Harlan J. Onsrud

Department of Spatial Information Science and Engineering

University of Maine

Orono, ME 04469

onsrud@spatial.maine.edu

Abstract: Many national governments throughout the world are involved in developing spatial data infrastructures that will better facilitate the availability and access to spatial data for all levels of government, the commercial sector, the non-profit sector, academia and citizens in general. In the summer and fall of 1998 with the support of FGDC and NIMA, a survey to assess the nature, extent and status of spatial data infrastructure activities of nations around the world was accomplished. A questionnaire consisting of 23 open-ended questions was sent electronically and by hard copy to contacts in over one hundred nations. By November 1998 when the initial results were reported at the GSDI 3 Meeting in Canberra Australia, responses had been received from 22 nations and 3 multi-nation regions. This paper presents the questions that were asked and lists the nations that responded. It reviews the responses to selected questions and suggests some implications of the survey results. The paper ends with an explanation of the plans for maintaining the survey responses and updates to the national responses on one or more web sites over time. The results are currently at http://www.spatial.maine.edu/~onsrud/GSDI.htm. Finally, an invitation is extended to individuals knowledgeable about infrastructure activities in additional nations to submit responses to the survey for those nations.

The third Global Spatial Data Infrastructure (GSDI) conference was held in Canberra Australia from November 17-19, 1998. Previous conferences had been held in Konigwinter, Germany and Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The goals and objectives of these conferences and an emerging international organization arising from discussions among the participants may be found at www.gsdi.org. In preparation for the Canberra Conference, a survey to assess the nature, extent and status of spatial data infrastructure activities of nations around the world was proposed and accomplished. A basic precept of this survey was that information about the status of spatial data infrastructure developments in each nation should be reported by individuals within each nation rather than by outsiders. A further precept from the outset is that we would receive and post on the web responses from any knowledgeable individuals within a nation willing and able to respond to the questions. Thus there are no "official responses" and indeed there may be multiple responses with differing views of the status of developments in any single nation. The intent is to maintain the web site for an extended period of time such that responses from additional nations may be added, updates to the reports from individual nations may be provided, and differing views on the status of infrastructure developments may be shared.

Questions contained on the survey and a sample response to the survey for the United States may be found at http://www.spatial.maine.edu/~onsrud/gsdi/USA.html

The questionnaire was distributed to individuals in approximately 100 nations who were contacted by regular mail or e-mail depending on circumstances. Initial responses were received from individuals in 22 nations (Australia, Canada, Colombia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Indonesia, Japan, Kiribati, Malaysia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Northern Ireland, Pakistan, Russian Federation, South Africa, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States plus Antarctica) as well as from individuals that described multi-nation initiatives. The full responses may be viewed at http://www.spatial.maine.edu/~onsrud/GSDI.htm. Compiled responses by question as of the date of the Canberra conference are also provided at the end od the web site. A summary of compiled responses to some of the questions from this subgroup are as follows:

3. Does your nation have an active or proposed initiative for developing a national spatial data infrastructure (or its equivalent)?

Virtually all responding nations and regions replied YES, although several provided qualifiers to this answer.

4. LEADERSHIP: Which agency or organization is coordinating or leading national spatial data infrastructure (NSDI) development efforts in your nation?

1. single agency, typically mapping agency (14)

2. interagency coordinating committee (4)

3. association with strong government representation (3)

4. lead split among multiple agencies (1)

5. non-government working group or association (1)

5. AVAILABILITY: What are the primary types, categories or forms of spatial digital data being made available through your nation’s NSDI?

The spatial data types mentioned most often out of 19 usable responses were as follows:

1. topographic / surface elevation (19)

2. cadastral / land ownership (18)

3. geodetic (15)

4. government / administrative boundaries (12)

5. hydrography / rivers and lakes planimetric (9)

6. digital imagery (8)

7. land use / land cover (8)

6. MECHANICS OF ACCESS: Through what technical and organizational mechanisms are spatial data being made available through the NSDI?

1. contact agency (or agencies) (7)

2. goal of distributed clearinghouse nodes (6)

3. contact agency through central web site or single node (5)

4. multiple avenues stressed (2)

10. COMMERCIAL INVOLVEMENT: Please describe how private commercial firms are involved in helping to build the NSDI.

1. government contracting out data collection, dissemination, or other services to commercial firms (9)

2. commercial firms adding value to NSDI data (8)

3. commercial firms sitting on NSDI advisory groups (5)

4. commercial firms adhering to NSDI standards for metadata or data (5)

5. no commercial involvement (4)

6. commercial firms adapting software to meet NSDI requirements (1)

11. PUBLIC DOMAIN DATA SETS: Please describe those digital spatial data sets for jurisdictions within your nation that are available to anyone without any licensing or intellectual property restrictions imposed on the data sets and the data sets are available at no cost or little cost.

