Spatial Data Infrastructure

Introduction and Practice

Dr. Francis Harvey

 SDI or NSDI
• National Spatial Data Infrastructure
(NSDI) in US is where concept
originates
• It has since evolved (mainly in Europe)
• Elements remain the same
• Principles have changed
• Still very complex
 NSDI in America
The Political Culture

▪ From DC Beltway to “Main Street”

▪ Jeffersonian Democracy
▪ Federalism
▪ Enfranchised, pluralistic, participative
populace
▪ Participative Democracy
 Dimensions of American Government

▪ In mid-1990s non-defense Federal agencies

employed about 2.1 million people and spent about
$1.6 trillion
▪ State and local governments employed 19.5 million
people and spent about $1.3 trillion (1994)
▪ There are about 39,000 general purpose units of
local government
▸3000 counties
▸19,000 cities
▸16,000 towns
▸14,000 school districts
▸31,000 special districts
Minneapolis, St. Paul Metropolitan Area

General
7 700 km2
around 1 million residents
about 900 000 parcels

293 independent local

units of government
7 counties
188 Other governm. units
59 school districts
39 water boards
From Randy Johnson, MetroGIS
 NSDI originates in U.S. Federal
Government
▪ Executive Order 12906 (1994) calls for sharing
▸Avoid duplicate efforts
▸More efficient use of resources
▪ This only involves Federal Agencies
▸Coordinated through Federal Geographic Data
Committee
▪ Framework should provide foundation
▸No master blueprint
 NSDI to serve many needs
At all levels of government

▪ Transportation, Navigation & Commerce

▪ Public Land & Marine Sanctuary Management
▪ Agriculture & Natural Resource Development
▪ Environmental Protection and Ecosystem Management
▪ Community and Economic Development
▪ Emergency Management
▪ Public Service Delivery
▪ National Defense
▪ Earth System Science & Geographic Information Technologies
▪ Public Information
▪ Property & Voting Rights
▪ Revenues Source: National Academy of Public
Administration, 1997
 What is the NSDI?

▪ Infrastructure for Institutions

▸Big vision:
– From local citizen to Federal Secretaries
▸Builds on locally distinct institutions and
infrastructures
– Mainstreet
▸Not a template, but a framework to guide
development
▸Not a uniform code, only guidelines and standards
 NSDI Components

▪ Framework
▪ Framework Cone
▪ Involvement and data sharing
▪ Metadata
▪ Clearinghouses
Three Key NSDI Components

Vertical and Horizontal

Application Users
Integration
Added Application-Specific
Data

Transportation Traffic Framework Development

Population
Planning Loads Planning
Data

Soils

Land Suitability Analysis

Free Data Sharing

NSDI starts with Framework Data
Federal Government Project/Proposal
Framework Cone
 Involvement and Data Sharing
Federal, Regional, State, Tribal, Local, Private Companies,
Utilities
Application Users

Added Application-Specific
Data

Transportation Development
Traffic Framework
Planning
Population Planning
Loads Data

Soils

Land Suitability Analysis

NSDI Iceberg

Application Users

Added Application-Specific Data

Transportation Traffic Development

Planning Loads Framework Population Planning

Data

Concepts Soils

Land Suitability Analysis

Practices

?
 Recognized Issues

▪ Data Sharing (level 1 interoperability)

▸How is data exchanged?
▪ Defining geographic objects (semantics)
▸What is a road?
▪ Sharing costs (financial)
▸Who pays?
▪ Involving local governments (participation)
▸More bureaucracy?
▪ Vertical Integration (control, use, and distribution)
▸Data and Organizations
 The two sides of data sharing are the
two sides of integration
Simplistic: Technical and Institutional Issues

▪ Technical issues
▸Multiple scales
▸Data exchange
▪ Institutional Issues
▸Cost-sharing
▸Maintenance
▸Metadata
Cone of Vertical Integration
 Vertical Integration
Technical Issues can be resolved

▪ Products and levels

▸Multiple producers, multiple users, multiple
products
▸State, Federal, Local
▪ NSDI operates like a federation
▸Distributed production
▸Diffused use
▸Multiple production and use arrangements
 Institutional Issues for Integration

▪ Relevance
▸Scale related
▪ Partnerships to provide resources
▸Joint funding
▸Cost sharing
▸Work sharing
 Underlying Organizational Issues
Difficult to assess

▪ “Pride of Authorship”
▪ Adequacy for use
▪ Duplication of effort
▪ Reprocessing costs
▪ Not easily automated
▪ Political and public pressures
▪ Disparate data
▪ Lack of time
▪ Legal issues
 Evolution of the NSDI
Development of Capabilities and Political Turf

▪ FGDC
▸Coordinating (federal) actvities
▸19 member interagency committee
▪ Geospatial One-Stop
▸Access way to geospatial information
▪ The National Map
▸Partnerships to provide integrated geographic data
(synthesis)
 FDGC
www.fgdc.gov

▪ In existence since 1990

▸Big push came after 1994 Executive Order to
develop the NSDI
▪ Develops and promotes standards
▸Notably for metadata
– The CSDGM, Content Standard for Digitial Geographic
Metadata
▪ Promotes inter-governmental activities
▪ Responsible for clearinghouses
 GeoSpatial OneStop
Geodata.gov

▪ What is it?
▸Federal agencies (24) continuing NSDI activities
▸Part of Bush’s e-government agenda
– Strong private sector involvement
▸Focus: Spatially enable the delivery of government
services
▪ Technology is a portal
▸A gateway to gateways and data
 National Map
http://nationalmap.usgs.gov/

▪ What is it?
▸“a seamless, continuously maintained set of public
domain geographic base information that will serve
as a foundation for integrating, sharing, and using
other data easily and consistently”
▪ Linked to the National Atlas
▸National Map has data
▸National Atlas has maps
 Is this all just a mess?

