Version 1, Ian Masser 1/7/98
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Context
1.2 Objectives
1.3 Countries to be Studied
2. AUSTRALIA
2.1 Context
2.2 ALIC and ANZLIC
2.3 The Australian Spatial Data Infrastructure
2.4 The Price Waterhouse Study
3.1 Context
3.2 The Federal Geographic Data Committee
3.3 The National Spatial Data Infrastructure
3.4 The Mapping Science Committee Reports
3.5 The National Academy of Public Administration report
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Malaysia
4.3 Canada
5.1 A methodology for comparative analysis
5.2 Geographic and Institutional Context
5.3 Driving Forces
5.4 Key Features
6. OPTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH
7. REFERENCES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents the findings of a preliminary study of international experiences of the development of national spatial data infrastructures. It has three main objectives:
The first of these objectives is dealt with in the introductory section. Sections 2-4 of the report summarise the written materials that are available for Australia, the United States and two reports on Malaysia and Canada. Section 5.1 sets out a methodology for comparative analysis and illustrates its application with reference to an evaluation of the main features of the written materials from the standpoint of the NGDF. This consists of three main elements: the geographical and institutional context within which spatial data infrastructure development takes place, the driving forces behind such developments, and the features of the co-ordinating mechanisms that have come into being to support them. The last section maps out the options for further research on this topic.
The findings of the study highlight some of the lessons that can be learned by the NGDF as a result of an international comparative evaluation of other countries’ experiences in developing and implementing geographic information infrastructures. On the basis of these findings the following recommendations are made to the NGDF:
The National Geospatial Data Framework (NGDF) is one of a number of spatial data infrastructure initiatives that are underway at the present time in various parts of the world. Masser(1998a) has identified ten other countries that have begun work on spatial data infrastructures. These include the Netherlands and Portugal in Europe, Canada and the United States in North America, Australia and a number of Asian Pacific Rim countries including Japan, Korea and Malaysia. Some of these initiatives have little to show as yet other than good intentions while others have already built up a considerable amount of experience in formulating and implementing national spatial data infrastructures. In some countries, particularly Australia and the United States, there is a growing body of published materials describing and evaluating this experience. For this reason, one of the top research priorities identified by Working Group 3 of the NGDF is the need for an international overview of this experience from the standpoint of the NGDF.
This report presents the findings of a preliminary study of international experiences of the development of national spatial data infrastructures. It has three main objectives:
The first of these objectives will be dealt with in the remainder of this introductory section. Sections 2-4 of the report summarise the written materials that are available for Australia, the United States and two reports on Malaysia and Canada. Section 5.1 sets out the methodology for comparative analysis and illustrates its application with reference to an evaluation of the main features of the written materials from the standpoint of the NGDF, while the last section maps out the options for further research on this topic.
As noted above a growing number of countries are engaged in the development of spatial data infrastructures at the present time. However, many of these initiatives often in their early stages and the information that is available about some of the others is very limited in nature and variable in quality. Consequently, for practical reasons, this study focuses largely on Australia and the US. Both these countries have a great deal of experience in the development and implementation of spatial data infrastructures and a considerable amount of literature on them is also readily available in the English language. Both countries were visited by myself in 1995 and 1996 as part of the data collection process for my book on Governments and Geographic Information (Masser 1998b) and, therefore, I have also been able to draw upon the findings of the interviews with key officials that I conducted with those visits in the preparation of this report.
I have used the same structure for the presentation of materials for the Australian and US sections of the report. Each section begins with a contextual description of the distribution of key responsibilities for data collection in each country. This is followed by an outline of the main co-ordinating body in each country which is then followed by a description of the main features of the NSDI itself. This in turn is followed by brief summaries of some of the key documents commenting on the infrastructure.
The preliminary study also takes account of the experience of two other countries, Canada and Malaysia, which are still in the early stages of SDI development. The main reason for including these countries is that feasibility/pilot studies were commissioned in both of them to explore the options that were open to the decision makers involved and the reports of these are available on the World Wide Web.
Finally, it should be pointed out that the main objective of this preliminary study is to map out the field. With this in mind I have concentrated on providing an overview of the key documents involved and their main features rather than attempting to deal with them comprehensively.
Land administration is the responsibility of the 6 States and 2 Territories that make up the Commonwealth of Australia. Consequently there are 8 separate systems of land titles registration and 8 separate surveying and mapping systems in being even though there are many similarities between them. An important consequence of the way in which land administration systems have developed in Australia is the high degree of centralisation that exist at the State and Territory level with respect to the handling of cadastral records. Given the parallel development of surveying and mapping it is not surprising to find that a great deal of effort has already been devoted to the computerisation of these activities and that most States have already established digital cadastral databases. The only exception is Tasmania which plans to complete this stage in 1998. At the other end of the spectrum is South Australia which already has more than 10 years experience in maintaining such a database (see Masser 1998b, chapter).
In contrast, the national surveying and mapping activities of the Australian Surveying and Land Information Group (AUSLIG) at the Commonwealth level are limited to small scale mapping at scales of 1:100,000 and above. However, an important player at the Commonwealth level is the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) which is the central statistical agency of the government. In addition to its other duties the ABS carries a population and housing census of the whole country every five years. The 1996 census broke new ground with respect to the digital map base that was created for census design, mapping and data collection purposes. For this purpose an integrated national digital database was developed by a consortium of Public Sector Mapping Agencies (PSMA).
