2001 - Mapping Science Committee
National Research CouncilDivision on Earth and Life
StudiesBoard on Earth Sciences
and ResourcesMapping Science
CommitteeNational Academy Press
Washington, D.C.
The Mapping Science Committee
1987… serves as a focus for external advice to federal agencies on scientific and technical matters related to spatial data handling and analysis. One of the Committee’s roles is to provide advice on the development of a robust national spatial data infrastructure for making informed decisions at all levels of government and throughout society in general.
DAVID J. COWEN (Chair), University of South CarolinaANNETTE J. KRYGIEL (Vice Chair), Consultant, Integro, VirginiaERIC A. ANDERSON, City Manager, Des Moines, IowaCLIFFORD A. BEHRENS, Telcordia Technologies, New JerseyWILLIAM J. CRAIG, University of Minnesota, MinneapolisMARK MONMONIER, Syracuse UniversityJOEL L. MORRISON, Ohio State University, ColumbusSHERYL G. OLIVER, Illinois Department of Natural ResourcesHARLAN J. ONSRUD, University of Maine, OronoC. STEPHEN SMYTH, Microsoft Corporation, WashingtonREX W. TRACY, GDE Systems, Inc., San Diego, CaliforniaA. KEITH TURNER, Colorado School of Mines, GoldenJAMES V. TARANIK, University of Nevada, Reno
MAPPING SCIENCE COMMITTEE
1990 – Future of NMDPre – FGDC
NMD should expand its role in developing the National Digital Cartographic Data Base so that its functions include management and coordination , standard setting and enforcement, data production, cataloging and data dissemination and related services
Increase its activities to provide a larger number of classes of spatial data to better meet national needs …
Speed the creation of the National Digital Cartographic Data Base
Plan and prototype an enhanced national spatial data based that would be feature based and accessible on line by 2010
1991 R&D for NMD
NMD develop a multiyear research agenda
External grants program
Continue to develop standards procedures and specifications for data
Develop programs to produce and facilitate a wider variety of “non –standard spatial data products to meet user needs
1993 – Defined NSDI
..the charter and programs of the FGDC need to be strengthened to :
Expand the development and speed the creation and implementation of standards (procedures and specifications for spatially referenced digital data)
create a series of incentives, particularly among federal agencies that would maximize the sharing of spatial data and minimize the redundancy of spatial data collection.
Procedures should be established to foster access to information describing spatial spatial data available within government and the private sector through existing networks, thereby providing on line access by the public in the form of directories and catalogs
1994 – Suggested by FGDC
Status Report on States:
Viable partnerships will require focal points within the federal government
Clear guidelines for cost sharing and partnerships need to be developed
Involve states in standards setting
Incentives are needed to encourage partnerships to maximize use an benefits to the broader user community
The FGDC should investigate the extent to which federal procurement rules are an impediment to the foundation of spatial data partnerships
Building Blocks
Shared Responsibilities Shared Commitment Shared Benefits Shared Control
Framework Defined
FGDC Should: be responsible for
coordination Identify components of
framework Encourage integration Identify Gaps in data
1995 – Suggested by FGDC
Describes the changing organizational and technological environment in which all forms of spatial data are being created and used, and the related strategic questions facing organizations and stakeholders in the spatial data community
Issues –
Policy and ResponsibilityTechnical Requirements and BarriersEconomics and markets Relevance Education Global Spatial Data Infrastructure
1997 – Workshop
1999 – Workshop
Assessment of the current state of the art
1968 Dissertation
Catalog & Metadata
Edit Meta Data
Internet Servers
DOE - Savannah River Site
ArcView Internet Mapping
Uranium Metadata
Map of Uranium Distribution
USGS 30 M DEM LIDAR
Scale Differences
2001
National Research CouncilDivision on Earth and Life
StudiesBoard on Earth Sciences
and ResourcesMapping Science
CommitteeNational Academy Press
Washington, D.C.
…assess the success and potential of the various partnerships programs for geospatial capabilities, and how these and future programs based on them contribute to the goals of the broader National Spatial Data Infrastructure. Specifically, the committee will assess the success of the partnership programs in:
reducing redundancy in geospatial data creation and maintenance, reducing the costs of geospatial data creation and maintenance, improving access to geospatial data, improving the accuracy of geospatial data used by the broader community.