1. No public domain digital spatial data sets available through the NSDI (11)

2. Very few public domain data sets available, typically of limited coverage and small-scale (6)

3. A number of public domain data sets available (2)

4. Many and diverse public domain data sets available (1)

14. AUTHORITY: Do the laws or formal orders of any legislative or executive branches of government explicitly recognize the need to establish or further develop the NSDI?

1. No laws or formal orders recognizing need (9)

2. No current national legislation or orders but need is recognized or action being pursued (6)

3. Official nation-wide vision or principles adopted but no lead authority designated (1)

4. Authority to coordinate on a national basis formally designated in one or more agencies (4)

5. Authority designated in country wide coordination authority (2)

17. COMPONENTS: Please indicate whether the vision of an NSDI for your nation incorporates the following components or concepts.

YES NO UNDECIDED

A. Metadata 25 1 1

B. Clearinghouse 21 5 2

C. Data Standards 25 1 1

D. Core Data 25 1 1

23. GRAND CHALLEGES: Name one of the most pressing challenges for NSDI development in your nation.

• Ensuring cooperation of all levels of government in the development and implementation of NSDI policies.

• Creation of a group of people who truly understand what geospatial information is at a fundamental level and how it can be represented, organized, and used ... very few people who carry the big picture.

• Ensuring the consistency of data to enable successful integration and adequate quality of the data

• The formal coordination of data collection and NSDI efforts generally.

• Gaining an understanding of the geo market.

• Legal and economic aspects of NSDI are the priority issues.

• Poor resources or limited resources.

• Further development of access - to everybody, any time, any place, anywhere.

• Effective communication links.

• NSDI is an on-going process... greatest challenges deal with administrative questions

• Workable incentives must be developed to facilitate and enhance cooperation.

• Maintaining a shared vision over time.

• Getting the attention of even one high-level official who truly understands the key role of spatial information in the rapidly evolving Information Society ... identifying such champions!

A very cursory review of the survey results suggests the following possibilities:

The concepts of metadata, core data, data standards and clearinghouse appear to relatively well accepted as constituent parts of NSDIs across the globe.

Agreement among nations on metadata standards for spatial data may make sense.

If nations agree that metadata for most NSDI datasets may be made available on-line, the concept of a coordinated GSDI is much more realistic.

Agreement among nations on a small number of core data sets at specified scales may be a realistic possibility.

Any vision for a workable GSDI probably would need to involve networks of decentralized geographic data clearinghouse nodes. Such data collections might be made available by government agencies at various levels, by the commercial sector, or by both.

Wide variations exist among nations regarding legal and economic policies. Forums other than GSDI may be more appropriate in resolving conflicts in data policies among nations.

The intent of the established web site is to continually add to it over time as a means for individuals interested in spatial data infrastructure activities to find out about similar activities in other nations and to provide points of contact in various nations. The web site is likely to be mirrored in additional locations in the near future.

If you are from a nation that is not yet represented in the GSDI survey, please assist us by providing the name, address, e-mail, phone and fax number of an individual or office that may be appropriate for filling out the survey questionnaire. Better yet, contact the appropropriate person or office yourself and highly encourage them to fill out the questionnaire. If you feel competent to answer most of the questions yourself, simply access the questionnaire at http://www.spatial.maine.edu/~onsrud/GSDI.htm and e-mail your responses to the address provided. International graduate students particularly are encouraged to provide us with appropriate addresses or fill out the questionnaire for their nation.

If you are from a nation for which a response has already been posted but you feel that a further or updated response is warranted, please feel free to submit that response.

The questionnaire data received to date is quite massive. Yet very little analysis of the data has yet been accomplished. Therefore, graduate students, researchers and other interested parties are invited and highly encouraged to scrutinize and assess the data further.

The survey results received to date suggest that National Spatial Data Infrastructures are being planned in a minimum of thirty nations or multi-national regions around the globe. There are significant variations in the infrastructure developments being pursued, particularly in regard to legal, economic, scale, and organizational considerations. However, there are also commonalities. The commonalities are probably most evident in regard to metadata, core data, standards, and clearinghouse concepts. Local, national and global awareness of spatial data infrastructure concepts and approaches appears to be growing. Those promoting cooperation and collaboration in the advancement of national spatial data activities may want to focus first on those areas in which significant agreement already exists among nations and build from those commonalities.

John Moeller of FGDC and Walter Senus of NIMA were substantial contributors in constructing the questions for the survey, assessing the results, and providing intellectual and financial support for accomplishing the survey work. They and their staffs originated the idea for the survey and made numerous constructive comments regarding its accomplishment, although I bear sole and full responsibility for any errors in reporting of results.