|
|
|
Advancing the concept National Geospatial Data Infrastructure: Reflections on the "bottom line"
What is the role of National Mapping Agencies in building the NGDI?
Generally speaking the National Surveys are the relevant sources for the Framework Data. (See Fig. 1). A special subset of these data is the Foundation Data (FD) which is the fundamental geographical reference for all other thematic application data. NMAs are usually responsible to produce, maintain and distribute the FD.
Within the context of the efficiency and effectiveness of government itself and the previously mentioned political expectations, optimal performance of NMAs and responsiveness to their client community is obviously of paramount importance in reducing transaction costs in society. Since their inception (some, such as the Survey of India, as far as 400 years ago but most in the mid- 1800's) they have enjoyed a monopoly in the technological and industrial organisation of national surveying and mapping activity.
Beginning in the mid-1970s these monopolies were increasingly challenged, with the growing proliferation of Information Technology (IT). The surveying and mapping technology has become increasingly embedded in software and accessible to non-specialists in the NMAs client community. Furthermore the client community obtained growing access to substitute products for the standardised topographic bases or thematic framework data sets (for example from Remote Sensing ). Both challenge the monopoly of the NMAs. Furthermore, the client community is increasingly changing to include users interested in the digital data for application in Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
These effects of the ICT coincided with growing government deficits, which for most countries has led to a 20 year period of budget reductions, demands for revenue generation and, in the context of reform of government, privatisation. See for example Groot(1998). More importantly these radically changing circumstances led to critical review of the relevancy of existing and emergence of new mandates. See for example: Canadian Government (1986), Department of the Environment (1987), Mapping Sciences Committee. (1990), ANZLIC. (1996).
In spite of these studies NMAs all over the world have been slow in responding to these changes and many are experiencing major problems pushing through the restructuring necessary to move from automation to informatisation . One of the more perplexing problems NMAs have been faced with is the definition of the content and formats of the Foundation Data, especially the topographic component of this. At first, these organisations implemented the IT to make the existing production lines of their standard topographic map series more efficient. However, these are extremely complex products, time consuming and expensive to produce and keep up to date. Budgets and human resources could realistically speaking never be sufficient to assure both timeliness and currency. A completely new design concept is required to meet the new requirements. As early as 1986 the Ordnance Survey had been challenged by the National Joint Utilities, the Municipalities and the Land Registry to produce the national topo data base at large scales for the whole country by 2000. These major users had demonstrated that a highly simplified data model should replace the traditional map content model. The simplification would be useful in practice and would make completion of the database by the year 2000 also feasible. See Department of Environment (1987).
Meanwhile progress has been made in defining the least complex and topo data set that will serve as a geometric framework for a multitude of applications. In the UK the term topographic template has found acceptance. See for example Smith and Rhind (1999). The Netherlands is taking the definition of this dataset a step further by seeking to give it a legal authoritative status such as the data in the Kadaster or the Register of Persons or the Register of Companies. This would have far reaching consequences in all Government Ministries who will be compelled to use this data only for refernccing purposes. It also would have far reaching consequences for the National Mapping Agency, which would become a legal as well as natural monopoly, a status which has proven to be not conducive to client orientation and efficiency.
The latter is important because poor performance by NMAs leads to the client community, especially the GIS community, falling back on cheaper and often simpler but more up to date substitute products from whatever sources may be available. This in turn leads to the loss of the positive externalities, to costly duplication, reduced and incompatible accessibility of existing (government owned) data, increased transaction costs and possibly reduced timeliness in decision making processes. In many ways it impedes full exploitation of ICT for the benefit of society in geospatial data applications.
It is significant that in those countries where NMAs have successfully adapted to the dynamics of the ICT environment and the imperatives of government reform, the informatisation has been accompanied, and even led, by institutional and regulatory reform. The organisation was thereby placed in a regulatory environment in which both management and staff are motivated to be innovative and efficient and are rewarded for this. For a detailed analysis of the relationship of government goals with respect to Geospatial Information, the economic efficiency in pricing and distribution, and the regulatory position of the NMAs, see Groot (2001).
What can be done to advance the NGDI concept?
There are, worldwide a large number of NGDI initiatives underway. See for example Onsrud (1999). Yet the case history literature is still not very complete. Nevertheless one of the most comprehensively documented developments towards a GDI for land administration is probably in New Brunswick. See Finley (2000). While New Brunswick is a small, rural province in Canada and its experience will not be readily replicated elsewhere, it does provide some important lessons. For example, much of its success to date can be attributed to the following factors:
- The province had a vigorous agenda for more than two decades related to building and linking its geospatial databases and providing effective public access to them. This agenda has been strongly supported politically, especially by a recent Premier who gave the highest priority to enhancing the province's information infrastructure. This points to the importance of a long-term strategic vision and high-level political support.
- For more than a decade New Brunswick has had a lead agency responsible for (1) designing and implementing the GDI concept; (2) coordinating the development of standards and protocols; (3) building and sustaining core data sets; and (4) providing online public access. This suggests the importance of a lead agency.
- The province has concentrated on building key data sets of particular importance to the economic and social development of the province. This has included parcel-based data sets in support of reforming the province's land administration systems and selected geospatial data sets required for effective resource management (especially in support of integrated forest management practices). This suggests the necessity for a focus on key priorities.
- The development and maintenance of the geospatial data infrastructure in New Brunswick is driven by a multi-year business plan. The lead agency, Service New Brunswick, is required to be self-sufficient. This has contributed to the emphasis on well-documented business cases for data and networking priorities, and on the funding strategies for ongoing upgrading and maintenance of the infrastructure. This leads to the importance of a business focus.
|
|
|