1. Introduction
Spatial data infrastructures and geolibraries are institutional concepts being advanced in order to respond to needs for wide-ranging spatially referenced information in various problem-solving domains. These diverse needs are spread across government, industry, academic, and public interest sectors.
The term "infrastructure" typically brings to mind public facilities such as roads, sewer lines, electric lines, airports and similar physical structures or networks in which government has played a major role in their construction or ongoing support. Thus, terms such as the National Information Infrastructure (NII) and National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) typically bring to mind the facilities being financed through tax dollars in order to allow the more efficient transmission and communication of information in support of the general and widespread interests of broad sectors of society. Information infrastructure also brings to mind the facilities, processes, and standards by which essential government information is made available to citizens, businesses, scientists and other governmental agencies and bodies. Government involvement in information infrastructure development is critical to advancing the economic and social well being of our nation's citizens and UCGIS endorses the general goals and objectives of the NSDI as published by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC 1997).
Information about the character and location of natural and cultural resources and their relationship to human and economic activities is essential to making decisions in every day life. In response to this need, geographic information systems (GIS) and associated technologies have proliferated rapidly in recent years among all levels of government, academia, and industry. Government agencies and the scientific community are using digital geographic data and technologies for such purposes as forecasting weather, managing utilities, routing emergency vehicles, and navigating aircraft. The commercial and private sectors are routinely using geographic information for such purposes as customer needs assessment, facilities and inventory management, precision farming, site location, car navigation, and a host of similar activities.
Certainly government at all levels in the US has been the dominant force in the past in developing the spatial data sets that are used throughout US society for myriad government and private sector purposes. A recent Office of Management and Budget Report (OMB 1994) indicates that the federal government alone accounts for $4.4 billion each year in geographic information-based activity while activity at state and local government levels is also very substantial. Much of the data that agencies at all levels collect for governmental purposes is made widely available in order to encourage public education and enlightenment and to assist economic development. Among the economic values at work is that individuals ought to be able to derive economic benefit from public goods (such as public information). (US Congress 1986)
In addition to government spending on geographic information-based activity, a recent National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) report indicates that the estimated 1998 commercial market for geographic data sales and services involves an additional $4.2 billion. (NAPA 1998, 298). Conservatively we can estimate that well over $10 billion of direct geographic information activity occurs annually in the US and the effects of this investment in facilities and data play an increasingly important role in the national and global economy.
In contrast to the term "infrastructure", the term "library" brings to mind the image of an institution in which the works of both government and the private sector are made available to the public through a decentralized yet networked national system. The discussion that follows is intended to address and encompass needed knowledge advancements sometimes addressed separately under the terms "spatial data infrastructure" (NRC/MSC 1993) and "geolibraries" (NRC/MSC 1998). Thus, in subsequent use of these terms, the subject matter addressed under one term should be broadly interpreted to include subject matter germane to the other as well.
Facilitating the advancement of spatial data infrastructures and geolibraries requires focused research in several technical areas as well as new knowledge regarding policy, institutional, and legal alternatives that might best meet the needs of widely diverse sectors of society. Because the technical issues are addressed primarily elsewhere in the UCGIS research agenda, we address in this document primarily priority social and institutional research issues germane to the development of spatial data infrastructure and digital library concepts.
Each of the priority research topics described is directed at advancing knowledge that will help decision-makers evaluate and understand the likely consequences of choices they might make among competing policy alternatives. The consequences of information policy choices are intertwined with issues such as the ownership and control of geographic information, economics of spatial information production and dissemination, protection of personal information privacy, access to the spatial data compiled and held by government agencies, liability for spatial information products and services, and overall effects on the quality of life of our nation's people. In order to facilitate the growth and utilization of spatial information resources toward meeting societal needs, priority research topics should be directed at knowledge advancements that help policy-makers, scientists, business leaders, and citizen groups better understand the relationships between government information policies and spatial information resources, products, and services.
