Indian |
International |
Geographic Information Infrastructure
To share or not to share Attitudes and mindsets vis-à-vis spatial data
 Dr Uta Wehn de Montalvo Researcher and Advisor, Institute of Strategy, Technology and Policy, TNO-STB, Delft, The Netherlands wehndemontalvo@stb.tno.nl Spatial data are indispensable for the use of GIS and they are increasingly in use by public and private sector organisations. Hand in hand with this increasing use of GIS, the availability of spatial data has become an issue that affects many organisations in industrialised and developing countries. Spatial data initiatives are reliant on the willingness of different organisations to engage in spatial data sharing in order to be effective in overcoming bottlenecks in the availability of spatial data. Yet the determinants of spatial data sharing behaviour by different types of organisations have not been dealt with in a systematic fashion and the existing literature on spatial data sharing offers only anecdotal insights into such sharing behaviour. The lack of knowledge about the determinants of a willingness to share spatial data and their interactions makes it difficult to address the possible bottlenecks effectively. Who’s willing to share? Spatial data are expensive resources and, particularly in developing countries, appropriate spatial data may not always be readily available. Some of the possible bottlenecks in the availability of, and access to, spatial data have been found to arise from insufficient flows of information and poor data management (Onsrud & Rushton, 1992). Since acquisition of certain types of geographical information or geospatial data is difficult and/or costly to collect for many individuals, this concern has translated into how to get the data from other parties - where to find them; how to obtain their costs, currency and reliability; and the terms under which they can be used and the liabilities incurred. (Rhind, 1999: 767) Potential spatial data users may have difficulty finding, or gaining access to, relevant spatial data because of a lack of institutional co-ordination. In many instances, potential spatial data suppliers may not be aware of what geographic information they have accumulated or who might need it. Poor management of data resources prevents better dissemination of spatial data (Campbell, 1991). The result is duplication, inefficiency and lost opportunities for the use of spatial data to assist in solving problems. As the importance of using spatial data to address complex social, environmental and economic issues continues to grow (Nebert, 2001; Longley et al., 1999), the need to access, integrate and use spatial data from disparate sources to guide decision making is being recognised by public and private sector organisations. National, regional, and even global efforts are underway to better co-ordinate the collection, distribution and use of digital geographic information. The aim of such frameworks is to reduce high data duplication costs and data availability bottlenecks. These initiatives are actively promoting access to, and re-use of, spatial data by encouraging collective conventions and agreements. Only through common conventions and technical agreements will it be easily possible for local communities, nations and regional decision-makers to discover, acquire, exploit and share geographic information vital to the decision process. (Nebert, 2001: 7) The concept of a spatial data infrastructure to co-ordinate spatial data-related collaboration among organisations is by now widely known and being implemented. A survey at the national, regional and global initiatives world-wide has shown that they are based on the same basic model: the development of metadata, clearinghouses, core data sets, and standards for data collection (Onsrud 2000). The underlying principle that is being advocated is spatial data sharing. This can be defined as an exchange relationships that may or may not include financial payment or payment in kind and that entail making spatial data accessible to, or from, other parties under certain terms and conditions (Wehn de Montalvo 2002). At closer look, it appears that these initiatives are based on the assumption that key individuals within organisations are motivated to engage in spatial data sharing. However, there are questions about the willingness of the individuals involved to engage in spatial data sharing. The new common conventions address issues of spatial data sharing primarily at the technical level. However, the success of these initiatives is likely to depend significantly on the willingness of key individuals within different organisations and institutions involved with spatial data to co-operate and to engage in spatial data sharing activities. By focusing the initiatives predominantly on costs, procedures, clearinghouses and technical standards for spatial data and metadata, current policy developments may be failing to take into account the need to foster a spatial data sharing ‘culture’. Such a culture may be expected to increase the likelihood that individuals in different organisations will have a greater propensity to engage in spatial data sharing. Yet virtually nothing is known about how the motivation to share can be fostered so that inefficiencies and lost opportunities for the use of spatial data can be reduced. For example, organisations making more spatial data accessible than they receive may perceive that they are losing out while the data receivers may believe they are gaining from an exchange relationship. Alternatively, it may be believed that the distribution of spatial data to decision makers provides an opportunity to gain influence with those decision makers, thus reducing any resistance to data sharing. Perceptions may also vary with respect to the costs of, or obstacles to, sharing spatial data. Rhind (1998) has provided a summary of the views of different stakeholders which suggests that the perceptions of various actors from the public and the private sector may differ substantially in terms of finance and the dissemination of information, both in the short and in the long term. These are only a few of the complex rationales and beliefs that individuals within organisations may hold about the advantages and disadvantages of sharing spatial data.
Page 1 of 2
| Next | |