ISPRS Workshop on Service and Application of Spatial Data Infrastructure, XXXVI (4/W6), Oct.

14-16, Hangzhou, China

THE FUTURE OF SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURES

Ian Masser

Visiting Professor, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London, WC1E 6BT,
UK – [email protected]

KEY WORDS: Spatial data infrastructures, National geographic information systems, Geographic information policies, Political and
institutional factors

ABSTRACT:

This paper addresses two central questions relating to the future of spatial data infrastructures (SDIs)
- Where have we got to now?
- Where should go from here?
The answers to the first question are to be found in a review of the main milestones of SDI development over the last two decades
and a comparative evaluation of SDI experiences in different parts of the world which constitutes the first main section of the paper.
The answers to the second question are inevitably more speculative in nature. With this in mind the second main section examines
some emerging trends and explores some of the main strengths and weaknesses of current SDI practices in relation to the perceived
opportunities and threats that are likely to emerge in the foreseeable future. The paper concludes with a discussion of four key issues
that are likely to play a vital role in determining the future success of SDIs.

1. INTRODUCTION The italicised sections of this rather complex definition show

that there are four key concepts underlying SDIs. The first of
This paper addresses two central questions relating to the future these states that their overriding objective is to promote ready
of spatial data infrastructures (SDIs) access to the geographic information assets that are held by a
wide range of stakeholders in both the public and the private
- Where have we got to now? sector with a view to maximising their overall usage. The
- Where should go from here? second concerns the need for concerted action on the part of
governments to ensure that this overriding objective is
The answers to the first question are to be found in a review of attainable. The next part of this sentence gives some examples
the main milestones of SDI development over the last two of the kind of actions that are required from governments. The
decades and a comparative evaluation of SDI experiences in third key element stresses the extent to which SDIs must be user
different parts of the world which constitutes the first main driven. Their primary purpose is to support decision making for
section of the paper. The answers to the second question are many different purposes and it must be recognised that many
inevitably more speculative in nature. With this in mind the potential users may be unaware of the original purposes for
second main section examines some emerging trends and which the data was collected. Finally the last sentence illustrates
explores some of the main strengths and weaknesses of current the wide range of activities that must be undertaken to ensure
SDI practices in relation to the perceived opportunities and the effective implementation of a SDI. These include not only
threats that are likely to emerge in the foreseeable future. The technical matters such as data, technologies, standards and
paper concludes with a discussion of four key issues that are delivery mechanisms but also institutional matters related to
likely to play a vital role in determining the future success of organisational responsibilities and overall national information
SDIs. policies as well as questions relating to the availability of the
financial and human resources needed for this task.
Before beginning the discussion, however, it is important to
clarify was is meant by the term ‘SDI’. A comprehensive
definition which conveys some of the complexity of the issues 2. WHERE HAVE WE GOT TO NOW?
involved can be found on the Global Spatial Data Infrastructure
Association website (www.gsdi.org). 2.1 SDI Milestones

'A ...Spatial Data Infrastructure supports ready access to The first SDI milestone dates back twenty years to the
geographic information. This is achieved through the establishment of the Australian Land Information Council
co-ordinated actions of nations and organisations that promote (ALIC) in January 1986 as a result of an agreement between the
awareness and implementation of complimentary policies, Australian Prime Minister and the heads of the state
common standards and effective mechanisms for the governments to coordinate the collection and transfer of land
development and availability of interoperable digital geographic related information between the different levels of government
data and technologies to support decision making at all scales and to promote the use of that information in decision making
for multiple purposes. These actions encompass the policies, (ANZLIC 1992, p.1).
organisational remits, data, technologies, standards, delivery
mechanisms, and financial and human resources necessary to The second milestone was the publication of the Report of the
ensure that those working at the (national) and regional scale are British Government Committee of Enquiry on Handling
not impeded in meeting their objectives.' (Author's italics) Geographic Information chaired by Lord Chorley in May 1987
(Department of Environment, 1987). This set the scene for