2. Background
In the early 1990s, the National Research Council's (NRC's) Mapping Science Committee articulated how spatial information handling might best be approached from an organizational perspective (NRC 1993). This led to a plan for the creation of a National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI), recognized as critical to national priorities (Office of President 1994). In addition, many executive science and technology priorities, such as science education, technology transfer, high-performance computing and networking, digital libraries, global environmental change, and international competitiveness, have significant geographic information components, as do traditional land management activities. These priorities are mirrored at state and local levels of government. There is, however, a growing need for increased coordination between programs and for making the outcomes of these activities both appropriate and available to address social needs.
Despite large investments in geographic data development by government and the private sector, there is often a lack of knowledge of the complex policy-related issues arising from the community-wide creation, compilation, exchange, and archiving of large spatial data sets. Technical, legal, and public policy uncertainties interact, making it difficult to utilize information resources fully in order to pursue social goals. The ownership of digital geographic data, protection of privacy, access rights to the geographic data compiled and held by governments, and information liability are concepts that require greater clarity in the new, automated context. Observation of the social and economic ramifications of following different policy choices are needed to help guide future choices.
The government sector plays an important role in developing the fundamental spatial information infrastructure because of its activities in the systematic collection, maintenance, and dissemination of geographic data. These resources have significant uses beyond their governmental purposes. For example, subsequent use of geographic information by organizations can stimulate the growth and diversity of the information services market. At the same time, public access to government information remains essential to ensuring government accountability and democratic decision-making. Reconciliation of the tensions inherent in these and other policies is increasingly more important as we move toward global economies and international networked environments. Rigorous, impartial analysis is urgently needed in order to inform decision makers on the economic, legal, and political ramifications of choosing one policy over another.
3. Spatial Information Infrastructure Research Tenets
The research agenda for the spatial information infrastructure as articulated below has arisen from three foundation tenets, which involve a mix of natural and social science perspectives:
3.1Underlying social principles, institutions and traditions matter:
Democratic governments must develop in ways that enhance public participation while supporting responsible use of science and technology.
3.2. Technical facts matter:
The policy issues associated with the development of spatial information infrastructures cannot be fully understood without an understanding of the technical components of public issues.
3.3. Information policy issues arise at all levels, from local to global and from public to private sources:
Each jurisdiction, whatever its size, has its own culture and set of practices. In the modern, automated communications environment, these jurisdictions are less independent and influence one another in new ways.
Research activities focusing on the future of the spatial information infrastructure should draw upon specialists from various academic disciplines including information science, planning, law, economics, geography, political science, and engineering as contributors to project work. In addition, perspectives and insights from experts, users, and data subjects in government, industry, and academia and citizen's groups should be drawn upon. Rigorous analysis of local, state, national, and international initiatives should be undertaken from independent, multidisciplinary perspectives. Researchers should employ various methodologies (e.g., surveys, case studies, impact assessment, comparative analysis) to evaluate the ramifications of alternative legal, economic, and information policies. Multidisciplinary participation should be supported in order to deliver a comprehensive analysis that would not be possible otherwise.
4. Benefits for the Nation
Three important activities will be advanced by expanding research on priority spatial data infrastructure and geolibrary topics. The first is the stimulation of economic growth in the geographic information industry. Government policy and practice in regard to both technology and information can contribute significantly to stimulating economic activity. Governments create and consume great quantities of data and technology (in our context, GIS software, global positioning systems, remote sensing). How governments obtain and distribute this material is important both to themselves and to society in general. In addition, a large and growing private information industry functions in part by adding value to government data. The second activity is the strengthening of institutional capacity. An educated and specially trained workforce is an important component in building the capacity of the spatial information infrastructure. This area of development activities should focus on the training and education of people with the knowledge, skills, and insights in geographic information science and technology as well as institutional factors. The third activity is the promotion of democratic processes. New geographic information technologies can make it easier for the public to obtain access to government information and to become involved as stakeholders in land-related decisions. Broader participation by the public will in turn result in broader voter support for system investments.
