|
|
|
|
|
A Summary of Activities From |
|
Around the World |
|
|
|
John Moeller |
|
USA, Federal Geographic Data Committee |
|
|
|
|
Discuss Study by Ian Masser and FGDC/GSDI Survey |
|
|
|
Consider lessons drawn from them |
|
|
|
|
Ian Masser |
|
International Institute for Aerospace Survey and
Earth Sciences (ITC) |
|
|
|
|
Australia ALIC/ASDI 1986 |
|
USA FGDC/NSDI 1990 |
|
Qatar NCGIS/NGIS 1990 |
|
Portugal CNIG/SNIG 1990 |
|
Netherlands Ravi/NGII 1992 |
|
Indonesia Bakosurtanal/NGIS 1993 |
|
Malaysia NaLIS
study 1994 |
|
Korea NGIS 1995 |
|
Japan NSDI 1995 |
|
Canada
IACG/CGDI 1996 |
|
Britain NGDF 1996 |
|
|
|
|
Explicitly national |
|
Refer to geographic information, geospatial data
or land information |
|
Use terms such infrastructure, systems or
framework |
|
|
|
|
|
Three main factors |
|
Context: eg geographical and economic
circumstances and systems of government |
|
Driving forces |
|
Key features: eg status, scope, access,
implementation, resources |
|
|
|
|
|
Size and Wealth |
|
great variety |
|
Systems of government |
|
Federal systems of government with varying
degrees of devolution of responsibilities |
|
Non federal systems with most of the
responsibilities for land information handled centrally |
|
|
|
|
|
The growing importance of geographic information |
|
“A new wave of technological innovation is
allowing us to capture, store, process and display an unprecedented amount
of information about our planet....Much of this information will be
‘georeferenced’, that is it will refer to some specific place on the earth’s
surface” (Gore) |
|
|
|
|
|
The need for governments to coordinate data
acquisition and availability |
|
“ Geographic information is crucial to promote
economic development, improve our stewardship of natural resources and to
protect the environment.....The NPR has recommended that the Executive
Branch develop....a National Spatial Data Infrastructure to support public
and private sector applications of geospatial data...” (Clinton) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Better Government |
|
Needs of planning and development |
|
Modernisation of central and local government |
|
Unlocking information |
|
“ to unlock geospatial information for the
benefit of the citizen, business growth and good government through enabling viable, comprehensive,
demand-led and easily accessed services” (NGDF) |
|
|
|
|
|
Status |
|
Mandates: Law and Executive Order |
|
Outgrowths of existing coordination mechanisms |
|
Scope |
|
Substantive areas: broad to very focused |
|
Stakeholder representation: from government only to including private
sector/users |
|
|
|
|
|
Access to public information |
|
Transparent:
Copyright free/dissemination cost |
|
Classified |
|
Approach to implementation |
|
National
centres |
|
Feasibility studies |
|
National benefit cost studies |
|
|
|
|
|
Resources |
|
Relatively small for coordination by comparison
with overall investment in geographic information |
|
Relatively large for digital topographic data
base creation |
|
|
|
|
Diversity of approaches |
|
Advantages of a formal mandate especially when
backed by appropriate resources |
|
Importance of involving all stakeholders in
development of demand led services |
|
Chances of success closely linked to awareness
of issues involved of leading decision makers and also public at large |
|
|
|
|
|
|
• APPROXIMATELY 100 NATIONS CONTACTED |
|
• RESPONSES FROM 24 NATIONS AND 3 MULTI-NATION
REGIONS |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Antarctica |
|
Australia |
|
Canada |
|
Colombia |
|
Finland |
|
France |
|
Germany |
|
Greece |
|
Hungary |
|
India |
|
Indonesia |
|
Japan |
|
Kiribati |
|
Macau |
|
Malaysia |
|
Netherlands |
|
|
|
|
New Zealand |
|
Northern Ireland |
|
Pakistan |
|
Russian Federation |
|
South Africa |
|
Sweden |
|
United Kingdom |
|
United States |
|
|
|
ANZLIC |
|
PCGIAP |
|
CERCO |
|
EUROGI |
|
GI2000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Does
your nation have an active or proposed initiative for developing a national
spatial data infrastructure (or its equivalent)? |
|
|
|
• virtually all responding nations and
regions said YES |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LEADERSHIP: |
|
1. single agency, typically mapping agency
(14) |
|
2. interagency coordinating committee (4) |
|
3. association with strong government
representation (3) |
|
4. lead split among multiple agencies (1) |
|
5. non-government working group or
association (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
AVAILABILITY: What are the
categories spatial digital data being made available? |
|
|
|
SPATIAL DATA TYPES MENTIONED MOST OFTEN (19
RESPONSES) |
|
1.