7
ISPRS Workshop on Service and Application of Spatial Data Infrastructure, XXXVI (4/W6), Oct.14-16, Hangzhou, China

much of the subsequent discussion about SDIs in the UK and collection, management and use not only among Federal
elsewhere. The report reflects the committee's enthusiasm for agencies but also nationally and internationally.
the new technology: "the biggest step forward in the handling of
geographic information since the invention of the map" (para One of the outcomes of this debate in Europe was the decision
1.7), and also their concern that information technology in itself to hold the first of what subsequently became a regular series of
must be regarded as "a necessary, though not sufficient Global Spatial Data Infrastructure conferences at Bonn in
condition for the take up of geographic information systems to Germany in September 1996. This conference brought together
increase rapidly" (para 1.22). To facilitate the rapid take up of representatives from the public and private sectors and
GIS the committee argued that it will be necessary to overcome academia for the first time to discuss matters relating to NSDIs
a number of important barriers to effective utilisation. Of at the global level.
particular importance in this respect are the need for greater user
awareness and the availability of data in digital form suitable for After the second GSDI conference in Chapel Hill, North
use in particular applications. Carolina in 1997 the author carried out a worldwide survey of
the first generation of NSDIs (Masser, 1999). This showed that
The third milestone occurred in 1990 when the United States at least eleven NSDIs were already in operation in various parts
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) established an of the world by the end of 1996. What distinguished these
interagency Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) to from other GI policy initiatives was that they were all explicitly
coordinate the “development, use, sharing, and dissemination of national in scope and their titles all referred to geographic
surveying, mapping, and related spatial data.” information, geospatial data or land information and included
the term 'infrastructure', 'system' or 'framework'. This first
Up to this point the term 'National Spatial Data Infrastructure' generation included relatively wealthy countries such as the
was not in general use although a paper was presented by John United States and Australia as well as relatively poor countries
McLaughlin at the 1991 Canadian Conference on Geographic such as Indonesia and Malaysia.
Information Systems in Ottawa entitled 'Toward National
Spatial Data Infrastructure.' Many of the ideas contained in this The rapid rate of NSDI diffusion after 1996 is highlighted by
paper were subsequently developed and extended by the United the findings of a survey carried for the GSDI (www.gsdi.org).
States National Research Council's Mapping Science These show that 49 countries responded positively to his
Committee in their report on 'Toward a coordinated spatial data questionnaire between 1998 and 2000: 21 of these came from
infrastructure for the nation' (National Research Council, 1993). the Americas, 14 from Europe, 13 from Asia and the Pacific and
This recommended that effective national policies, strategies, one from Africa. The number of positive responses to this
and organisational structures need to be established at the survey is more than four times the number of first generation
federal level for the integration of national spatial data NSDI countries identified up to the end of 1996 Subsequent
collection, use and distribution. To realise this goal it proposed data collected by Crompvoets and Bregt (2003) suggests that as
