Building National Spatial Data Infrastructures: Roles and Responsibilities
Nancy Tosta
Director of Forecasting and Growth Strategy
Puget Sound Regional Council
1011 Western Ave., Suite 500
Seattle, WA 98104-1035
206.587.5665
FAX 206.587.4825
ntosta@seanet.com
| Abstract Of The Paper & The Profile of The Speaker | Speaker Index | Paper Title Index |
INTRODUCTION
Over the last two decades, geospatial data collection and management tools have become common in many organizations. These tools include geographic information systems (GIS), global positioning systems (GPS), map digitizing and scanning equipment, and image processing systems, among others. These tools have provided the many government and private sector organizations that utilize them the ability to produce and manage their own geospatial information. Concurrent with the spread of the technological tools that facilitate producing and using digital geospatial data has been a need to examine increasingly complex issues of concern to society. The ability to conduct spatial analyses has provided researchers and policy makers critical information on issues such as global climate change, urban growth and decay, economic development, and environmental degradation.
Numerous organizations are realizing that many of their data relate to specific locations and can be integrated and understood by common geography. Agencies are moving from individual efforts to manipulate and overlay paper maps to creating entire enterprises built on developing, maintaining, sharing, and integrating digital geospatial data. Even within these enterprise operations, organizations may discover that the resources to collect and maintain all relevant data specific to a location are limiting. Organizations are beginning to consider the benefits of partnerships with other organizations interested in the same geography.
The growing number of State, regional, national, and even international "GIS" conferences indicates a proliferation of organizations that collect and manage geospatial information to meet their needs. Numerous state government agencies in all 50 States in the US, along with an uncounted number of the more than 3100 counties and tens of thousands cities, towns, and other municipalities are now using GIS tools. In many cases they have simply automated the procedures they previously undertook manually such as tax assessment, utility inventories, natural resource management, or permit tracking. In other situations, they are using the GIS for analytical purposes such as understanding the spread of infectious diseases, predicting flood peaks, or assessing the environmental effects of pollutants. Regardless of their application, nearly all organizations spend time digitizing maps or images to create the fundamental geospatial data they require to conduct their business, most usually including roads, administrative boundaries, ownership (e.g. cadastre), and water features. This fact, taken with the reality that many organizations require more digital geospatial data than they have the resources to develop and maintain, has been the primary impetus behind development of the concept of a National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) in the US.
The NSDI is conceived to be an umbrella of policies, standards, and procedures that will encourage data sharing within and among organizations. The goals of the US NSDI are to foster more efficient production, management, and use of geospatial data, while minimizing investments in duplicative data sets. Open policies for public access to government data in the US may contribute to a situation of proliferating data sets that is more confusing and "messier" than in many other countries of the world, where government data are usually copyrighted, licensed, and priced at higher levels. This situation, coupled with the relative autonomy among levels of government in the US and between the private and public sectors may create an increased need for formal coordination as encouraged by the NSDI. However, government and private sector agencies in many other nations are facing the same vexing reality that their needs for accurate digital geospatial data exceed their capacity to create and maintain the data. Additionally, efficiency in the use of public resources is a goal in most nations, which probably partly explains the rapid global spread of the concept of NSDI. Australia, Canada, Japan, The Netherlands, Malaysia, and Portugal are some of the nations currently known to have activities underway to develop "national spatial data infrastructures".
Besides the spread of GIS, one other rapidly growing technology that is affecting the ability to share data in the US is the Internet. With an estimated 50 million users globally, the Internet is an example of an electronic "web" that is changing how organizations think about both providing and accessing information. In the US, nearly all Federal agencies and an increasing number of State and local governments are using the Internet and the World Wide Web (WWW) to describe the work they conduct. The ability to communicate anytime, anywhere, in a multitude of formats, with access to massive volumes of previously unknown information, coupled with tools such as GIS for integration, is dramatically changing everything that organizations think about information ownership, integration, and provision. These changes have contributed to the evolution of the NSDI, primarily in the US, but increasingly internationally.
