, F. (2009). Public sector geo web services: Which business model will pay for a free
lunch? In SDI Convergence: Research, Emerging Trends, and Critical Assessment, B. van Loenen,
J.W.J. Besemer, and J.A. Zevenbergen (Eds.). Delft, the Netherlands, Nederlandse Commissie
voor Geodesie/Netherlands Geodetic Commission (NCG), 48, pp. 35–51.
Welle Donker, F. and B. van Loenen (2016). Sustainable business models for public sector open data
providers. JeDEM Journal of eDemocracy & Open Government 8(1): 28–61.
Welle Donker, F., B. van Loenen, and A.K. Bregt (2016). Open data and beyond. ISPRS International
Journal of Geo-Information 5(4). doi:10.3390/ijgi5040048.
Yu, C.-C. (2016). A value-centric business model framework for managing open data applications.
Journal of Organizational Computing & Electronic Commerce 26(1/2): 80–115.
Zeleti, F.A., A. Ojo, and E. Curry (2016). Exploring the economic value of open government data.
Government Information Quarterly 33(3): 535–551. doi:10.1016/j. giq.2016.01.008.
Zott, C., R. Amit, and L. Massa (2011). The business model: Recent developments and future research.
Journal of Management 37(4): 1019–1042. doi:10.1177/ 0149206311406265.

22
View publication stats