Spatial Data Infrastructure Introduction and Practice Dr. Francis Harvey

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 AmericaThe 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

From Randy Johnson, MetroGIS

Minneapolis, St. Paul Metropolitan Area

7 700 km2

around 1 million residentsabout 900 000 parcels

293 independent local units of government

7 counties188 Other

governm. units59 school districts

39 water boards

General

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 needsAt 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

FrameworkData

Application Users

Land Suitability Analysis

Transportation Planning

DevelopmentPlanning

Added Application-Specific Data

TrafficLoads

Population

Soils

Three Key NSDI Components

Vertical and Horizontal Integration

Free Data Sharing

NSDI starts with Framework DataFederal Government Project/Proposal

Framework Cone

Involvement and Data Sharing Federal, Regional, State, Tribal, Local, Private Companies,

Utilities

FrameworkData

Application Users

Land Suitability Analysis

Transportation Planning

DevelopmentPlanning

Added Application-Specific Data

TrafficLoads

Population

Soils

NSDI Iceberg

Concepts

Practices

FrameworkData

Application Users

Land Suitability Analysis

Transportation Planning

DevelopmentPlanning

Added Application-Specific Data

TrafficLoads

Population

Soils

??

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 NSDIDevelopment 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)

FDGCwww.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 OneStopGeodata.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 Maphttp://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

MaterialsA 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 initiatives

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 InfrastructureNeo-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 JobChanging 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 DecentralizationFinances 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 GuidelinesDoes NSDI fulfill these?

▪Who benefits, pays?

▪Transparent lines of accountability

▪Provide enforcement mechanism

Technology and Organizations are inseperable

NSDI AwarenessWhat is the NSDI????

▪For “small” local governments the NSDI has no relevance

▪They don’t know what it is

▪They can’t imagine what it is

Yes (43.10%)

Unsure (6.90%)

No (50.00%)

Do you know what the National SpatialData Infrastructure is? (Y/N)

Results from 2001 Kentucky Survey

Informal data sharing dominatesResults for local governments from 1996 Framework Survey

0 20 40 60 80 100 120

Have Policy

Share Data

in percent

Kentucky (n=15) Kansas (n=20) North Carolina (n=70)Washington (n=31)

Data DistributionAre 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”▸“data only used for requested purpose

& not shared w/ others w/o permission”▸"the only data we want to "protect" is

the cadastral layer”

Yes No N/A etc

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?