that the powers of the FGDC should be strengthened to define many as 120 countries may be considering projects of this kind.
common standards for spatial data management and to create These figures must be treated with some caution as they do not
incentives to foster data sharing particularly among federal necessarily imply that all these countries are actively engaged in
agencies. SDI formulation or implementation. Furthermore it is also likely
that many of them may be engaged in some aspects of SDI
The next milestone is the outcome of an enquiry set up by DG development without necessarily committing themselves to a
XIII (now DG Information Society) of the European comprehensive SDI programme. Nevertheless it is felt that the
Commission which found that there was a strong European term 'SDI phenomenon' is a reasonable description of what has
wide demand for an organisation that would further the interests happened in this field over the last ten to fifteen years.
of the European geographic information community. As a result
the first continental level SDI organisation in the world was set 2.2 SDI Diffusion – A Global Overview
up in 1993. The vision of the European Umbrella Organisation
for Geographic Information (EUROGI) was not to 'replace A comprehensive and consistent global evaluation of SDIs has
existing organisations but … catalyse effective cooperation yet to be carried out but there are encouraging signs of such
between existing national, international, and discipline oriented activities at the regional level, particularly in Europe (see
bodies to bring added value in the areas of Strategy, Masser, 2005, chap 3). The following section summarises the
Coordination, and Services' (Burrough et al, 1993). material that is currently available. These findings must also be
treated with some caution as the nature of the sources and their
The milestone that marks a turning point in the evolution of the content still varies considerably from region to region.
SDI concept came in the following year with the publication of
Executive Order 12906 signed by President Bill Clinton entitled 2.2.1 Europe: The development of SDIs has been studied
“Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: the extensively in Europe over the last five years. This is partly due
National Spatial Data Infrastructure”(Executive Office of the to the interest of the European Commission in such activities
President, 1994). This set out the main tasks to be carried out that was expressed initially in the GI 2000 initiative and more
and defined time limits for each of the initial stages of the recently in the INSPIRE programme. In the process the
National Spatial Data Infrastructure. These included the Commission has also funded a number of important studies in
establishment of a National Geospatial Data Clearing House and this field such as the Geographic Information Network in
the creation of a National Digital Geospatial Data Framework. Europe (GINIE) project (Craglia et al, 2003). More recently the
The Executive Order also gave the FGDC the task of European Commission commissioned a series of 32 country
coordinating the Federal government’s development of the studies of the state of play of SDI activities in all the European
National Spatial Data Infrastructure and required that each countries from the Catholic University of Leuven
member agency of that committee held a policy level position in (http://inspire.jrc.it/state_of_play.cfm). The findings of these
their organisation. In this way the Executive Order studies constitute a major resource for SDI research not only in
significantly raised the political visibility of geospatial data Europe but also for the rest of the world.