Despite the similarities that exist between the 6 States and the 2 Territories with respect to land titles registration and surveying and mapping activities there are also some important differences between them in approach. One of the most important of these concerns the charges that are made for digital cadastral data to non governmental users. Some states such as South Australia and Western Australia set their prices low to encourage users while others such as New South Wales and Queensland try to recover some of the costs of data capture and database maintenance in their pricing strategies. As a result the average cost per parcel to non government users in the latter can be as high as 6 times that for the former (Wan and Williamson 1995,50).
Australia has a great deal in common with Britain in its approach to matters of copyright and privacy.
The Australian Land Information Council (ALIC) was set up in January 1986 by agreement between the Australian prime minister and the heads of the state governments to co-ordinate the collection and transfer of land related information between the different levels of government and to promote the use of the information in decision making. In November 1991 New Zealand became a full member of the Council which was renamed the Australia New Zealand Land Information Council (ANZLIC). ANZLIC is serviced by the Spatial Data Infrastructure Programme of AUSLIG (the Australian Surveying and Land Information Group) of the Department of Industry, Science and Tourism.
Each of the members of ANZLIC represents a co-ordinating body within their jurisdiction (i.e. the Commonwealth Spatial Data Committee, the relevant co-ordination bodies at the state and territory levels and Land Information New Zealand). These members are responsible both for expressing their jurisdiction’s views at the Council and promoting ANZLIC’s activities within their jurisdiction. The Council also maintain close links with other relevant bodies such the Intergovernmental Committee on Surveying and Mapping and professional bodies such as the Australasian Urban and Regional Information Systems Association.
The responsibilities of ANZLIC are not restricted to cadastral and mapping matters but cover all types of land information including socio-economic data, natural resource information, environmental data and utilities and infrastructure information. During its lifetime the Council has produced a number of major reports on the status of land information in Australia as well as four versions of their national strategic plan for the management of land geographic information in 1988, 1990, 1994 and 1997. ANZLIC’s mission as set out in their strategic plan for 1997 - 2000 is "to provide leadership for effective management and use of land and geographic information to support economic growth, sustainable development and the social and environmental interest of Australia and New Zealand." (ANZLIC 1997a, 2)
With this in mind four main goals are identified:
A discussion paper on a Spatial Data Infrastructure for Australia and New Zealand was produced by ANZLIC in 1997 (ANZLIC 1997b). Responses to this paper were invited through both Email and participation in the ASDI-L discussion list.
This paper sets out ANZLIC’s concept of the ASDI in the following terms:
"ANZLIC views land and geographic information as infrastructure, with the same rationale and characteristics as roads, communications and other infrastructure. As the peak co-ordinating body for the management of land and geographic information, ANZLIC believes that Australia and New Zealand should have the spatial data infrastructure needed to support their economic growth and their social and environmental interests, backed by national standards, guidelines, and policies on community access to that data." (ANZLIC 1997b, 4-5).
A model for an NSDI is put forward which consists of four main components:
From the standpoint of this report the most important of these core elements is the institutional framework which defines: "the policy and administrative arrangements for building, maintaining, accessing and applying the standards and datasets." (p. 6). This involves several key elements:
Leadership
ANZLIC defines its leadership responsibilities in the following terms:
Sponsorship
Given that most data sets consist of a number of separate jurisdiction data sets maintained by different custodians ANZLIC put forward the concept of national sponsors whose primary task is to ensure that the national data set that is built up from these data sets meets the needs of the user community. They define a national sponsor as follows:
A national sponsor of a fundamental data set is a body having a special interest in ensuring that the data set is widely available to the community as part of a national spatial data infrastructure and has a structure and resources to enable it to:
Most national sponsors are likely to be existing national co-ordinating bodies with a recognised interest in the subject matter but in some cases the custodians themselves may also act in this capacity.
Custodianship
An important element of the infrastructure model is the concept of custodianship. ANZLIC defines this in the following terms:
"The custodian of a fundamental dataset, or a component of that dataset, is an agency recognised by ANZLIC and having the responsibility to ensure that a fundamental dataset is collected and maintained according to specifications and priorities determined by consultation with the user community, and made available to the community under conditions and in a format that conforms with standards and policies established for the national spatial data infrastructure." (p. 7).
Apart from having these responsibilities custodians also have clear defined rights. These include the right to charge for data access.
Data Distribution
In essence the concept of data distribution involves establishing directories and policies to make the data accessible and affordable. ANZLIC generally supports the concepts of a national directory of land and geographic information data which draws upon the experience built up as a result of the creation of directories at the state and territory level using the National Directory of Australian Resources (NDAR) as an appropriate vehicle for a directory of commonwealth datasets.
As part of its strategic plan for 1994-97 ANZLIC commissioned Price Waterhouse to carry out a study of "the economic benefits arising from the acquisition and maintenance of the nation’s land and geographic information" (Price Waterhouse 1995, iii). This study is of some importance as it is the only attempt that has been made in the world so far to quantify the benefits of investing in a national spatial data infrastructure.
The terms of reference for the study were to:
Price Waterhouse reject traditional cost benefit analysis methods on the grounds that they present insurmountable problems with respect to data collection and verification applied to infrastructure at the national level and adopt in its place a cost effectiveness methodology.
"The basic advantages of cost effectiveness analysis over traditional cost benefit analysis lie in its less exhaustive demands for information. Although costs are calculated in the same way as in a traditional cost benefit analysis, benefits in cost effective analysis are measured in terms of "the difference between the costs of the already established or most preferred method and the cost of the next best alternative. Put simply, the approach defines benefit as the cost saving arising from managers making an appropriate choice between competing methods for achieving a given objective." (p. 22).