topographic / surface elevation (19) |
|
2.
cadastral / land ownership (18) |
|
3. geodetic (15) |
|
4.
government / administrative boundaries (12) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
SPATIAL DATA TYPES MENTIONED MOST OFTEN (19
RESPONSES) |
|
|
|
5.
hydrography / rivers and lakes planimetric (9) |
|
6.
digital imagery (8) |
|
7.
land use / land cover (8) |
|
|
|
|
MECHANICS OF ACCESS: Through
what technical and organizational mechanisms are spatial data being made
available through the NSDI? |
|
1.
contact agency (or agencies) (7) |
|
2. goal
of distributed clearinghouse
nodes (6) |
|
3.
contact agency through central web site or single node (5) |
|
4.
multiple avenues stressed (2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMMERCIAL INVOLVEMENT: How
are private commercial firms
involved in helping to build the NSDI. |
|
|
|
1.
government contracting out data collection, dissemination, or other
services to commercial firms (9) |
|
2.
commercial firms adding value to NSDI data (8) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3.
commercial firms sitting on NSDI advisory groups (5) |
|
4.
commercial firms adhering to NSDI standards for metadata or data (5) |
|
5. no
commercial involvement (4) |
|
6.
commercial firms adapting software to meet NSDI requirements (1) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
PUBLIC DOMAIN DATA SETS: |
|
|
|
1. No public domain digital spatial data
sets available through the NSDI (11) |
|
2. Very
few public domain data sets available, typically of limited coverage and
small-scale (6) |
|
3. A
number of public domain data sets available (2) |
|
4. Many
and diverse public domain data sets available (1) |
|
|
|
|
AUTHORITY: |
|
1. No
laws or formal orders recognizing need (9) |
|
2. No
current national legislation or orders but need is recognized or action
being pursued (6) |
|
3.
Official nation-wide vision or principles adopted but no lead
authority designated (1) |
|
4.
Authority to coordinate on a national basis formally designated in
one or more agencies (4) |
|
5.
Authority designated in country wide coordination authority (2) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
COMPONENTS: Please indicate
whether the vision of an NSDI for your nation incorporates the following
components or concepts. |
|
|
|
YES NO ? |
|
A.
Metadata
25 1 1 |
|
B.
Clearinghouse
21 5 2 |
|
C. Data
Standards 25 1 1 |
|
D. Core
Data 25 1 1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GRAND
CHALLEGES: Name one of the most
pressing challenges for NSDI development in your nation. |
|
|
|
SAMPLES |
|
• Cooperation - Incentives |
|
• Finding people who see the big picture |
|
• Consistency and quality of data |
|
• Legal and economic aspects |
|
• Understanding the geo market |
|
|
|
|
|
|
• Poor
or limited resources |
|
•
Further development of access |
|
•
Effective communication and formal coordination |
|
•
Developing a shared vision |
|
•
Ongoing process to address administrative questions |
|
•
Development of core (framework) data |
|
|
|
|
Diversity of approaches |
|
Advantages of a formal mandate especially when
backed by appropriate resources |
|
Importance of involving all stakeholders in
development of demand led services |
|
Chances of success closely linked to awareness
of issues involved of leading decision makers and also public at large |
|
|
|
|
IMPLICATIONS OF SURVEY RESULTS: |
|
Based on Initial Analysis |
|
|
|
1. The
concepts of metadata, core data, data standards and clearinghouse
relatively well accepted as parts of NSDIs across the globe. |
|
|
|
2.
Agreement among nations on metadata standards for spatial data is
feasible. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Vision for a workable GSDI would need to
involve networks of decentralized geographic data clearinghouse nodes.
These could be government agencies at various levels, commercial sector, or
both. |
|
|
|
4.
Agreement among nations on a small number of core data sets may be a
realistic possibility. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. Wide
variations exist among nations regarding legal and economic policies. Forums other than the GSDI may be more
appropriate in resolving conflicts in data policies among nations. |
|
|
|
|
Conclusions: |
|
National Infrastructures are being planned &
developed - 30+ nations |
|
There
are many variations - legal, economic, scale, organizational,etc. |
|
There are commonalties - metadata, core data,
standards, clearinghouse |
|
Local, national and global awareness is growing |
|
We can take steps forward by building on areas
of agreement |
|
|
|