Panelists: GIS can support siting and hotspot analysis but requires data normalization and workflows

Attendees at the PUC 911 GIS Q&A asked whether GIS could identify areas of highest emergency risk or optimal locations for new fire stations; presenters said yes, but cautioned that accurate results require data normalization, geocoding of calls and documented workflows.

Panelists described a typical analytic workflow: extract multiple years of CAD/CAD-like call records, normalize disparate address formats, geocode calls to points, generate heat maps by call type and response time, and analyze response-time gaps relative to existing station coverage. Sandy Stroud of OneSpatial described doing that work as a consultant in a prior role and said the effort included “pull[ing] five years of calls,” normalizing records and creating heat maps tied to response times.

Speakers warned normalization can be a major undertaking. Lauren DiGiovanni (DATAMARK) and Jessica Beierman (GeoComm) said cleaning address point and road centerline layers now reduces later remediation, and that removing stacked road centerline geometries and standardizing attribution will improve analytic fidelity. Beierman recommended involving both GIS staff and the practitioners who take and dispatch calls when designing requirements.

Speakers recommended practical steps for agencies that lack in‑house GIS capacity: define the specific questions you want to answer before commissioning analysis; engage a GIS professional or consultant for the initial normalization and geocoding; document standard operating procedures for incoming addressing and updates; and create feedback loops so addressing coordinators see how their data are used in dispatch.

Becky Nordine (GeoComm) emphasized that once data are prepared, agencies must plan ongoing maintenance and workflows so the GIS remains actionable for siting, hotspot analysis and routing optimization.