With this in mind Price Waterhouse surveyed more than 80 major suppliers of land and geographic information in Australia and over 35 major data users in 1994. The findings of the suppliers survey showed that nearly two-thirds of the total costs over the 1989-94 period were associated with database creation as against just over one-third which was spent on database maintenance. Over a quarter of the total costs of 1¼bn Australian dollars was spent on cadastral data with a further fifth of the total on utilities data (p. 27-8).
The findings of the user survey showed that existing services of spatial data were highly cost effective when compared with the next best alternative sources. For the largest single product type (cadastral data) the cost of the next best alternative was 3.8 times greater than that for existing sources. In the case of utilities data it was 7.1 times greater and for all other data types it was 6.15 times greater than the cost of the next best alternative. (p. 31).
On the basis of these findings Price Waterhouse estimated that: "For every dollar of expenditure on land and geographic data over the last five years, 4.70 dollars was saved as a result of investment in efficient forms of data supply." In addition to these cost advantages, over 65% of respondents claimed that there had been improvements in internal efficiency through the use of existing data sources and many of these also argued that they had experienced substantial gains in data usage as a result of the development of new areas of activity, versatility of resources and improved data storage and distribution." (pp.32-3).
In their review of future prospects Price Waterhouse argued that further infrastructure benefits could be obtained for Australia as a whole over the next ten years by pursuing the following strategies:
The benefit study was welcomed by ANZLIC as providing "a sound basis for future direction and action" while also representing a "baseline" for future comparative studies" (Price Waterhouse 1995, (iii)). It also features prominently in the ASDI discussion paper described in the previous section.
One of the most distinctive features of the United States is the large number of agencies involved in creating geographic information. As might be expected, given the federal structure of the US government, many important responsibilities for geographic information are dealt with at the state and local government level and there are wide variations between states in the way that these responsibilities are carried out. Particularly important from this standpoint are land titles registration and land taxation matters which rest with local governments in each state. As a result over 80,000 agencies are involved in some way with geographic information creation (see Masser 1998b, chapter).
At the federal level many different agencies are involved in mapping and geographic information collection activities. Although the US Geological Survey National Mapping Division is primarily involved in the creation of the small scale national digital topographic database, the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (mainly the old Defence Mapping Agency) is also heavily involved in mapping activities. It should also be borne in mind that some federal agencies manage substantial holdings of land, particularly in the western parts of the United States. Overall, about one-third of all land is owned by federal agencies and in states such as Nevada this proportion is over nine-tenths. The most important agencies in this respect are the Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management, which administers over a million square kilometres of land in federal ownership, and the US Forest Service, which manages a further three-quarters of a million square kilometres of the surface of the United States (National Research Council, 1993, 31-43).
The National Mapping Division produces a series of topographic map products ranging from the 1:24,000 to 1:2,000,000 scales. Only a limited number of these products are currently available in digital format. Recently these products have been supplemented by a series of Digital Orthophoto Quadrangles (DOQs) covering the country as a whole at the 1:12,000 scale. So far 50,000 out of the 200,000 DOQs have been archived in the National Digital Cartographic Database and a complete DOQ coverage of the USA is expected by 2004. The Bureau of the Census has pioneered large scale mapping at the federal level in connection with the planning, processing and dissemination of its decennial censuses since 1970. The creation of the TIGER (Topologically Integrated Geographic Encoding and Referencing) database was the outcome of a landmark agreement with the US Geological Survey National Mapping Division in 1983 whereby the NMD provided the Census Bureau with scan versions of the 1:100,000 scale maps for the 48 mainland states and the district of Colombia. In return the Census Bureau assigned cartographic classification codes and names for roads and other features in these computer files. The Census Bureau is continuing its partnerships with the US Postal Service and the US Geological Survey National Mapping Division to update its address and map information to support data collection, processing and dissemination activities for the 2000 Census.
In principle, all information collected by federal government agencies in the US must be made available to the public at a charge that covers only the cost of dissemination and with no restrictions on copyright under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act and related legislation. These principles are also enshrined in open records laws at the state level in many US states. However, in practice there is a growing tendency to alter the status of current open records laws to restrict public access and make it possible to sell geographic information products and services. The extent of these activities throughout the US is not known but the findings of two recent surveys by Onsrud, Johnson and Winnecki (1996) of local and county GS administrations in the country as a whole and in the state of Minnesota show that 20% of the national sample and 36% of the Minnesota respondents can be classified as clearly revenue generators. In contrast only 24% of the national sample and 28% of the Minnesota respondents could be identified as clearly open access sites operating in the spirit of the Federal Freedom of Information Act and related federal and state legislation.
In 1989 the United States Office of Management and Budget asked the Federal Inter-Agency Co-ordinating Committee on Digital Cartography to consider the need for expanding the scope for co-ordination with respect to spatial data usage. Its prime motives were to reduce the potential for waste and duplication of effort and exploit the potential offered by spatial data and related technologies for greater efficiency and effectiveness. The outcome of these discussions was the establishment of an Inter Agency Federal Geographic Data Committee to co-ordinate the "development, use, sharing, and dissemination of surveying, mapping, and related spatial data" by:
One of the most important features of the Federal Geographic Data Committee is its broad view of spatial data activities. The initial list of members included the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defence, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, State, and Transportation as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Archives and Records Administration. Since its establishment the Tennessee Value Authority and the Library of Congress have joined the FGDC and any federal department with an interest in spatial data can request membership. The Committee Secretariat of 12 staff is based in the National Mapping Division of the US Geological Survey in the Department of the Interior. The current chair of the FGDC is the Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt, who has a strong personal interest in these issues.