BACKGROUND ON THE US NATIONAL SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE
National Spatial Data Infrastructure activities became visible in the US in the early 1990's. The Mapping Science Committee of the National Academy of Sciences coined the phrase, but the Federal Geographic Data Committee and staff initiated the activities that have continued to evolve the NSDI. In 1990, the President's Office of Management and Budget, recognizing that many Federal agencies had requirements for and were producing geospatial data and that GIS tools were being procured by an increasing number of Federal agencies, issued a policy document directing Federal agencies to coordinate their geospatial data activities. This was to be done through the development of standards, coordination of data production, and partnerships with other levels of government. This document also called for the formation of the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) (Office of Management and Budget, 1990).
The FGDC was established as an inter-agency committee of Federal agencies that collect, manage, or make use of geospatial data. The activities of the FGDC are to promote the development of distributed data base systems, encourage development and implementation of standards, promote technology development, promote coordination mechanisms, publish reports, and perform special studies. Federal agencies were assigned responsibilities for specific themes of data. The major goal of the efforts of the FGDC and the Federal agencies that support the committee is the eventual development of a National Spatial Data Infrastructure that will involve Federal, State, and local governments, and the private sector' (Office of Management and Budget, 1990).
In early 1993, the US Vice President Albert Gore initiated the National Performance Review to examine approaches that might improve the efficiency of the Federal Government. The NSDI was recognized as a concept and a means to foster better intergovernmental relations, to empower State and local governments in the development of geospatial data sets, and to improve the performance of the Federal Government in response to state and local needs. In September 1993, the NSDI was listed as one of the National Performance Review initiatives to reinvent Federal Government. A report at the time stated that, "(I)n partnership with State and local governments and private companies we will create a National Spatial Data Infrastructure" (Gore, 1993). Many of the initiatives in the National Performance Review focused on establishing accountability and control at lower levels in organizations, as well as at lower levels within the Federal-State-local Government infrastructure.
In response to the attention of the National Performance Review, in April of 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order #12906: "Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: The National Spatial Data Infrastructure" (Clinton, 1994). This Order directed that Federal agencies carry out certain tasks to implement the NSDI. The task included developing and using standards, promoting access to data through development of a clearinghouse, fostering coordination in data collection by building framework data, and, perhaps most importantly, conducting all of these activities in partnership with state and local governments, as well as the private and academic sectors.
In the US, Presidential Executive Orders are only applicable to Federal agencies, but in this case, Federal agencies were directed to find partners (specifically among other levels of government). State and local governments will often voluntarily cooperate with Federal agencies if it's likely to result in funding or improve their access to data. The Executive Order had significant effects in increasing the level of awareness about the value, use, and management of geospatial data among Federal agencies specifically, but perhaps more importantly, it raised the political visibility of geospatial data collection, management, and use nationally and internationally. The fact that the President of the United States had issued a policy document defining the importance of coordinating geospatial data did more to spread awareness about the NSDI than any other single action of agencies or individuals involved in the geospatial data field.
OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THE US NSDI
Federal geospatial data products are used by many different organizations. With the advent of GIS, agencies are now less likely to purchase paper maps, unless emergencies such as forest fires demand many copies in a short time frame. Increasing numbers of Federal and State agencies purchase digital data representations of traditional 1:24,000 or 1:100,000 scale maps and then modify, update, and enhance these data files. This practice is primarily true for State government agencies that make extensive use of U.S. Geological Survey spatial data products. It is less true that local government agencies in the US make use of State or Federal geospatial data (with the common exception of Census data). City agencies do not usually find mapping scales of 1:24,000 useful to meet their needs (although county governments may use these scales) and other large-scale public domain data sets are not readily available. Most city jurisdictions build the digital data files they need from maps of parcels or imagery.
The US policies of open access to data encourage the practice of re-use and modification of data, but can mean that many versions of the same data file exist in different organizations within the same geographic area. It is less likely that data will be freely shared in situations where geospatial data use is more tightly licensed and constrained as in the practices of some local governments in the US and throughout many other nations. In the case of many States, the use of Federal data is not always carried out through formal cooperative or data sharing agreements, but simply because the data are available in the public domain. The producing Federal agency may not be aware that an organization is using its information and is unlikely to benefit from updates or changes made to the data file.