Increased research in support of future spatial information infrastructure will
Because government institutions are the single largest producers of spatial information, they can serve as model developers of a spatial information infrastructure that promotes the community-wide sharing and use of spatial data and technology. The social and economic benefits of sharing these resources with public, private, and other government sectors have yet to be realized. The advance of electronic networks (the Internet, the World Wide Web, intranets, etc.) have made it practical to share data among many organizations at all levels and over great distances.
5. Priority Research Areas
We propose four broad areas in which research will help to strengthen the future of the nation's spatial information infrastructure:
5.1 Information policy
The factors that shape the development of spatial information policy and law reflect traditional and contemporary culture and technology. Research is needed to identify optimal government information policies and practices for promoting a robust spatial information infrastructure. Basic policy issues include intellectual property rights, information privacy, and liability as they pertain to spatial data. Perspectives from local to global vantage points and perspectives from public, commercial, scientist, citizen, user and data subject vantage points will need to be considered.
5.2 Access to government spatial information
Research is needed to examine how government information policies affect the access to and use of data for a broad spectrum of public and private sector stakeholders for a variety of public and private purposes. Public and private roles in information creation through partnerships and cooperative arrangements must be a subject of particular attention.
5.3 Economics of information
Geographic information is an unusual commodity of great value. Issues of cost recovery, pricing, and markets for geographic data and their relationship to intellectual property rights are of central importance. We need to achieve a better understanding of the economic characteristics of information, especially government information, through such concepts as public goods theory, network externalities, and value-adding processes.
5.4 Local generation and integration of spatial information
Locally generated information and knowledge is increasingly important because new developments in technology make it possible for local people to more readily gather local geographic data germane to their own needs, draw data from library depositories, develop the information products they need, use the data for decision-making and contribute their locally gathered data to library depositories. Contributions of data can be systematic or ad hoc, coming from civic groups, schools, local institutions, and informed individuals. Local users can make significant contributions of their local knowledge, identify gaps in existing data resources, and identify errors. Developing the technical and institutional means to support creation and contribution of local knowledge presents a novel challenge to technologists and decision makers alike.
6. Example Research Topics
The following are examples of specific projects that might be undertaken within the context of a spatial information infrastructure research program.
7. Summary
Research on spatial data infrastructures and geolibraries spans a broad range of technical, social and institutional issues. The purpose of this paper has been to focus on priority social and institutional knowledge gaps that are likely to impede the growth of the nation's spatial information infrastructure. Results achieved from the recommended research should help policy-makers, scientists, business leaders, and citizen groups better understand the relationships between information policies and spatial information resources, products, and services - and by so doing to facilitate the accelerated growth and utilization of geographic information resources in meeting society's future needs.
Acknowledgments
The committee responsible for drafting this document includes Harlan Onsrud, Xavier Lopez, Anne Hale Miglarese, Robert Rugg, and Lyna Wiggins.
References
FGDC (Federal Geographic Data Committee), 1995. Development of a National Digital Geospatial Data Framework, Washington, D.C.
FGDC (Federal Geographic Data Committee), 1997. A Strategy for the NSDI. http://www.fgdc.gov/NSDI/strategy.html
FGDC (Federal Geographic Data Committee), 1997. Framework: Introduction and Guide.
NRC (National Research Council), 1993. Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/records/0309048990.html
National Research Council, Mapping Science Committee. 1994. Promoting the National Spatial Data Infrastructure through Partnerships. Washington, D.C. National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/records/030905141X.html
National Research Council. Mapping Science Committee. 1995. A Data Foundation for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/records/NX005078.html
National Research Council. Mapping Science Committee. 1997. The Future of Spatial Data and Society: Summary of a Workshop. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. http://www2.nas.edu/besr/22d6.html
Office of the President, 1994. Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: The National Spatial Data Infrastructure. Presidential Executive Order 12906 (April 11, 1994), Federal Register (April 13, 1994), 59 (71), pp.17671-17674. Washington, DC.
U.S. Congress (1986) Intellectual Property Rights in an Age of Electronics and Information, Washington, DC: Office of Technology Assessment.