Economic models for the development of Spatial Data Infrastructures

1. Economic models for the development of Spatial Data Infrastructures Bastiaan van Loenen b.v.loenen@otb.tudelft.nl Forum 2004 29 June 2004 OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, section Geo-information and Land Development

2. Overview • Introduction • Economic models • Best practices • Conclusion

3. Why SDI? • providing easy, public access to integrated land-related information in support of informed decision making (New Brunswick) • creating a national network linking databases and users and enhancing the accessibility, communications and use of geographic information (FGDC) • to ensure that spatial data users will be able to acquire consistent datasets to meet their requirements (Australia)

4. Spatial data are special • Expensive to create: • high expertise and • advanced equipment needed • data does not ‘come’ to the gatherer • Many use spatial data but few are aware of their value • Spatial data commercially the most interesting

5. GSDI RSDI NSDI SSDI LSDI Less detailed data Global level Regional level National level State level Local level Different levels of Detail required for Different SDI levels More detailed data Source: Rajabifard, et al, 1999

6. Economic models • Open access model • Cost recovery model • Public private partnerships

7. Open Access Model • Minimum of use restrictions • Maximum price of marginal costs of distribution

8. Open Access Model End-users Treasury Professional Users Government agency End-users Data Product Public funds VAT Income/Company tax Price Government users

9. Open Access Successful if sufficient awareness for the value of geographic information exists at the decision making levels and is sustainable Difficult to cooperate with private sector

10. Cost Recovery Model • Use restrictions imposed • No limit on price

11. Cost Recovery Model End-users Treasury Professional Users Government agency End-users Data Product Public funds VAT Income/Company tax Price Government users

12. Cost Recovery Probably useful if awareness for the value of geographic information is lacking at the decision making levels Allows for cooperation with private sector

13. Public Private Cooperation: MetroGIS • Many public organisations needed road centreline data (school districts, counties, cities, water districts, etc.) but did not have it • One private company had (parts of the) dataset and was willing to share the dataset with the MetroGIS community

14. Public Private Cooperation The Deal: • One time $300,000 investment • Dataset for a total price of $50,000 per year for a 5 year period available for all MetroGIS participants (>300) • MetroGIS participants provide updates of their road datasets, and/ or road plans to private company • No redistribution is allowed

15. Public Private Cooperation The Benefits: • Public organisations now use the data that meets their needs against low cost • Private company has the most up to date road data against low cost • Private company has guaranteed income stream for 5 year period

16. Public Private Partnership: Dutch Large Scale Base Map Common data needs for large scale topographic data • Local government • Utilities • Water boards • Kadaster

17. Public Private Partnership • The Large scale base map of the Netherlands: • uniform dataset 1:500, 1,000 or 2,000 • core topography: • buildings • roads • bridges • waterways • utility facilities • street names

18. Public Private Partnership • Total cost: > €200,000,000 • Yearly maintenance: €27,000,000 • Investment: €27,000,000 • Price for non-participants: % of costs • Restrictive use conditions • Without PPP (and cost recovery model) no GBKN!

19. The case of three counties County A: excellent GIS data, open access model County B: excellent GIS data, cost recovery model County C: paper data, not yet decided on the policy Real estate agent covering County A,B, and C but only with GIS data for County A Manufacturing company seeks a new location in County A, B, or C

20. The case of three counties Result: Manufacturing company moves to County A Benefits: - County generates more tax (value added, income, property, and/or company) - Manufacturing company finds quickly new location - Real estate agent is more efficient in location searches

21. Conclusions • Public private partnerships may be beneficial in meeting both public and private needs • If awareness for SDI is sufficient and sustainable the open access model probably outweighs the cost recovery model • No blue print for best access policy

22. Further information Spatial data infrastructure and policy development in Europe and the United States http://www.library.tudelft.nl/dup/leaflets/2467.html Database with SDI literature http://www.otb.tudelft.nl/NGII/

23. Economic models for the development of Spatial Data Infrastructures Thank you for your attention Bastiaan van Loenen b.v.loenen@otb.tudelft.nl Forum 2004 29 June 2004 OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, section Geo-information and Land Development