One of the most commonly used geospatial data sets in the US is the TIGER (Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing) digital data base of the US Census Bureau. This file covers the entire US with a spatial representation of census blocks and tracts based primarily on roads, as well as street address ranges and other cultural features. Additionally, the socio-demographic information collected as part of the decennial census is registered to census tracts or blocks, creating an extremely valuable data set for understanding the spatial distribution of the population. However, the spatial aspects of the TIGER files are not particularly accurate, having been developed based on 1:100,000 paper maps. Local governments make extensive use of the Census population records, but are forced to spend much time and resources to register the tract boundaries to the more accurate local geospatial data files. Many local jurisdictions have tried to convince the US Census Bureau that local data should form the foundation for the national census. However, the Census Bureau, while interested, does not have the resources to handle the multitude of data formats produced by local jurisdictions. The spatial accuracy of the files are of less concern to the Census Bureau than is currentness and completeness of the file. But the lack of spatial accuracy creates significant costs for secondary users of the TIGER files.
The geographic size of a jurisdiction, types of issues being addressed, and levels of funding influence the scale of data collected. Many organizations, particularly Federal agencies, but States as well, have developed programs creating standard scale maps, as for example the USGS program of 1:250,000, 1:100,000, and 1:24,000 scale data for the nation. Another example is the US Fish and Wildlife Service that also develops National Wetland Inventory maps at 1:24,000 scale for the nation. This approach has favored the developers of data who can standardize procedures, classifications, and equipment, but not necessarily the users of data who may have unique needs. The shift from paper map production requiring specialized equipment and large printing presses to desktop management of digital data has changed the demand for geospatial data. In many places, geospatial data that are slightly different than the standard product will be re-collected or re-created because the 'standard scale' or the 'standard classification' did not meet the needs of the users. The 'doing the same thing everywhere' approach, particularly over States as large and diverse as California or Texas, is being rethought. In many situations larger scales of data are desired by organizations for management purposes in certain limited areas (e.g. downtown urban centers), but the cost of their collection everywhere would be prohibitive. The Framework discussions of the NSDI are beginning to examine alternative approaches to data base development whereby data at different resolutions (potentially collected by a number of different organizations) may be integrated through the use of a minimal set of common standards.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES IN THE NSDI
The challenges of developing a program intended to meet national, as well as local needs, in a nation as geographically large and diverse and institutionally complex as the US, are daunting. This is especially so in an environment where many organizations have assumed roles and responsibilities based on specific, individual requirements, but not necessarily goals that would serve larger public needs. For example, the US Census Bureau focuses on its primary task of counting the people every ten years, even though the digital geospatial data base that it develops as a means to conduct the census is arguably one of the most widely used spatial data sets in the world. But the Census Bureau does not have the specific need, nor the resources to adequately respond to requirements of users to improve the spatial accuracy of this data set. Therefore, far more public (and private) resources are collectively expended improving the TIGER files in every individual jurisdiction than might be expended were the Census Bureau to make these improvements themselves or to authorize another agency, such as the National Mapping Division of the US Geological Survey, to carry out the task of improving the spatial reliability to meet local needs. This sort of cooperation is what was envisioned in the conceptualization and initiation of the NSDI.
Establishing an environment where agencies are willing to not collect data because they rely on other organizations to provide the data, or conversely, to add certain features to their data sets to meet others' needs, requires extreme cooperation and trust. There were several activities initiated by the Federal Geographic Data Committee to contribute to building this level of cooperation and trust. These involved developing standards, making geospatial data more accessible, and engaging in common, non-redundant data collection efforts. Each of these activities includes different roles for different levels of government, and the academic and private sectors.
Standards
The first steps taken in the NSDI effort were focused on standards. A metadata standard that required agencies to describe the data sets they were responsible for collecting, was developed. Other on-going efforts are oriented towards developing standards for data collection. FGDC standards are mandatory for Federal agencies, but optional, though encouraged for State and local governments and the private sector.
