National Spatial Data Infrastructure Partnership Programs: Rethinking the Focus (2001)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

REVIEW OF NSDI PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS 30 program focuses on the role of geospatial information in community planning and the development of “livable communities”; on the role of the federal government as an agent of change and as a coordinator of geospatial data infrastructure; and on the ways that data, metadata, and technologies can be deployed to make geospatial data more accessible to all of the community’s stakeholders. A major goal of the program would be to demonstrate that the NSDI is the key to integration, and that it constitutes a way of coordinating federal and local interest in solving local issues. CFIP has received strong support from the NSGIC and from the National Association of Counties (NACo). In the committee’s view, the proposed CFIP program will have to resolve several issues in order to be successful. An analysis of project scale is needed to clarify what can be achieved with any specific level of funding, or how to divide the total funding among projects to achieve maximum effect. The committee suggests that careful consideration be given to whether the program’s objectives might be better served by a few large grants, as in general it considers that a much larger number of small grants may not always be effective. The committee advocates adoption of a funding formula that provides resources to all participants on a non-competitive basis, coupled with grants of sufficient size and duration to achieve expected outcomes. As a multi-agency program, the goals of the program are very diverse, go well beyond those of the NSDI, and will have to be clearly articulated if the program is to be successful. The process by which funds are awarded will have to be clarified, as it will involve multiple agencies and stakeholders at all levels, all ideally working toward common objectives. PRIMING THE PUMP-THE FEDERAL ROLE IN NSDI PARTNERSHIP INITIATION By definition, the NSDI is an ambiguous concept. It is not an end in itself, but rather a means to an end. Although it could be argued that spatial data should be treated as a commodity that is created and distributed according to a simple business model, the committee believes that it should be treated as a public good. Ultimately, geospatial data exist to serve societal purposes, such as the mitigation of hazards, efficient operation of delivery services, and wise manage 

REVIEW OF NSDI PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS 31 ment of natural resources. Geospatial data are a collective resource, produced and used by many different groups, agencies, and individuals. In this context, the NSDI represents a mechanism for the more effective production, management, and use of geospatial data. It can also be viewed in the context of a substantial innovation in the way that data are traditionally created and managed. Therefore it is useful to examine the motivation, the impediments, and the rate of adoption as this innovation diffuses through society. The NSDI inherently falls within the larger domain of information technology; therefore, it is also useful to view its development in terms of whether the intended user community is passing through the set of societal and technological “gates” that Mayo (1985) suggests inhibit the adoption of any new technology. Tulloch (1999) provides an excellent discussion of how the implementation of a multipurpose land information system can be viewed in terms of the conflict between what Mayo describes as the push of technology and the pull of society. The committee envisions the role of the FGDC as an agent of change that is charged with the mission of pushing and pulling a vast and unorganized set of users through these gates. In this sense, the development of partnerships represents successful and demonstrable evidence that the goals of NSDI have been accepted and that diffusion is occurring. More specifically, the designers of the NSDI argued that its construction would provide four benefits: reduced redundancy in geospatial data production; reduced cost; greater access to geospatial data; and greater accuracy of geospatial data. All of these four imply a comparison between a world with the NSDI and a world without it, or the world that existed before the NSDI was established compared with the situation that would have existed now had the NSDI not been constructed. In the committee’s view, the NSDI is explicitly a national concept in which the federal government originated and continues to play the major role in its construction. This is an appropriate responsibility for the federal government for several reasons. First, there is a natural tendency to equate nationwide and federal, in part because the federal government is the sole government of the nation as a whole, and in part because of its sheer size. Second, and more specifically, the federal government, through the FGDC, has played a 