To carry out its tasks the Committee has created a framework consisting of 12 thematic sub-committees and 4 working groups. This assigns the responsibilities for leading co-ordination activities for different categories of data have been assigned to specific departments. For example, the Department of the Interior is the lead department for basic cartographic data and also for cadastral and geological core data while the Department of Agriculture has the responsibility for co-ordinating activities relating to soils and vegetation data and the Department of Commerce is responsible for cultural and demographic data. The working groups deal with issues common to all spatial data categories with a view to promoting consistency among the sub-committees. The co-ordination group provides the means for the committees and working groups to interact and co-ordinate their activities.
Four years after the establishment of the FGDC President Clinton signed an Executive Order entitled "Co-ordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: the National Spatial Data Infrastructure" in April 1994 (Executive Office of the President 1994). This gave the FGDC the task of co-ordinating the federal government’s development of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure. The Executive Order defines the NSDI in the following terms:
"National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) means the technology, policies, standards and human resources necessary to acquire, process, store, distribute, and improve the utilisation of geospatial data" (Section 1(a)).
The Executive Order also sets out in some detail the main task to be carried out and defines time limits for each of the initial stages of the development of the NSDI. Section 3 of the Order outlines the concept of the National Geospatial Data Clearing House which is defined as "a distributed network of geospatial producers, managers and users linked electronically". Section 4 sets out the procedures to be followed with respect to data standards while Section 5 describes the need to develop a National Digital Geospatial Data Framework.
An important feature of the Order is the emphasis that is given to the need for partnerships for data acquisition:
"The Secretary [of the Interior] under the auspices of the FGDC, and within 9 months of the date of this Order, shall develop, to the extent permitted by law, strategies for maximising co-operative participatory efforts with state, local and tribal governments, the private sector and other non-federal organisations to share costs and improve efficiencies of acquiring geospatial data consistent with this Order" (Section 6).
The 1994 strategic plan for the NSDI was updated in 1997 following an extensive review and consultation process (FGDC 1997). Its essential vision is the same as that outlined in the early strategic plan:
"Current and accurate geospatial data will be readily available to contribute locally, nationally and globally to economic growth, environmental quality and stability, and social progress." (p. 5).
The review document identifies four main goals and objectives of the NSDI strategy:
The Mapping Science Committee was originally set up in 1987 by the National Academy of Sciences at the request of USGS to provide advice on mapping and geographic issues. Since that time it has expanded its scope to include other federal agencies involved in such activities. It has published a number of reports which provide a useful independent commentary on NSDI related activities. These have played an important role in clarifying many of the concepts of the NSDI and in highlighting some of the broader issues involved in its implementation.
The first of these reports was on the future of the national mapping programme. This drew attention to the special circumstances which surround the National Mapping Division of the USGS and its limitations as a national mapping agency:
"NMD is currently the smallest of the three principal divisions of USGS, the other two being the Water Resources Division and the Geologic Division, and for many decades the mapping carried out was perceived essentially as a support service for determining the geologic and hydrologic nature of the country. " (NRC 1990, 8).
A subsequent report entitled "Towards a Co-ordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation" pre-dates the Executive Order setting up the NSDI itself. This report defines the NSDI in the following terms:
"The National Spatial Data Infrastructure is the means to assemble geographic information that describes the arrangement and attributes of features and phenomena on the Earth. The infrastructure includes the materials, technology, and people necessary to acquire, process, store and distribute such information to meet a wide variety of needs." (NRC, 1993, 16).
This report also anticipates much of the argument that underlies the subsequent NAPA report (see section 3.5) on the meaning of the word "national" in the NSDI:
"It should also be made clear that the word national, is used in NSDI, does not refer exclusively either to the federal government or to data coverage for the whole country. The NRC uses the term as applicable to the needs of the nation as a whole, in the interests of the public and private sector organisations, and individuals nation-wide who provide the financial resources to support it." (NRC 1993, 17).
The report also points out that there is already an NSDI in existence and highlights the differences between this infrastructure and its vision of a future NSDI:
"There is a National Spatial Data Infrastructure in existence. It is an ad hoc affair because, until very recently, no-one has conceived of it or defined as a coherent entity, an indeed it has not been very coherent or co-ordinated. It is not the task of the NRC (or of anyone else for that matter) to create a National Spatial Data Infrastructure. We want merely to point out its existence, identify its components and characteristics, assess the efficiency and effectiveness with which it functions to meet national leads (particularly at the federal level), and make recommendations that might make it more useful, more economical, more effective, better co-ordinated, and robust." (NRC, 1993, 17).
Two further reports of the Mapping Sciences Committee address partnership issues in the NSDI and the creation of the core framework dataset. More recently it organised a major workshop on the attitudes of spatial data and society to examine the impact of societal and technological changes over the next fifteen years. This explored a number of long term visions in the context of spatial data activities including four scenarios developed by Wegener and Masser (1996): the trend scenario; market scenario, big brother scenario and the beyond GIS scenario. The discussions that took place at this workshop confirmed and amplified the views of the NSDI put forward in earlier reports of the MSC:
"The NSDI should not be limited to datasets or to the technology for assembling, disseminating, and processing them but should be defined as the entire means to assemble geographic information, including the materials, technology, and people necessary. The workshop provided strong endorsement for that view, amply justifying the decision to adopt a broad definition that could accommodate technological change, focusing instead on the purposes that technology serves. In the future it will be more important than ever that the NSDI continues to be responsive to societal needs, politically relevant, and economically viable." (NRC, 1997, 39).