▪ No, simply what happens when politics and

bureaucracy intersect with technologies
 Materials
A Brief Selection

▪ The best starting web site is www.fgdc.gov

▸From this site you will be able to find links to all
sorts of information on the NSDI
▸Global SDI information is at www.gsdi.org
▪ For technical issues start out with
www.opengis.org
▪ For operational examples go to nsdi.usgs.gov
or search for ‘NSDI’
NSDI Practices
 In the beginning...
Aligning scientific communities with policy communities

▪ Re-inventing government
▸Gore-lead initiative: National Performance Review
– Management for results
– Inter-government activities
– Performance-based organizations
▸Activities (relevant)
– G-Gov
– NSDI
– Reinventing government
▪ Continued under Bush e-government
 Government Needs for the 21st
Century
▪ Interoperable systems that are trusted and secure
▪ Methods and measures of citizen participation in democratic
processes
▪ Models of electronic public service transactions and delivery
systems
▪ New models for public-private partnerships and other
networked organizational forms
▪ Intuitive decision support tools for public officials
▪ Archiving and electronic records management
▪ Better methods of IT management
▪ Matching research resources to government needs
 NSDI ... a verb?

▪ Nancy Tosta’s commentary

▸A key figure in 1990s NSDI work
▸Politics and bureaucracy
▪ Troubles
▸“diverse interpretations”
▸“broad management options”
▪ Failures
▸No nationally consistent data sets
▸Slow development of standards
 Research

▪ Interactions among levels of government and

public and private sectors
▪ Policy guidelines, organizational forms, and
technology tools constantly interact
 Institutional Issues for Integration

▪ Relevance
▸Scale related
▪ Partnerships to provide resources
▸Joint funding
▸Cost sharing
▸Work sharing
 Critical Organizational Issues
Difficult to assess

▪ “Pride of Authorship”
▪ Adequacy for use
▪ Duplication of effort
▪ Reprocessing costs
▪ Not easily automated
▪ Political and public pressures
▪ Disparate data
▪ Lack of time
▪ Legal issues
 Decentralizing Infrastructure
Neo-liberalizationof governance

▪ Does Decentralization = Devolution?

▪ Different strategies
▸Shift dissatisfaction
▸Shift economic and political powers to increase
local revenue
▸Shift of expenditures w/o revenues
 Economic Explanation

▪ Shift expenditures decisions to the level of

government that best incorporates a community
of common interests
▪ Central government concessions to maintain
political stability
▸Very fluid structure of governance
– Network
 No easy Job
Changing the relationship between central and local
governments

▪ Problems of public service delivery

▸Local service provision cannot be changed in
isolation
▸Different degrees of political, economic, and
decision making powers
 Three Elements of Success

▪ Clear distinction of functional responsibilities

▪ Financial rules governing local governments
reward good performance
▪ System of accountability that balances central
regulation and local political participation
 Assumptions

▪ Difficulties of defining the beneficiaries of a

particular service (benefit-jurisdiction model)
▪ Many services have local and wider benefits
▪ Administrative costs associated with service
provision are not factored in
▪ Data sharing occurs to share data
 Successful Decentralization
Finances and Politics

▪ Democratic local decision process with

transparent costs and benefits and all
stakeholders have an equal opportunity to
influence the decision
▪ Costs of local decisions are borne by those
who make decisions
▪ Benefits stay in the jurisdiction
 Policy Guidelines
Does NSDI fulfill these?

▪ Who benefits, pays?

▪ Transparent lines of accountability
▪ Provide enforcement mechanism

Technology and Organizations are inseperable

 NSDI Awareness
What is the NSDI????

▪ For “small” local

Do you know what the National Spatial
governments the NSDI Data Infrastructure is? (Y/N)

has no relevance
Unsure (6.90%)
▪ They don’t know what Yes (43.10%)

it is No (50.00%)

▪ They can’t imagine

what it is

Results from 2001 Kentucky Survey

 Informal data sharing dominates
Results for local governments from 1996 Framework Survey

Share D ata

H ave Policy

0 20 40 60 80 100
in percen t

K en tucky (n=15) K an sas (n=20) N orth C aro lina (n=70) Wash in gto n (n=31)
 Data Distribution
Are there conditions [e.g., "no use", "no distribution"]
stipulated upon the sharing, use, or redistribution of data?
▪ Regional differences
▸Established regional agencies
▸With colleges and tribal authorities
▪ Specific Issues
▸“liability disclaimer required” Yes No N/A etc

▸“data only used for requested purpose &

not shared w/ others w/o permission”
▸"the only data we want to "protect" is the
cadastral layer”
Results from Best Practices Research
 Limits to the Effectiveness of
Standards
Do you rely on any standards in your geographic information
activities?
▪ What does “yes” mean?
▸“when I'm aware of standards that I can meet”
▸“standards??? Order of priorities-real time
needs first”
▸“ArcView shapefiles, UTM or County
coordinates for basemap purposes”
▸“occasionally we will use the National Spatial
Accuracy Standards (when create metadata)”
Yes No NA n/a etc

Terminological Problem: standard can mean little more than using

what is available when there is only one choice
Results from Best Practices Research
Resources
Questions?