Statement of Task
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 - NSDI AND PARTNERSHIPS
2 - REVIEW OF NSDI PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS
3 - FUTURE PARTNERSHIPS AND THE EVOLUTION OF NSDI ACTIVITIES
4 - AN EXTENDED NATIONAL SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE FRAMEWORK: THE ROLE OF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS
5 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Methodology
September 1999 MSC meeting Past assessments of sponsors of
partnerships August 1999 NSGIC forum Questionnaires Expertise of committee
Accomplishments
The FGDC has done a remarkable job of developing a wide range of standards for the capture, coding, definition, storage and transfer of spatial data Over the past seven years, the establishment of the National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse (NGDC, 2001) has emerged as an important operational component of NSDI. This web-based data server technology represents an excellent example of how the FGDC has reacted to the 1994 Executive Order. As with the metadata standard, the FGDC has taken a lead role in the implementation of standard web-based data serving. The clearinghouse standard has proven very popular with both its sponsors and its users, and has become the de facto international standard.
NSDI COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS PROGRAM
The total financial commitment to the CAP program represents a very minor investment $2 million compared to $4 billion, and total sales of GIS software in these years
were in the hundreds of millions 20 suitably trained people for one year half a person-year for each of the states that were successful
Annual cycle a problem Lack of institutional oversight – could be at odds with larger organizational
goals
It is to the FGDC's credit that the CAP recipients are so positive about the experience and the program has seeded so many projects that have the potential for long-term impact. This is particularly noteworthy given obvious constraints imposed on these projects by the one-year budget cycle.
"DON'T DUCK METADATA"
1999 - $1.8 million 95 projects ( out of 108) funded About $18,000 each May be detrimental –
Works against the need to develop partnerships to successfully compete
Carrots from FGDC should foster long term interagency cooperation
High success rate reduces the incentive to form partnerships
FRAMEWORK DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS PROGRAM
Larger grants ~ $100,000 the amounts remain small in comparison
with the size of the geospatial data user community.
Short duration Temporary nature of funding leads to fragile
work environment
Community Demonstration Projects
Six projects – Total of $645,000 Hammer award – indication of recognized
use of spatial data Valuable investment in projects that have
long term goals Good test beds for citizen participation
Issues
FGDC funding = minuscule proportion of the total resources available
FGDC has primed the pump – but what's next partnership programs should be conceived in the context
of all relevant programs, and should be designed to augment and leverage them.
Even before 9/11 – there was a recognition that the need for a robust NSDI is more important than ever
Is the pace appropriate? – After 10 years are the institutional barriers still impeding development ?
Issues
FGDC must find proper organizational role vis a vis OMB I teams and Geographic Data Alliance
Does the FGDC have the clout to affect change and build the data we need?
What is the role of private sector in a environment that must be in the public domain?
Fewer than 50% of local governments aware
Issues
The Geography Network may become more popular portal than FGDC clearing house
The real action is at the local government level – larger than 1:24,000
Findings
there is little evidence that that these programs have reduced redundancy in geospatial data creation and maintenance; reduced the costs of geospatial data creation and maintenance; and improved the accuracy of the geospatial data used by the broader community
The NSDI is at a critical juncture in its evolution. The FGDC continues to play the lead role of federal coordination
Recommendations
More Rigor – true assessment of whether the funds have made a difference
Need to take a long term view – one year funding is inadequate
Hypothesis testing – are there measurable outcomes?
FGDC – Primed the pump
Helps new users through the social and technical gates ( Mayo)
The partnerships are evidence tha goals of NSDI have been accepted and diffusion is occurring
Needs to be multi jurisdictional – based on transactions at the local level
OMB I- Teams
a nation wide needs assessment which would develop a clear articulation of the content and necessary scale of spatial data required to meet specific objectives and mandates at each level of government.
The outcome of this must be a list of themes and their content that can be applied at the local level.
This bottom up approach is in line with the I-Team initiatives advocated by OMB.
Geographic Data Alliance
a significant step in the evolution of the NSDI and role of the Federal Government
Compatible with OMB supported I-team initiatives?