The 358 page report of a panel created by the National Academy of Public Administration on "Geographic Information for the 21st Century: Building a Strategy for the Nation" published in January 1998 (NAPA 1998) is probably the most important single document to appear on this subject since the publication of the Chorley report in 1987. The origins of this report lie in the recommendation of the House Appropriations Committee for the 1996 fiscal year that the USGS should work within the Department of the Interior to identify options for consolidating federal mapping functions in the Department and also work with the Office of Management and Budget on consolidating these functions throughout government as a whole. As a result the Bureau of Land Management, the USGS, the Forest Service and the National Ocean Service asked the National Academy of Public Administration to undertake a study of civilian, federal surveying and mapping activities. For this purpose a project panel was set up in October 1996 consisting of 12 Academy fellows and geographic information experts nominated by one or more of the sponsoring agencies. A team of 11 project staff supported this panel.
The panel was asked to address four sets of questions:
The report itself is divided into seven chapters. After an initial introductory chapter, Chapter 2 sets outs the Academy’s vision for the NSDI. Chapter 3 discusses the central role of geographic information in government services and the need to guarantee access to this information for public purposes. The next two chapters evaluate current leadership and co-ordination initiatives in the federal GI community while Chapter 6 considers the potential roles of the public and private sectors. The last chapter considers a number of ancillary issues influencing GI activities and national policies.
Given that it is not possible to summarise all the issues discussed in the NAPA report in a study of this kind, the discussion that follows focuses on the NSDI ideal as set out in the report and its two main recommendations.
The authors of the report argue that the scope and dimensions of an NSDI have become much clearer in recent years in the United States. As a result, "the NSDI policies, standards and activities emerging under FGDC guidance offer the prospect of providing far more comprehensive, integrated, and available data than what exists today" (p. 29). The ideal characteristics of an NSDI are defined as follows:
It is further argued that over the last few years a great deal of progress has been made on the NSDI but, "to move more rapidly beyond the first promising steps in furthering an NSDI, the panel believes improvements in the policy base, government structure, co-ordination mechanisms, and a re-balancing of responsibilities among governmental layers and with the private sector would be highly beneficial." (p. 31).
Given the direction underlying this analysis it is not surprising to find that the main recommendation of the NAPA panel is that a new public/private organisation, a National Spatial Data Council, should be set up to complement the FGDC in providing national leadership and co-ordination for the NSDI.
"While the FGDC has been instrumental in much of the progress achieved over the past few years, the panel is convinced that an organisation is needed which provides full participation by all the major parties and interests engaged in developing and maintaining the NSDI. Without such participation, the NSDI is likely to be seen as a federal programme run from Washington of limited value to state and local governments. Without stronger private sector participation, there will likely be less co-operation and continued efforts in Congress to limit or abolish federal capabilities needed to realise the full NSDI. In addition, some of the functions now being performed by government would benefit by the conduct of them in a more businesslike manner." (pp. 74-75).
With this in mind the panel makes the following recommendations for a long term solution:
The other main recommendation of the NAPA report reflects the fragmentation of surveying and mapping responsibilities at the federal level in the US. It proposes the establishment of a new Geographic Data Service which brings together most of the main agencies that are responsible for GI in federal government. These include the cadastral and land survey functions currently carried out by the Bureau of Land Management, the National Mapping Division of the USGS, the surveying activities of the Forest Service and the National Geodetic Survey of the National Ocean Service.
The experiences of Malaysia and Canada are also of interest to the NGDF because feasibility studies were carried out in these countries prior to starting work on their geographic information infrastructure initiatives. The next two sections summarise the main findings of these feasibility studies.
Although the need for an effective land information system to assist planning and development in Malaysia had been felt since the early 1970’s the first steps towards setting up a national infrastructure were not taken until November 1994 when the Ministry of Land and Co-operative Development commissioned Renong Berhad to carry out a National Land Information System (NALIS) feasibility study. The terms of reference for this study were as follows:
- To study all relevant issues relevant to the setting up of an NALIS. This should include the organisation, analysis, design and function specification of the System as well as implementation of the System.
- To propose recommendations for the development of NALIS to be used by land related agencies in order to effectively support land use and land related management functions." (Renong Berhad 1995,1)
The final report of this study was presented to the Ministry of Land and Co-operative Development in December 1995. It consisted of nine volumes. The last volume contains the recommendations and conclusions.
The report sets out a vision for NALIS in the following terms:
"The vision for NALIS is to establish a system which will make it possible to access the entire range of information required for the planning and maintenance of expensive infrastructure systems and support the sustainable development of natural resources such as oil, gas, forest, water and soil" (paragraph 1.5).
The consultants carried out an exhaustive systems study and a user requirements analysis to ascertain the state of readiness of potential NALIS participants. Their recommendations fall into three main categories: data availability, the creation of an organisational framework, and implementation strategy. With respect to data availability they highlight the need for an accelerated digital mapping programme in the Department of Surveying and Mapping Malaysia and the importance of declassifying topographic maps where there are no overriding security reasons. They also point to the need to promote the use of a single map projection and location referencing system for both cadastral and topographic mapping. With respect to the organisational framework they put forward a top-down structure consisting of national council, a regulatory authority and a clearing house. However, they give top priority to the establishment of a clearing house " as a facilitator for the exchange and sharing of land information".
The proposed implementation strategy involves a pilot project undertaken by the private sector together with government followed by a phased implementation in the different states of the Federation. They also recommend that some measure of privatisation will be required to secure the successful implementation of this strategy.
"In the long term, the implementation of NALIS should be privatised in order to transfer the burden of funding from the government to the private sector and accelerate implementation." (Paragraph 3.28).