A standard can be thought of as "the deliberate acceptance by a group of people having common interests or background of a quantifiable metric that influences their behavior and activities by permitting a common interchange" (Cargill, 1989). Standards are difficult to create, particularly in a technological arena such as GIS that is immature and rapidly changes. Standards for data can be particularly difficult because the needs for data vary significantly by application. Gaining common agreement on what information needs to be collected, in what format, timeframe, and detail to maximize the usefulness to many users, can be a contentious process.
The responsibility for developing a standard that will meet the needs of the largest number of data users lies with all members of the user, as well as data producer, community. However, in many situations with geospatial data, standards have traditionally been defined by the data producing community. The map-makers, in many cases Federal agencies, have created defacto standards simply by printing and publishing standard map sheets that were the basis for digitizing to build digital geospatial data files. As more users have become producers in their own right, standards to maximize data usefulness should become easier to create. However, the ease of this is offset by the fact that there are now more involved parties and the process to achieve consensus must be more elaborate.
The Federal Geographic Data Committee recognized that the traditional approach of a Federal agency simply assuming that a standard that might have been developed decades earlier, would be acceptable, wasn't appropriate in the age of GIS. Numerous Federal agencies were attempting to share data, and State and local government agencies were increasingly likely to be in a position of producing data themselves, and hence, an important partner in helping to create national data sets. The FGDC established a process that allows a diversity of interests to collectively work together to propose a standard, and then the draft of the standard is widely circulated among users in the nation. The expectation is that the academic and private sectors will provide knowledge about technical aspects, the users, whether they be Federal, State, or local governments or non-government entities, will provide suggestions addressing requirements ranging from specific local to national needs. The challenges continue to be engaging users in the process and reconciling suggestions for requirements in the standards.
Making Data Accessible - Clearinghouse
The FGDC also recognized that in an environment where numerous organizations have technology tools and the ability to create and modify data, and where data are relatively free, one strategy to begin minimize redundancy in data collection is spreading knowledge about what data already exist. However, it was also recognized that attempts to develop centralized data indices or inventories often fail because organizations are not willing to report data and inventories are quickly out-of-date.
The FGDC suggested an alternative approach which is based on the use of the Internet and the newly adopted metadata standard and is called the Clearinghouse. Every organization that produces data is expected (again, for Federal agencies this is a mandatory requirement) to describe their data with the metadata standard, providing enough detail that another user might determine the usefulness of the data to their needs. These metadata files are to be indexed and made accessible to the Internet. Organizations that have requirements for data are expected to search the Internet for these metadata files before expending funds to collect new data. The responsibilities for this lie with every producer and user of data. Federal agencies are mandated by the Clinton Executive Order to document, provide access to the Internet, and to search the Internet before expending Federal funds for new data collection. The usefulness of this approach is a function of the number of organizations that are willing to participate. The hope is that in any specific geographic area, various organizations will recognize their common requirements and begin to cooperate to share and produce data.
Common Approaches to Data Collection - Framework
The FGDC recognizes that the most difficult challenge in developing the NSDI is changing the behavior of agencies in the collection of data. Many Federal agencies have programs that were started decades ago when few other organizations had the ability to produce geospatial data. This situation has changed. The development of standards that help to define requirements for specific themes of data such as roads, natural resources, or ownership will help organizations to trust that when another agency collects data, their needs will be met as well. The FGDC has developed the concept of a basic framework of fundamental data that should be developed for any geographic area that will help to minimize duplication in subsequent data collection efforts and will contribute to the ability to integrate data for analysis. The basic themes that are important to this framework include digital orthoimagery, geodetic control, elevation, transportation, hydrology, administrative boundaries, and cadastral or ownership information.
