Spatial Data Infrastructure Introduction and Practice Dr. Francis Harvey SDI or NSDI • National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) in US is where concept originates • It has since evolved (mainly in Europe) • Elements remain the same • Principles have changed • Still very complex NSDI in America The Political Culture ▪ From DC Beltway to “Main Street” ▪ Jeffersonian Democracy ▪ Federalism ▪ Enfranchised, pluralistic, participative populace ▪ Participative Democracy Dimensions of American Government ▪ In mid-1990s non-defense Federal agencies employed about 2.1 million people and spent about $1.6 trillion ▪ State and local governments employed 19.5 million people and spent about $1.3 trillion (1994) ▪ There are about 39,000 general purpose units of local government ▸ 3000 counties ▸ 19,000 cities ▸ 16,000 towns ▸ 14,000 school districts ▸ 31,000 special districts Minneapolis, St. Paul Metropolitan Area General 7 700 km2 around 1 million residents about 900 000 parcels 293 independent local units of government 7 counties 188 Other governm. units 59 school districts 39 water boards From Randy Johnson, MetroGIS NSDI originates in U.S. Federal Government ▪ Executive Order 12906 (1994) calls for sharing ▸ Avoid duplicate efforts ▸ More efficient use of resources ▪ This only involves Federal Agencies ▸ Coordinated through Federal Geographic Data Committee ▪ Framework should provide foundation ▸ No master blueprint NSDI to serve many needs At all levels of government ▪ Transportation, Navigation & Commerce ▪ Public Land & Marine Sanctuary Management ▪ Agriculture & Natural Resource Development ▪ Environmental Protection and Ecosystem Management ▪ Community and Economic Development ▪ Emergency Management ▪ Public Service Delivery ▪ National Defense ▪ Earth System Science & Geographic Information Technologies ▪ Public Information ▪ Property & Voting Rights ▪ Revenues Source: National Academy of Public Administration, 1997 What is the NSDI? ▪ Infrastructure for Institutions ▸ Big vision: – From local citizen to Federal Secretaries ▸ Builds on locally distinct institutions and infrastructures – Mainstreet ▸ Not a template, but a framework to guide development ▸ Not a uniform code, only guidelines and standards NSDI Components ▪ Framework ▪ Framework Cone ▪ Involvement and data sharing ▪ Metadata ▪ Clearinghouses Three Key NSDI Components Vertical and Horizontal Application Users Integration Added Application-Specific Data Transportation Traffic Framework Development Population Planning Loads Planning Data Soils Land Suitability Analysis Free Data Sharing NSDI starts with Framework Data Federal Government Project/Proposal Framework Cone Involvement and Data Sharing Federal, Regional, State, Tribal, Local, Private Companies, Utilities Application Users Added Application-Specific Data Transportation Development Traffic Framework Planning Population Planning Loads Data Soils Land Suitability Analysis NSDI Iceberg Application Users Added Application-Specific Data Transportation Traffic Development Planning Loads Framework Population Planning Data Concepts Soils Land Suitability Analysis Practices ? Recognized Issues ▪ Data Sharing (level 1 interoperability) ▸ How is data exchanged? ▪ Defining geographic objects (semantics) ▸ What is a road? ▪ Sharing costs (financial) ▸ Who pays? ▪ Involving local governments (participation) ▸ More bureaucracy? ▪ Vertical Integration (control, use, and distribution) ▸ Data and Organizations The two sides of data sharing are the two sides of integration Simplistic: Technical and Institutional Issues ▪ Technical issues ▸ Multiple scales ▸ Data exchange ▪ Institutional Issues ▸ Cost-sharing ▸ Maintenance ▸ Metadata Cone of Vertical Integration Vertical Integration Technical Issues can be resolved ▪ Products and levels ▸ Multiple producers, multiple users, multiple products ▸ State, Federal, Local ▪ NSDI operates like a federation ▸ Distributed production ▸ Diffused use ▸ Multiple production and use arrangements Institutional Issues for Integration ▪ Relevance ▸ Scale related ▪ Partnerships to provide resources ▸ Joint funding ▸ Cost sharing ▸ Work sharing Underlying Organizational Issues Difficult to assess ▪ “Pride of Authorship” ▪ Adequacy for use ▪ Duplication of effort ▪ Reprocessing costs ▪ Not easily automated ▪ Political and public pressures ▪ Disparate data ▪ Lack of time ▪ Legal issues Evolution of the NSDI Development of Capabilities and Political Turf ▪ FGDC ▸ Coordinating (federal) actvities ▸ 19 member interagency committee ▪ Geospatial One-Stop ▸ Access way to geospatial information ▪ The National Map ▸ Partnerships to provide integrated geographic data (synthesis) FDGC www.fgdc.gov ▪ In existence since 1990 ▸ Big push came after 1994 Executive Order to develop the NSDI ▪ Develops and promotes standards ▸ Notably for metadata – The CSDGM, Content Standard for Digitial Geographic Metadata ▪ Promotes inter-governmental activities ▪ Responsible for clearinghouses GeoSpatial OneStop Geodata.gov ▪ What is it? ▸ Federal agencies (24) continuing NSDI activities ▸ Part of Bush‟s e-government agenda – Strong private sector involvement ▸ Focus: Spatially enable the delivery of government services ▪ Technology is a portal ▸ A gateway to gateways and data National Map http://nationalmap.usgs.gov/ ▪ What is it? ▸ “a seamless, continuously maintained set of public domain geographic base information that will serve as a foundation for integrating, sharing, and using other data easily and consistently” ▪ Linked to the National