In 1995 the Canadian Council of Geomatics (CCOG) which represents the provincial geomatic agencies retained Geoplan Consultants Inc. to prepare a draft proposal for an Integrated Spatial Data Model and Implementation Concept for the nation as a whole. Geoplan Consultants carried out an extensive survey of user requirements and submitted their report in the following year (Geoplan consultants 1996). This sets out a vision of a Canadian Geographic Information Infrastructure that they believe reflects CCOG members’ collective aspirations. The mission of the CGII is to:
"(1) Provide easy, consistent and effective access to geographic information maintained by public agencies throughout Canada;
(2) Promote the use of geographic information in support of political, economic, social and personal development by all Canadians." (p. 33).
To support this the following goals are identified:
"(1) To improve the integration of major common geographic databases created and maintained by Canadian public sector agencies at the municipal, provincial and federal levels through the development of common standards for data content, data access and data exchange.
(2) To make available to the Canadian public high quality, consistent geographic data at minimal cost to support the development of common applications.
(3) To encourage data sharing such that CGII data is collected only once, as close to the source as possible." (p. 33).
The consultants evaluate two different implementation models for the CGII: the NSDI model which includes significant federal and state funding, a philosophy which essentially places NSDI data in the public domain, and a permanent federally funded secretariat to co-ordinate the implementation of the programme, and "a co-operative development model which builds upon Canadian strengths and recognises the current restrictions under which the Canadian public sector geomatics agencies must operate" (p. 43).
As a result of this evaluation they decided in favour of a uniquely Canadian model of the CGII on the grounds that, because of various provincial mandates and institutions, Canada is in some respects both ahead and behind the US regarding the completion of framework databases and also, because of various operating restraints, Canadian agencies are often required to attach a cost to their data. It recommends that:
"CCOG members deal from their strengths. Specifically, they should pool their resources in order to authorise the rapid development or adoption, implementation and endorsement of a series of consistent policies, agreements, and standards based-tools and interfaces which can accelerate the development of a national infrastructure" (p. 47).
To achieve this objective they propose:
"The establishment of a CGII Co-operative in which shares can be purchased and exchanged for contributions of the resources mentioned above. In concrete terms, this Co-operative would consist of a collection of Web based resources created and used by CCOG members and accessible to the entire geomatics community - suppliers and users alike" (p. 48).
It is argued that the CGI initiative should be organised "as a co-operative" with a "roving secretariat". Each member organisation would assume responsibility for the CGII secretariat on a rotational basis." (pp. 48-9).
The previous sections of this report highlight the amount of written material that is already available on matters of relevance to the NGDF. With this in mind this section considers what lessons might be drawn from this material for the NGDF and sets out the main elements of a methodology for further comparative analysis. These include:
With these considerations in mind the remainder of this section illustrates the application of this methodology to highlight some of the lessons that can be learnt for the NGDF from a comparative analysis of international experience. It is divided into three sections. The first of these considers the geographical and institutional context in Australia and the US while the second examines the driving forces behind spatial data infrastructure development in these countries. The last section evaluates them with respect to status, scope, access, resources as well as several other matters of interest to the NGDF.
Australia and the United States differ from the UK in a number of important ways with respect to the geographical and institutional context within which spatial data infrastructures have emerged. Australia and the US have federal systems of government in which many of the powers that are dealt with centrally in the UK are devolved to the state level. This is particularly important with respect to surveying, mapping and land information responsibilities which are primarily carried out at the state level in Australia and in many cases devolved to the local government level in the US. In the case of Australia, in practice, this means that most of the states have developed their own spatial data infrastructures and the task of ANZLIC has been primarily that of a co-ordinating body for these state level initiatives. For this reason it can be argued that some of the most useful lessons for the NGDF might be drawn in this case from the state level rather than common law or agencies.
The situation in the US is much more complex given that a number of federal organisations such as the Bureau of Land Management have land information management responsibilities which cut across state boundaries. Furthermore, there are much greater variations between the states in practice than in Australia. This is particularly the case with respect to the differences between the east coast states that were settled prior to 1800 and those of the mid west and the west coast that have been settled in the last 150 years. Nevertheless it can also be argued that some useful lessons can be learnt from the experiences of states such as North Carolina or Wisconsin which have taken the lead in state infrastructure development as well as the federal level as represented in the National Spatial Data Infrastructure.
The case for considering state level initiatives in both Australia and the US is strengthened when the areas of these countries are taken into account. In terms of land area the UK corresponds more to the size of one of the American states than to that of the US as a whole and it is much smaller than the large Australian states. However, this is not the case with respect to population. The UK’s population is more than three times that of Australia as a whole and considerably more than most of the US states.
Both the Australian and the US initiatives emphasise the need for spatial data infrastructures to promote economic growth and environmental sustainability. This contrasts with the mission statement of the NGDF which seeks "to provide a framework to unlock geospatial information for the benefit of the citizen, business growth and good government through enabling viable, comprehensive, demand-led and easily access services." (NGDF 1998, 4). However, it can be argued that these differences reflect differences in level rather than fundamental differences between the British and the Australian or US initiatives. In the case of the former the emphasis is primarily on the operational level that seeks to increase access to information whereas both the Australian and US mission statements are couched in terms of the broader societal goals involved.
Status
Spatial data infrastructures can be divided into two broad categories with respect to status: those that are the result of a formal mandate from government and those that have largely grown out of existing co-ordination activities. The United States falls into the first category as the National Spatial Data Infrastructure was the subject to an Executive Order by the President in April 1994. Australia falls into the second category in that current discussions regarding spatial data infrastructure are essentially an expansion of earlier discussions regarding national land information strategies. However, it should also be noted that the US Federal Geographic Data Committee is itself an outgrowth of the previous Federal Inter-Agency Committee on Digital Cartography.