The framework concept recognizes that these themes of data may be collected at different resolutions over different geographic areas depending on the issue being addressed and funds available for data investment. Data sets will likely be developed by different organizations, including state, local, and federal government agencies and the private sector. It is the responsibility of all organizations to recognize the common requirements for these themes of data and to encourage organizations to cooperate in developing the "best" data affordable over their geographic areas of interest. "Best" may be defined as highest resolution, most complete, most current, etc., but is established by common agreement among the entities in the geographic area. The framework will be developed based on common standards that allow data from different geographic areas to be aggregated into increasingly larger area, and ultimately national data sets. Specific roles of Federal government agencies are to help define these national needs, to produce data for geographic areas where no other interests are willing to invest (producer of last resort), and to support State and local government data collection efforts that can contribute to national data sets. The State and local roles are to ensure cooperation, to incorporate standards developed that will make the data useful nationally, and to ensure access to the data they produce.
CONCLUSIONS
Development of the NSDI as a networked, distributed enterprise requires new relationships and partnerships among different levels of government and between public and private sector entities. These partnerships both allow and require that organizations assume responsibilities different than those carried in the past. The FGDC has made an effort to promote new partnerships in several ways. First, it is encouraging States and others to consider the formation of state and regional councils for coordinating geospatial data activities over specific areas of geography. These councils should consist of representatives of all of the sectors, agencies, and interests that collect or deal with geospatial data in that area. This begins to develop communication among potential data partners based on geographic requirements. The FGDC established a process to formally recognize councils that agree to promote the concepts of the NSDI. The FGDC and currently organized Councils are defining methods to promote communication and working relationships. It is expected that the FGDC will work with these councils to develop standards, facilitate and coordinate data collection efforts, and promote site-specific opportunities for data sharing. The participation of State council representatives at Federal meetings is a small step in educating Federal agencies about State and local capabilities and requirements.
The FGDC has also established a Competitive Cooperative Agreements Program to encourage the use and development of standards and clearinghouse activities among non-Federal sectors. Awards up to $40,000 per project are available as seed money for creative partnerships to carry out metadata, clearinghouse, outreach, and framework activities. Additional funding for framework pilot projects is also available to help encourage cooperative data development efforts.
The NSDI activities in the US have been focused on encouraging communication among the diverse collectors and users of geospatial data. Unlike many other nations, the various levels of government in the US function relatively independently and various incentives for cooperation must be identified. Roles and responsibilities for collecting, analyzing, and making decisions based on data are changing as GIS technologies spread to more organizations. The success of the concept of the NSDI in promoting data sharing and minimizing data duplication may depend on organizations being able to carry out the following.
1) Recognize mutual goals over common geographies - which may include acknowledging common needs, a shared stake in the relationship, and/or mutual recognition of the public value of the data to be collected or maintained;
2) Make active contributions - which may include sharing costs, making competent contributions, and establishing equity in contributions (based on ability to contribute and not equal contributions);
3) Establish mutual benefits - which may include shared risks, equal distribution of public value benefits, and satisfaction for all partners;
4) Develop a process that establishes control of the partnership - which includes written agreements, flexibility to meet unique needs, establishment of mutual understanding of how the results are to be used, acknowledgment of the public value, identified common goals and required contributions of each partner, recognition of the need to identify means to maintain the data, agreement on means to promote the results, recognition of the partnership as a learning process, identified time frames and performance criteria, establishment of a means to resolve conflicts and disagreements.
The concept of "place" or "community" as a foundation for managing information is gaining recognition. The US NSDI is being built geographically, from the ground up, and ultimately should benefit the participants more than they've contributed. The willingness to think beyond traditional agency boundaries, to accept new responsibilities, to act on behalf of public interests, and to respect new partners will determine the success of the NSDI.
REFERENCES
Cargill, C. 1989. Information Technology Standardization, Digital Press.
Clinton, W.J. 1994. Executive Order 12906. Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: The National Spatial Data Infrastructure. April 11. Washington, D.C.
Gore, A. 1993, From Red Tape to Results, Creating a Government that Works Better and Costs Less. Report of the National Performance Review, Washington, D.C., September 11.
U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 1990. Circular A-16: Coordination of Surveying, Mapping, and Related Spatial Data Activities. October 19. Washington, D.C.
| Abstract Of The Paper & The Profile of The Speaker | Speaker Index | Paper Title Index |
|
|
|
| |