FGDC could surrender the preeminent role that the FGDC has played in NSDI activities to date. May not be appropriate.
Considerable attention should be paid to the balance of power. If it is dominated by the private sector such an alliance could disrupt the sharing of data that has been a cornerstone of the NSDI concept.
Diffusion of Innovation
Awareness stage – promoted by FGDC
Initial adopters make decision to implement
Residual ( Laggards) adopt Kentucky study – NSDI stumbles at
the local level - need pyramid of trust as well as data
Partnerships have improved access – not redundancy, cost or accuracy
Future Demonstrations
Should satisfy the following criteria Scale – unambiguous results Visibility – virtual town hall meetings,
cookbooks Rigor – sound methodology, peer
reviewed, better understand the impediments,
Future Partnerships
Populate the Framework database – sustained production mode
Develop and disseminate procedures and technologies Eg – Minnesota soils
Continuje the process of establishing clearinghouses and standards
Theme Federal State Local
Geodetic Control primary supplementary supplementary
Cadastral Data supplementary supplementary primary
Political boundaries primary for states and international
primary for counties and state reserves
primary for municipalities and local areas
Base cartographic and elevations
primary for scales smaller than 1:24,000
supplementary for road building and state projects
supplementary for local projects
Bathymetric primary for offshore areas, international waters
supplementary for lakes and reservoirs
supplementary for ponds
Geologic primary supplementary supplementary
Hydrography primary supplementary (water rights)
supplementary
Extended NSDI Framework
Extended NSDI Framework
Transportation and utilities
supplementary primary for highways primary for some utilities
Soils primary for coordination
supplementary primary for survey
Vegetation primary for federal lands
primary for state lands primary for local lands
Wetlands and wildlife habitat
primary supplementary supplementary
Cultural and demographic
primary supplementary supplementary
Digital orthoimagery (scale dependent)
primary at coarse resolutions
supplementary primary at fine resolutions
Statistical base maps and address files
supplementary supplementary primary
Land cover and land use (added to NAPA list)
primary for land cover
supplementary for both primary for land use
Theme Federal State Local
Implementation of Extended Framework
There are at least nine major steps necessary to realize this extended Framework Definition of the contents of the city, county, or local extended
Framework Definition of the contents of the state or tribal nation extended
Framework. Definition of the extended Framework hardware architecture Definition of coordination mechanisms. Assignments for layer responsibilities Definition of quality standards (collection and maintenance) and
procedures for the development of the extended Framework at all levels. Data generation in agreement with the corresponding Framework Data maintenance program Budget allocation.
1980 -Need for a Multipurpose Cadastre
“There is a critical need for a better land-information system in the United States to improve land-conveyance procedures, furnish a basis for equitable taxation, and provide much-needed information for resource management and environmental planning.”
“The major obstacles in the development of a multipurpose cadastre are the organizational and institutional requirements. Reorganization and improved quality control for existing governmental functions will be required. Each of the components of the cadastral system already exists somewhere within our existing governmental structure. Many of the required data are being generated at the local level, and in most cases the users are the individual citizens and the local government officials and planning organizations.”
Multipurpose Cadastre
The Panel recommended:
“…that technical studies continue to be sponsored by the federal government to identify consistent land information and display standards for use among and within federal agencies and between federal and state governments. These studies should rely on the authority of state governments to adopt the standards and organize the data collection, in cooperation with the federal government to ensure compatibility on a national basis, delegating these functions to local governments where appropriate.”
“…that each state authorize an Office of Land Information Systems, through legislation where necessary, to implement the multipurpose cadastre.”
“…that local governments be the primary access point for local land information.”
“We recommend support by the federal government for the establishment of a center or centers of excellence in land-information science, for the purposes of providing a program that develops scholars and professionals. The curriculum should include direct experience with land-data-systems problems.”
Multipurpose Cadastre
“The components of a multipurpose cadastre are the following:1. A reference frame consisting of a geodetic network;2. A series of current, accurate large-scale maps;3. A cadstral overlay delineating all cadastral parcels;4. A unique identifying number assigned to each parcel that is used as a common index of all land records in information systems; and 5. A series of land data files, each including a parcel identifier for purposes of information retrieval and linking with information in other data files.