8
ISPRS Workshop on Service and Application of Spatial Data Infrastructure, XXXVI (4/W6), Oct.14-16, Hangzhou, China

2.2.3 Asia and the Pacific: The Asia and the Pacific region
On the basis of this research the authors of these studies have is the largest and the most diverse region in the world. Its 55
developed a useful typology of SDIs that is based on criteria countries contain 60 per cent of the world's population. They
based mainly on the coordination aspects of these initiatives. include some of the largest countries in the world as well as
Matters of coordination are emphasised because 'it is obvious many small island countries in the Pacific with tiny populations.
coordination is the major success factor for each SDI since They also include countries from the Middle East, and the
coordination is tackled in different ways according to the Indian sub continent, as well as south east and eastern Asia and
political and administrative organisation of the country' (SAD, Australia and New Zealand.
2003). A basic distinction is also made between countries where
a national data producer such as a mapping agency has an This diversity may also be the reason for the relative lack of
implicit mandate to set up a SDI and countries where SDI regional studies of SDI diffusion of the kind described above for
development has been driven by a council of Ministries, a GI Europe and the Americas. Nevertheless, Rajabifard and
association or a partnership of data users. A further distinction Williamson (2003) estimate that somewhere between 20 and 30
is then made between initiatives that do and do not involve per cent of countries in the Asia and the Pacific region are
users in the case of the former and between those that have a developing or have plans to develop national SDIs. This broadly
formal mandate and those that do not in the case of the latter. confirms the findings of their earlier survey of regional
fundamental data sets (Rajabifard and Williamson, 2000) when
According to the authors more than half the SDI initiatives in 17 out of the 55 members of the Permanent Committee for GI in
Europe are led by national data producers. This is particularly Asia and the Pacific, or just under a third of the members,
the case in the central and eastern European countries that have responded to their questionnaire. These were essentially
recently become members of the European Union (Craglia and national mapping agencies.
Masser, 2002) and the Nordic countries. All the Nordic
countries explicitly include data users in the coordination Within this region an obvious distinction can be made between
process whereas only a minority of former accession countries developed and developing countries in terms of their needs and
make provision for user involvement. However, not all these aspirations. Within the developing countries category a further
SDI initiatives are operational. This is the case in Greece and distinction can be made between countries in the process of
Luxembourg as well as several of the former accession transition from a less developed to a more developed state,
countries. countries at an early stage of economic development, and the
Pacific island nations. It can also be argued that developing
The remaining countries have made other arrangements for the countries face different challenges from those of developed
coordination of their national SDI activities. In two countries countries. 'The main limitations are a lack of appreciation of
(Germany and Portugal) a government interdepartmental body what SDI can and cannot do, lack of resources and trained
has been formally mandated to create a national SDI which is personnel, inefficient bureaucratic processes, lack of data, and
now operational. In the Netherlands a national GI association lack of infrastructure' (Rajabifard and Williamson, 2003).
(RAVI) has been encouraged by the government to take lead
and it has succeeded in developing an operational national SDI. 2.2.4 Africa: The Johannesburg World Summit on
Sustainable Development in September 2002 stimulated several
2.2.2 The Americas: The findings of a survey of 21 countries Africa wide studies on SDI related topics. These included a
in the Americas carried out in 2000 give a useful overview of report entitled 'Down to earth: geographic information for
the state of SDI development (Hyman et al, 2003). The overall sustainable development in Africa' prepared by the Committee
impression that is created by this survey is one of a growing on the Geographic Foundation for Agenda 21 on the US
awareness of SDI concepts and approaches in the Americas in National Research Council (2002).
2000, together with recognition that the main obstacles to be
overcome in these countries were institutional rather than These studies build upon earlier work in the environmental field
technical in nature. There was also some concern about the in Africa. A good example of this is the Environmental
question of the resources that would be required for effective Information System Programme for Sub Saharan Africa that has
SDI implementation. played an important role in harmonising standards for data
capture and exchange, coordinating data collection and
The findings of the survey highlight the range of different kinds maintenance and promoting the use of common data sets by the
of SDI initiatives that existed at that time. Formal mandates for different agencies involved (www.EIS-Africa.org).
the development and implementation of SDIs existed in only six
out of the 21 countries. In the majority of cases, a single Kate Lance’s (2003) overview of the current state of the art in
institute, normally the national mapping agency, or in some SDI development in Africa highlights the diversity of SDI
countries such as Mexico, the national mapping and statistical initiatives that have come into being over the last ten years and
agency, was the lead organisation in these initiatives. In some the role that has been played by international agencies of all
other countries, the Ministries of the Environment, Science and kinds in facilitating the development of SDIs. This is
Technology, and Transportation and Public Works acted as particularly evident in the publication of an African version of
focal points. Generally these initiatives were restricted to the GSDI cookbook (2003) based on the efforts of GSDI, EIS
central government although the utilities were involved in Africa, the UN Economic Commission for Africa and the
several countries together with the private sector. An interesting International Institute for Geoinformation Science and Earth
example of the latter is the Uruguay clearing house, which is Observation (ITC) in the Netherlands.
managed by a private company under contract to the Ministry of
Works. In most countries the basic data with reference to Lance also lists 21 national SDI initiatives that are currently
topography, transport, hydrology, land cover and administrative under way in all parts of Africa. These include countries from
boundaries was available in digital form but there was often a both anglophone and francophone Africa. Her review also
lack of standardisation and harmonisation. identifies some of the main problems facing SDI development
on this continent. One of the most important of these is the

