2001 - Mapping Science Committee

1. 2001 - Mapping Science Committee National Research Council Division on Earth and Life Studies Board on Earth Sciences and Resources Mapping Science Committee National Academy Press Washington, D.C.

2. The Mapping Science Committee1987 … 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.

3. MAPPING SCIENCE COMMITTEE DAVID J. COWEN (Chair), University of South Carolina ANNETTE J. KRYGIEL (Vice Chair), Consultant, Integro, Virginia ERIC A. ANDERSON, City Manager, Des Moines, Iowa CLIFFORD A. BEHRENS, Telcordia Technologies, New Jersey WILLIAM J. CRAIG, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis MARK MONMONIER, Syracuse University JOEL L. MORRISON,Ohio State University, Columbus SHERYL G. OLIVER, Illinois Department of Natural Resources HARLAN J. ONSRUD, University of Maine, Orono C. STEPHEN SMYTH, Microsoft Corporation, Washington REX W. TRACY, GDE Systems, Inc., San Diego, California A. KEITH TURNER, Colorado School of Mines, Golden JAMES V. TARANIK, University of Nevada, Reno

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. Building Blocks  Shared Responsibilities  Shared Commitment  Shared Benefits  Shared Control

9. 1995 – Suggested by FGDC Framework Defined FGDC Should: • be responsible for coordination • Identify components of framework • Encourage integration • Identify Gaps in data

10. 1997 – Workshop 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 Responsibility Technical Requirements and Barriers Economics and markets Relevance Education Global Spatial Data Infrastructure

11. 1999 – Workshop Assessment of the current state of the art

12. 1968 Dissertation

13. Catalog & Metadata

14. Edit Meta Data

15. Internet Servers

16. DOE - Savannah River Site

17. ArcView Internet Mapping

18. Uranium Metadata

19. Map of Uranium Distribution

20. LIDAR USGS 30 M DEM

21. Scale Differences

22. 2001 National Research Council Division on Earth and Life Studies Board on Earth Sciences and Resources Mapping Science Committee National Academy Press Washington, D.C.

23. Statement of Task …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.

24. 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

25. Methodology • September 1999 MSC meeting • Past assessments of sponsors of partnerships • August 1999 NSGIC forum • Questionnaires • Expertise of committee

26. 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.

27. 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.

28. "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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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 ?

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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?

36. 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

37. 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.

38. 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.

39. 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

40. 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,

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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 Extended NSDI Framework Theme Federal State Local

44. 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.

45. 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.”

46. 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.”

47. 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.