Preparing for New Geospatial Careers: Certification, Education, and Competency Standards

In late September, Penn State University partnered with Directions Media to host a webinar titled The New Geospatial Jobs and How to Be Ready for Them. Interest was substantial: 940 individuals registered, 506 attended the live session, and another 181 later accessed the archived recording. The high level of engagement generated more questions than could be addressed during the event itself.

To provide comprehensive responses, the presenters—Richard Serby of GeoSearch and David DiBiase and Wes Stroh of Penn State University—expanded their answers into a two-part written discussion. This first installment concentrates on the Geospatial Technology Competency Model (GTCM), professional certification, and academic preparation. A subsequent article focuses on job roles and titles.

Understanding Certification and the Geospatial Technology Competency Model

One recurring question concerned the relationship between the Geospatial Technology Competency Model and the GISP designation. David DiBiase pointed to the GIS Certification Institute’s announcement regarding its Certification Update Initiative. When GISP certification was introduced in 2004, portfolio-based evaluation made sense because no formal competency framework existed. With the U.S. Department of Labor releasing the Geospatial Technology Competency Model, the foundation now exists for evaluating competency through more structured standards. The model may therefore influence future evolution toward competency-based certification.

Another area of interest involved the availability of national examinations. The American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (ASPRS) already administers an exam-based credential—the Certified Mapping Scientist–GIS/LIS. Meanwhile, the GIS Certification Institute has initiated updates that could introduce testing components into the GISP process.

Questions also surfaced about the distinction between educational certificates and professional certification. Academic institutions award certificates for completing structured programs, such as Penn State’s post-baccalaureate offerings. Professional certification, by contrast, recognizes demonstrated competence and experience and is conferred by organizations such as the GIS Certification Institute, ASPRS, or licensing bodies like the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES).

As for employer attitudes, DiBiase noted that GISP recognition is still relatively young, having begun in 2004 and currently acknowledged by eight states. Broader institutional support is expected to grow as the credential matures and aligns more closely with established competency standards.

Concerns about the long-term viability of GIS professionals were also addressed. Rather than becoming obsolete, geospatial tools have increased in sophistication. The need for professionals capable of customizing and extending GIS software remains strong. Department of Labor projections estimate demand for nearly 150,000 additional GIS professionals within a decade, and media coverage has ranked GIS Analyst among top career paths. Predictions of professional decline appear unsupported by workforce data.

Curriculum Alignment and Educational Resources

For educators designing certificate or associate degree programs, alignment with Department of Labor competencies is critical. Wes Stroh recommended the National Geospatial Technology Center for Excellence as a primary resource. Its educator-focused materials assist institutions in developing curricula that correspond with workforce expectations. The GeoTech Center has also introduced curriculum assessment instruments to evaluate how effectively academic programs align with the GTCM framework. Prospective students are encouraged to ask institutions whether such assessments have been completed and made transparent.

International comparisons were raised as well. In Canada, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada functions as a counterpart to the U.S. Department of Labor. However, searches for geospatial competency initiatives comparable to the GTCM yielded no directly equivalent framework.

Degree Pathways and Academic Structure

Although master’s programs in geospatial studies are widely available, bachelor’s degrees dedicated exclusively to geospatial disciplines are less common. According to Stroh, undergraduate geospatial coursework frequently exists within geography departments or as specialized tracks rather than standalone degrees. Organizations such as URISA provide listings of related programs. Historically, market demand has concentrated on professional development and graduate-level specialization, though growth in the industry may stimulate expansion of undergraduate offerings.

Interdisciplinary integration remains an evolving challenge. Geospatial technologies are increasingly relevant in business and economics—particularly in marketing, retail, real estate, and finance—yet they are often treated as supporting tools rather than focal subjects. Penn State has responded by developing courses such as Location Intelligence for Business, signaling movement toward deeper integration across academic domains.

Regarding tuition comparisons between U.S. and U.K. online master’s programs, DiBiase indicated that cost disparities may not be as significant as assumed. Collaborative arrangements between institutions such as Penn State and universities in Leeds and Southampton demonstrate comparable tuition structures.

Continuing Education and Skill Development

Financial barriers to continuing education present difficulties, especially for public-sector employees facing budget constraints. While funding opportunities differ by state and program, some institutions provide financial aid—even for certificate programs. Maintaining part-time or full-time student status can improve eligibility. Direct communication with financial aid offices is recommended rather than relying solely on published information.

For professionals who have completed certificate programs lacking technical depth, self-directed learning remains viable. Software vendors frequently provide free tutorials, documentation, and low-cost training materials. For example, ESRI offers online learning resources alongside structured training courses and instructional guides tied to software updates.

When considering which technical skills matter most, Stroh highlighted Levels 4 and 5 of the Geospatial Technology Competency Model pyramid. These tiers encompass industry-wide and sector-specific technical competencies essential across the geospatial profession.

Ensuring Program Quality and Workforce Relevance

Not all academic credentials deliver equivalent preparation. The GeoTech Center’s curriculum assessment tools are designed to evaluate how well educational offerings reflect workforce needs identified within the competency model. Students evaluating programs should request evidence of such alignment to ensure that their investment supports employability.

Overall, the dialogue sparked by the webinar underscores a broader transition within the geospatial industry. Certification standards are evolving, competency frameworks are shaping curricula, and educational institutions are adapting to workforce demands. As the field expands, structured alignment between education, certification, and employment expectations will play a central role in preparing professionals for emerging geospatial careers.