It can be argued that there are clear advantages in a formal mandate for a National Spatial Date Infrastructure provided that this is accompanied by the necessary resources for its implementation. Lack of detailed resources is obviously the weak point where initiatives are essentially outgrowths of existing co-ordination activities. However this model also has considerable advantages in that it builds upon existing collaborative structures.
The NGDF falls into neither of these categories in that it has no direct mandate from government nor is it in any real sense a direct product of any existing governmental co-ordination activities. As a result its formal status vis a vis government is unclear.
Scope
Scope can also be looked at from two different standpoints: the range of substantive geographic information interests that is represented in the different co-ordinating bodies and the extent to which the main stakeholders are involved in the process. With respect to the former the membership of the US Federal Geographic Data Committee covers a very wide range of substantive interests. This is also the case with respect to the activities of ANZLIC although this body is concerned primarily with the co-ordination of the collection and transfer of land related information between different levels of government.
The case for a comprehensive approach is a very strong one given the importance attached by users to integrating data from a wide variety of sources. On the other hand it must be recognised that some players are more central than others and that comprehensive coverage does not necessarily equal similar levels of commitment. As Tosta (1997a) has pointed out, even though President Clinton signed the Executive Order for the NSDI and the Secretary of the Interior chairs the FDGC, no other Secretaries sit on this committee and many agencies are not represented at the "highest" level.
It should be noted, however, that both these agencies consist mainly of public sector bodies and that the interests of the private sector and the community as a whole are not represented. In the case of the FGDC all of these public sector agencies are also federal agencies. For this reason it is interesting to observe the criticisms of the US NSDI contained in NAPA report and their proposals for a National Spatial Data Council "which provides full participation by all the major parties and interests engaged in developing and maintaining the NSDI". This model has much in common with the interests represented in the NGDF Board and Advisory Council.
Access to Public Information
Given that its mission is to unlock information, access is one of the most important features of the NGDF. In practice it involves a number of complex political, legal and economic issues that go beyond the scope of a report of this kind. The evidence that is available from the written materials relating to both Australia and the US is only of limited value from the standpoint of the NGDF. The findings of the analysis show that the prime mover in Australia is the states that have developed their own pricing and access strategies. There are considerable variations between them from relatively cheap data in some states to full cost recovery in others. The position in the United States is also far more complex than appears at first sight from federal level agency statements that they are required to make all the information they collect available to the public free from copyright restrictions and advice which covers no more than the marginal costs of dissemination. There is a growing body of evidence that shows that these principles are not necessarily adhered by many state and local governments. Given these circumstances it can be argued that there is a strong case for commissioning a separate study of matters relating to access to public information in the countries such as Australia and United States (see section 6 below).
Resources
Relatively little comparable information is available from the written materials regarding the resources required to develop and implement spatial data infrastructures. The only thing that is clear is that the task of co-ordination is relatively inexpensive in relation to the overall expenditure on geographic information whereas the task of core digital database development is relatively expensive. With respect to the former it is worth noting that the US Office of Management and Budget has estimated that federal agencies alone spend $4bn annually to collect and manage domestic geospatial data (FGDC 1994, 2). This sum is of a very different order to the $25m that has been spent by the USGS to date to support the FGDC and its work (Tosta 1997b, 4).
Other Issues
Two other issues arising out of the above discussion are worth further attention from the standpoint of the NGDF. These concern the matter of feasibility/pilot studies and benefits studies respectively. In only one country, Malaysia, has a government formally commissioned a national feasibility study of a spatial data infrastructure, although the provincial agencies’ organisation commissioned a similar study in Canada. These studies are of considerable interest in that they both look in some depth at what is required and consider various options open for implementation, including in the case of Malaysia, finance. The fact that all of the proposals made in these studies have not necessarily been incorporated in the SDIs that are now being implemented is less important from the standpoint of the NGDF than the fact that they were considered and, in some cases explicitly rejected, prior to the decision to proceed with the respective SDIs. The case of Malaysia is particularly interesting in this respect because the feasibility study has been followed by a pilot study in the Kuala Lumpur area which is being fully funded by Malaysian government to explore the operational issues in SDI implementation prior to the development of a full scale programme for the country as a whole.
In the case of the UK it can be argued that, although the experience of NLIS and ScotLIS has built up useful operational experience for the NGDF, the overall vision set out in the original Nanson, Smith and Davey (1996) paper is inevitably superficial by comparison with the Malaysian and Canadian studies.
Secondly, the point also needs to be made that there is surprisingly little information about the economic benefits associated with the implementation of a spatial data infrastructure. For this reason the Price Waterhouse study is of particular interest from the standpoint of the NGDF.
This preliminary study has identified the countries that need to be studied from the standpoint of the NGDF and it has also developed a methodology that can be used in a full scale international comparative review of spatial data infrastructures. With these considerations in mind this section maps out some of the options for further research in this area.
The first option that should be considered is that of more detailed studies of Australian and US experience. This is preferred over the option of expanding the range of countries under consideration for three main reasons. First, as this study shows, Australia and the US have built up a considerable amount of operational NSDI experience over the last ten years. Consequently, it is possible to discuss not only the formulation of strategy but also its evolution during the implementation process. Second, their experiences are reasonably well documented and quite a lot of material is readily accessible via the Web. Finally, as noted above, as great deal of experience has been built up at the state level as well as the federal level in these countries which could usefully be explored from the standpoint of the NGDF.