Atlas ▸ National Map has data ▸ National Atlas has maps Is this all just a mess? ▪ No, simply what happens when politics and bureaucracy intersect with technologies Materials A Brief Selection ▪ The best starting web site is www.fgdc.gov ▸ From this site you will be able to find links to all sorts of information on the NSDI ▸ Global SDI information is at www.gsdi.org ▪ For technical issues start out with www.opengis.org ▪ For operational examples go to nsdi.usgs.gov or search for „NSDI‟ NSDI Practices In the beginning... Aligning scientific communities with policy communities ▪ Re-inventing government ▸ Gore-lead initiative: National Performance Review – Management for results – Inter-government activities – Performance-based organizations ▸ Activities (relevant) – G-Gov – NSDI – Reinventing government ▪ Continued under Bush e-government Government Needs for the 21st Century ▪ Interoperable systems that are trusted and secure ▪ Methods and measures of citizen participation in democratic processes ▪ Models of electronic public service transactions and delivery systems ▪ New models for public-private partnerships and other networked organizational forms ▪ Intuitive decision support tools for public officials ▪ Archiving and electronic records management ▪ Better methods of IT management ▪ Matching research resources to government needs NSDI ... a verb? ▪ Nancy Tosta‟s commentary ▸ A key figure in 1990s NSDI work ▸ Politics and bureaucracy ▪ Troubles ▸ “diverse interpretations” ▸ “broad management options” ▪ Failures ▸ No nationally consistent data sets ▸ Slow development of standards Research ▪ Interactions among levels of government and public and private sectors ▪ Policy guidelines, organizational forms, and technology tools constantly interact Institutional Issues for Integration ▪ Relevance ▸ Scale related ▪ Partnerships to provide resources ▸ Joint funding ▸ Cost sharing ▸ Work sharing Critical Organizational Issues Difficult to assess ▪ “Pride of Authorship” ▪ Adequacy for use ▪ Duplication of effort ▪ Reprocessing costs ▪ Not easily automated ▪ Political and public pressures ▪ Disparate data ▪ Lack of time ▪ Legal issues Decentralizing Infrastructure Neo-liberalizationof governance ▪ Does Decentralization = Devolution? ▪ Different strategies ▸ Shift dissatisfaction ▸ Shift economic and political powers to increase local revenue ▸ Shift of expenditures w/o revenues Economic Explanation ▪ Shift expenditures decisions to the level of government that best incorporates a community of common interests ▪ Central government concessions to maintain political stability ▸ Very fluid structure of governance – Network No easy Job Changing the relationship between central and local governments ▪ Problems of public service delivery ▸ Local service provision cannot be changed in isolation ▸ Different degrees of political, economic, and decision making powers Three Elements of Success ▪ Clear distinction of functional responsibilities ▪ Financial rules governing local governments reward good performance ▪ System of accountability that balances central regulation and local political participation Assumptions ▪ Difficulties of defining the beneficiaries of a particular service (benefit-jurisdiction model) ▪ Many services have local and wider benefits ▪ Administrative costs associated with service provision are not factored in ▪ Data sharing occurs to share data Successful Decentralization Finances and Politics ▪ Democratic local decision process with transparent costs and benefits and all stakeholders have an equal opportunity to influence the decision ▪ Costs of local decisions are borne by those who make decisions ▪ Benefits stay in the jurisdiction Policy Guidelines Does NSDI fulfill these? ▪ Who benefits, pays? ▪ Transparent lines of accountability ▪ Provide enforcement mechanism Technology and Organizations are inseperable NSDI Awareness What is the NSDI???? ▪ For “small” local Do you know what the National Spatial governments the NSDI Data Infrastructure is? (Y/N) has no relevance Unsure (6.90%) ▪ They don‟t know what Yes (43.10%) it is No (50.00%) ▪ They can‟t imagine what it is Results from 2001 Kentucky Survey Informal data sharing dominates Results for local governments from 1996 Framework Survey Share Data Have Policy 0 20 40 60 80 100 in percent Ken tucky (n =15) Kansas (n=20) Nor th Carolina (n =70) Wash ing ton (n=31) Data Distribution Are there conditions [e.g., "no use", "no distribution"] stipulated upon the sharing, use, or redistribution of data? ▪ Regional differences ▸ Established regional agencies ▸ With colleges and tribal authorities ▪ Specific Issues ▸ “liability disclaimer required” Yes No N/A etc ▸ “data only used for requested purpose & not shared w/ others w/o permission” ▸ "the only data we want to "protect" is the cadastral layer” Results from Best Practices Research Limits to the Effectiveness of Standards Do you rely on any standards in your geographic information activities? ▪ What does “yes” mean? ▸ “when I'm aware of standards that I can meet” ▸ “standards??? Order of priorities-real time needs first” ▸ “ArcView shapefiles, UTM or County coordinates for basemap purposes” ▸ “occasionally we will use the National Spatial Accuracy Standards (when create metadata)” Yes No NA n/a etc Terminological Problem: standard can mean little more than using what is available when there is only one choice Results from Best Practices Research Resources Questions?
Pages to are hidden for
"Spatial Data Infrastructure"Please download to view full document