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
188
59
39
counties
Other governm. units
school districts
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
Integration
Application Users
Added Application-Specific
Data
Transportation
Planning
Traffic
Loads
Framework
Data
Population
Soils
Land Suitability Analysis
Free Data Sharing
Development
Planning
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
Planning
Traffic
Loads
Framework
Data
Population
Soils
Land Suitability Analysis
Development
Planning
NSDI Iceberg
Application Users
Added Application-Specific Data
Transportation
Planning
Concepts
Practices
Traffic
Loads
Framework
Data
Soils
Land Suitability Analysis
?
Population
Development
Planning
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
governments the NSDI
has no relevance
▪ They don’t know what
it is
▪ They can’t imagine
what it is
Do you know what the National Spatial
Data Infrastructure is? (Y/N)
Unsure (6.90%)
Yes (43.10%)
No (50.00%)
Results from 2001 Kentucky Survey
Informal data sharing dominates
Results for local governments from 1996 Framework Survey
Sh ar e D ata
H ave Po li cy
0
20
40
60
80
100
in per cen t
K entu cky (n =15)
K ansas (n =20)
N o rth C aro li na (n =70)
Washi n 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”
▸ “data only used for requested purpose &
not shared w/ others w/o permission”
▸ "the only data we want to "protect" is the
cadastral layer”
Yes
No
N/A etc
Results from Best Practices Research
Limits to the Effectiveness of
Standards
Do you rely on any standards in your geographic information
activities?
▪ What does “yes” mean?
▸ “when I'm aware of standards that I can meet”
▸ “standards??? Order of priorities-real time
needs first”
▸ “ArcView shapefiles, UTM or County
coordinates for basemap purposes”
▸ “occasionally we will use the National Spatial
Accuracy Standards (when create metadata)”
Yes
No
NA n/a etc
Terminological Problem: standard can mean little more than using
what is available when there is only one choice
Results from Best Practices Research
Resources
Questions?