REVIEW OF NSDI PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS 32 major role in the definition and design of the NSDI: The Executive Order that initiated the NSDI may be viewed as an order to the federal government, rather than as an order to the nation. In addition, the federal government clearly has much to gain from the NSDI, as well as deserving credit for much of the work behind its construction. The NSDI can provide much of the geospatial data that the federal government needs to carry out its own programs. For example, the Bureau of the Census depends on local governments for current listings of streets and addresses. A mature and efficient local-federal partnership that successfully overcomes both the technical and institutional barriers that inhibit the sharing of this information could greatly reduce the cost of conducting the decennial census. Ideally, in a robust NSDI, these data would be continually updated on a transaction basis at the local level, and shared dynamically over an internet- based clearinghouse with federal and private users. Such a partnership would probably result in a more efficient local emergency 911 system and facilitate commercial package delivery services, while simultaneously assisting the creation of a nationwide street centerline database. The committee also notes that the Ground Transportation Subcommittee of the FGDC and the Cultural and Demographic Subcommittee have made considerable progress in developing standards for handling transportation features and street addresses. These draft standards—now out for public review—are the result of extensive review by participants from many agencies. Broad acceptance of these standards will play a significant role in enabling organizations to share street and other transportation data. Because the production of geospatial data is mandated for many federal agencies, including the USGS and NOAA, it is in their self-interest to promote a robust NSDI. In fact, as the demand for higher resolution and more precise spatial data intensifies, it could be argued that the federal mapping functions will become increasingly dependent on local government data sources. For example, recent changes in policy have significantly improved the accuracy of mapping-grade GPS receivers to approximately 10 meters, which is less than the stated accuracy of the 1:24,000 scale USGS topographic quadrangles. This suggests that the largest scale nationwide mapping series is an inappropriate base map for many applications. A serious question for the next decade will be to determine the most appropriate 

REVIEW OF NSDI PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS 33 approach to the development of new national map series at a much higher level of accuracy. Although the orthophoto base of the nationwide framework database is based on a 1-meter pixel size, many local governments have already invested in orthophotos with a 0.5-foot resolution. The federal government must find more innovative ways to incorporate these high quality data sources into their overall strategy. It is clear that we are in a period of rapid change in terms of human-computer interaction and institutional arrangements. It is important that the federal government actively monitor the technological setting for the use of spatial data and participates in the further enhancement of applications. For the benefits of a robust NSDI to accrue, however, it must first reach a threshold of sustainability. The community of geospatial data producers and users must be made aware of its concepts and design, and must be persuaded to adopt them (i.e., pushed through the social gates). Because of its patchwork nature, the NSDI cannot be successful unless a large proportion of the geospatial data community adopts the NSDI principles. According to Rogers (1995), the diffusion of an innovation generally passes through five stages: knowledge, persuasion, decision, implementation, and confirmation. As in any adoption cycle, organizations will vary greatly in the rate in which they progress through these stages. Some innovative groups will have the organizational structure and the technical ability to be early adopters, whereas others face severe impediments that will force them to lag considerably behind. The following is a simple model describing that adoption process, in three stages: 1. Awareness or knowledge of the NSDI is promoted through the efforts of the FGDC, other federal agencies, professional organizations such as NSGIC, and individual advocates. Efforts are made to ensure that local and regional governments are provided with concrete examples of how the use of spatial data can help them solve critical problems. Benefits are characterized as incentives to capture the attention of the community, and additional monetary incentives are provided. Other parts of the community are persuaded by the novelty of the concept, and see benefits in being perceived as trendsetters. 

REVIEW OF NSDI PARTNERSHIP PROGRAMS 34 2. Initial adopters make decisions to assist with implementation of the NSDI. They realize its benefits, document them, and disseminate awareness of these benefits to new parts of the community. 3. Residual sections of the community are convinced by the demonstrated benefits of the NSDI, and their actions complete the adoption process. In the context of this simplified adoption model, the partnership programs discussed in Chapter 2 that are designed to provide financial incentives can be assigned to the first stage. In the committee’s view, the FGDC has played an important role in this first phase of adoption. It believes that awareness of the NSDI goals is now widespread among the user community, and there is considerable knowledge of the availability of partnership funding. However, the recent University of Kentucky study conducted for the FGDC (Harvey, 2001) noted: “More surprising, our survey revealed that half the respondents did not know what NSDI referred to. The limited awareness among local governments suggests that the most significant hurdle for developing the NSDI is raising awareness and educating local governments.” The study also found that local governments realize that they could benefit from the use of federal data sources but the smaller ones face major obstacles in the adoption of new technology and they feel excluded from the process. The authors conclude (Harvey, 2001, p. 40): “Lacking specific policy, financial, or organizational guidelines to promote involvement, NSDI implementation stumbles at the local level.” It must also be noted that although many larger local governments (e.g., Cook County, Illinois, which is investing $15,000,000) have a clear business plan for the use of spatial data, it is not clear that they feel the need to share that data with other levels of government. Continued success of the adoption process will depend on persuading a large proportion of the user community to adopt the design of the NSDI. Harvey suggests that “Building the NSDI is not only a matter of building a pyramid of data, but also of creating a pyramid of trust.” The ultimate success of such widespread adoption will depend upon proof of benefits. If that proof does not materialize, the adoption process may terminate at the first