The second option is to extend the research to include that of other countries. This has the obvious advantage of increasing the diversity of experience but also presents problems where the native languages are not English. The prime candidates for inclusion are the Netherlands and Portugal. These are both European countries with non federal systems of government where the responsibilities for geographic information are distributed in a similar way to the United Kingdom. Both have well established national initiatives managed by the Dutch National Council of Geographic Information (RAVI) (see Masser 1998b, chap 4) and the Portuguese National Centre for Geographic Information (CNIG) (see Gouveia et al 1997). In both cases most of the staff of the co-ordinating body are fluent in English but unfortunately most of the operational documentation is in Dutch or Portuguese.
There are also several other countries which are potential candidates for inclusion. The most interesting of these are Canada, Japan and Korea. Work on the Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure began at the same time as that on the NGDF and is potentially very interesting, particularly because of the emphasis that is being placed on the development of a supportive policy environment for users (see Corey 1998). Japan and Korea are both implementing very ambitious programmes but there is not much information available on the progress of these initiatives in the English language. However, one initiative that would repay further investigation by a Japanese speaking researcher is the work of the NSDI Promotion Association which has been set up by the private sector to support the Japanese NSDI. Its membership includes over 80 companies representing a wide range of commercial interests.
The third option that needs to be considered is the possibility of organising joint workshops on these topics with those involved in other countries to discuss and compare experiences. The workshop format has considerable advantages in that it enables a multi-lateral exchange of views between participants. There has already been some discussion with US colleagues about the possibility of an NGDF/NSDI workshop and this project should be strongly encouraged. Other candidates for joint workshops are ANZLIC, the Dutch National Council for Geographic Information (RAVI), and the Portuguese National Centre for Geographic Information (CNIG).
The final option lies somewhat outside the scope of this study as it concerns the broader question of access to public information. While there is a strong case for commissioning a separate study of matters relating to access in countries such as Australia and the US, there is also an equally strong argument for a more broadly based project which also looks at the other members of the European Union and takes account of the Commission’s forthcoming Green Paper on this topic.
In summary, then, the main findings of this preliminary study can be summarised in the following recommendations:
ANZLIC, 1997a. ANZLIC Strategic Plan 1997-2000.
ANZLIC, 1997b. Spatial data infrastructure for Australia and New Zealand, http://www.anzlic.org.au/anzdiscu.htm.
Corey, M. 1998. The Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure, paper presented to ISO/TC 211 Conference, Victoria BC, 4 March 1998.
Executive Office of the President, 1994. Co-ordinating geographic data acquisition and access, the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, Executive Order 12906, Federal Register 59, 17671-17674.
FGDC, 1994. The 1994 plan for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure: building the foundations of an information based society, Reston, VA: Federal Geographic Data Committee, USGS.
FGDC, 1997. A Strategy for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, Reston VA: Federal Geographic Data Committee, http://fdgc.er.usgs.gov/NSDI/strategy.html
Geoplan Consultants, 1996. The development of an integrated Canadian spatial data model and implementation concept, Final Report prepared for the Canadian Council on Geomatics, http://cgdi.gc.ca/iacg/report/geoplan.htm.
Gouveia, C. Abreu, J. Neves, N. and Henriques, R. 1997. The Portuguese national infrastructure for geographic information: general description and challenges for the future, paper presented at the GISDATA Conference on Geographic Information Research at the Millennium, Le Bischenberg, France, September 13-17 1997.
Masser, I. 1998a. The first generation of national geographic information strategies, paper presented at SDI’98, Ottawa, June 9- 11 1998.
Masser, I. 1998b. Governments and geographic information, London: Taylor and Francis.
Nanson, B. Smith, N. and Davey, A. 1996. A British National Geospatial Database: Part I – What it is and why we need it, and Part II – How it might be achieved, Mapping Awareness, 10 (3), 18-20 and 10 (4), 38-40.
NAPA, 1998. Geographic information in the 21st century: building a strategy for the nation, Washington: National Academy of Public Administration.
National Research Council, 1990. Spatial data needs: The Future of the National Mapping Program, Mapping Sciences Committee, Washington DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council, 1993. Toward a Co-ordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation, Mapping Sciences Committee, Washington DC: National Academy Press.
National Research Council, 1997. The future of spatial data and society: summary of a workshop, Mapping Sciences Committee, Washington DC: National Academy Press.
Office of Management and Budget, 1990. Co-ordination of surveying, mapping and related spatial data activities, Circular A-16 revised, Office of Management and Budget, Washington DC: Executive Office of the President.
Onsrud, H.J. Johnson, J.P. and Winnecki, J. 1996. GIS dissemination policy: two surveys and a suggested approach, URISA Journal, 8 (2), 8-23.
Price Waterhouse, 1995. Australian land and geographic infrastructure benefits study, Canberra: Australia Government Publishing Service.
Renong Berhad, 1995. Feasibility study for the National Land Information System: Final Report, http://www.nalis.gov.my/nalis5.htm.
Tosta, N. 1997a. Data revelations in Qatar: why the same standards won’t work in the United States, GeoInfo Systems 7, 5.
Tosta, N. 1997b. The US National Spatial Data Infrastructure experience, paper presented at the GISDATA Conference on Geographic Information Research at the Millennium, Le Bischenberg, France, September 13-17 1997.
Wan, W.Y. and Williamson, I. 1995. A review of the digital cadastral databases in Australia and New Zealand, Australian Surveyor, 40, 41-52.
Wegener, M. and Masser, I. 1996. Brave new GIS worlds, in Masser, I. Campbell, H.J. and Craglia, M. (Eds) GIS Diffusion: The Adoption and Use of Geographic Information Systems in Local Government in Europe, pp. 9-21, London: Taylor and Francis.