9
ISPRS Workshop on Service and Application of Spatial Data Infrastructure, XXXVI (4/W6), Oct.14-16, Hangzhou, China

question of political support as very few of these initiatives have their position and status with respect to government but,
a legal status or enabling legislation to support their efforts and nevertheless, some advisory bodies enjoy de facto recognition
there are only a few countries where SDIs have achieved the without the need for a formal mandate. This is the case, for
status of funded activities with a budget from central example, with respect to the Dutch national GI association
government. Another particularly African problem is that of (RAVI).
leadership. While national survey and mapping agencies are an
important contributor to SDI development it is quite common in There are also marked differences between countries with
Africa to find that other entities have the political influence (and respect to the range of substantive interests represented in the
funding) that drives the initiatives. coordinating bodies and the extent to which stakeholders are
directly involved. There is still a strong coordination dimension
2.2.5 Comparative evaluation: The SDI initiatives to the work of the US Federal Geographic Data Committee
described above show the extent to which they come in all (FGDC). Although its composition is broad in scope, its formal
shapes and sizes with respect to population size, land area, level membership is restricted to federal government agencies. The
of economic development and distribution of administrative existing position in Australia is similar in some respects to that
responsibilities. of the United States but more inclusive in terms of
representation. The Australia New Zealand Land Information
There is also a basic difference within the group between Council (ANZLIC) is essentially an umbrella organisation
Europe and the Americas on the one hand and Asia and the consisting of representatives from both the Commonwealth and
Pacific and Africa on the other. Most of the former are State level government public sector coordination bodies. In
classified as either upper middle or high income by the World contrast the lead Canadian agency, GeoConnections, has always
Bank whereas most of the latter are low income countries. been an inclusive organisation that seeks to bring together all
These differences reflect the considerable gap that exists levels of government, the private sector and academia. These
between these two parts of the world with respect to wealth and interests are reflected in the composition of its Management
also, to a large extent, the resources that are likely to be Board and also in the membership of its committees. It sees
available to implement SDI initiatives. itself as a catalyst for successful implementation. There is also a
strong industry connection in the CGDI through the Geomatics
The driving forces behind these initiatives are generally similar: Industry Association of Canada.
i.e. promoting economic development, stimulating better
government and fostering environmental sustainability. This can Somewhat surprisingly, given that are large number of low
be seen, for example, in India's national SDI, which sets out its income countries are involved, questions of funding and
objectives as follows resources do not feature very prominently in their discussion of
SDI development. A notable exception is India which devotes a
'The NSDI must aim to promote and establish, at the national complete section of its National Spatial Data Infrastructure
level for the availability of organised spatial (and non spatial) Strategy document to this matter. Where national data producers
data and multilevel networking to contribute to local, national are involved as the lead agencies in SDI development it is likely
and global needs of sustained economic growth, environmental that some of the costs will come from their own budgets. In
quality and stability and social progress' (DOST 2002, para 8.0). Kenya, for example, the Survey of Kenya was able to insert the
Kenyan SDI into the National Development Plan for 2002-2008.
Other driving forces include the modernisation of government This means that the Ministry of Lands and Settlements has a
and environmental management. One of the main objectives of mandate to invest staff time and resources into this initiative.
the Chile’s SNIT is to modernise the way that territorial
information is handled by government agencies and to create a Other possibilities include international funding through World
collaborative scheme for its future management. Environmental Bank and similar projects. Projects of this kind played an
concerns feature prominently in Africa in general and the important role in setting up Ghana's National Framework for
starting point for the Ghana NAFGIM was a World Bank Geospatial Information Management and creating Nemoforum
funded project carried out for the Environmental Protection in the Czech Republic. Similarly, the Japan International
Agency as part of the Ghana Resource Management Project. Cooperation Agency was involved in the workshop that led to
the creation of the Kenyan SDI. However, projects such as these
eGovernment has also emerged as an important driving force in generally have a limited life span whereas SDI development
many recent cases. It features prominently in the Czech SDI that requires sustained efforts over a long period of time. This is one
is linked closely to that country's overall national information of the reasons why Kate Lance sees SDIs as a hard sell in
infrastructure programme. Specific factors in certain regions regions such as Africa.
may also act as a strong driving force in SDI development. This
is particularly the case in the accession countries in central and 'SDI is a hard sell. It is a 'beast' of an initiative since it requires
eastern Europe. The initial development of the building blocks inter-institutional, cross sector, long term coordination -
for SDIs in these countries was directly funded by the European something that defies the administrative and budgetary
Union through the Phare programme that was set up specifically structures in Africa, as well as the donor agencies' funding
to help these countries meet the requirements for EU accession. cycles' (Lance, 2003).
International donors, such as the World Bank, have also played
an important role in SDI development in many Asian and 2.3 Achievements
African countries
From the above discussion it can be seen that a critical mass of
The distinction between SDIs led by national data producers SDI users in all parts of the world has come into being as a
and those that are led by Councils of Ministries or partnerships result of the diffusion of SDI concepts during the last ten to
of data users proposed by the Leuven study is a useful indicator fifteen years. This provides the basic networks and channels for
of the status of a SDI. A formal mandate is particularly communication that are essential for the future development of
important where interagency bodies are involved as it defines the field. In the process regional bodies at the continental level

10
ISPRS Workshop on Service and Application of Spatial Data Infrastructure, XXXVI (4/W6), Oct.14-16, Hangzhou, China

and global bodies have come into being to facilitate SDI implementation will be to find ways of ensuring some measure
development and promote a wide range of capacity building of standardisation and uniformity while recognising the
initiatives throughout the world. Alongside these activities there diversity and the heterogeneity of the different stakeholders.
is a growing body of SDI related literature and research. This will require a sustained mutual learning process on the part
of all those involved in SDI implementation.

3. WHERE SHOULD WE GO FROM HERE? A particularly interesting example of multi level

implementation in practice is the European Union’s INSPIRE
3.1 Emerging Trends (Infrastructure for SPatial Information in Europe) initiative.
This was launched in 2001 with the objective of making
Some emerging trends in thinking about SDIs have been available relevant, harmonised and quality geographic
explored by Rajabifard et al (2003). Their findings show that information to support the formulation, implementation,
first generation of SDIs gave way to a second generation from monitoring and evaluation of Community policies with a
about 2000 onwards. The most distinctive change that has taken territorial dimension or impact' (http://inspire.jrc.it). INSPIRE is
place is the shift from the product model that characterised most seen as the first step towards a broad multi sectoral initiative
first generation SDIs to a process led model of a SDI. which focuses on the spatial information that is required for
environmental policies. It is a legal initiative that addresses
Database creation was to a very large extent the key driver of 'technical standards and protocols, organisation and
the first generation and, as a result, most of these initiatives coordination issues, data policy issues including data access and
tended to be data producer led. The shift from the product to the the creation and maintenance of spatial information'. A draft
process model is essentially a shift in emphasis from the Directive to 'establish an infrastructure for spatial information in
concerns of data producers to those of data users. The main the Community' was published in July 2004 (CEC 2004) and
driving forces behind the process model are the desire to reuse the European Environment Agency, together with Eurostat and
data collected by a wide range of agencies for a great diversity the Joint Research Centre, are currently engaged in a process
of purposes at various times. Also associated with this change in that should lead to its approval in late 2006 or early 2007. When
emphasis is a shift from the centralised structures that approved, the governments of all 25 national member states will
characterised most of the first generation of SDIs to the be required to modify existing legislation or introduce new
decentralised and distributed networks that are a basic feature of legislation to implement its provisions within a specific time
the WWW. period.

There has been also a shift in emphasis from SDI formulation to 3.1.2 More Inclusive Models of SDI Governance: Many
implementation over time. This is associated with the nature of countries are moving towards more inclusive models of SDI
multi level SDI implementation. Under these circumstances it is governance to meet the requirements of a multi level multi
necessary to think in terms of more inclusive models of stakeholder SDI. Recent developments in the US and Australia,
governance. In many cases these developments will also require for example, show a marked shift in this direction. In the US the
new kinds of organisational structure to facilitate effective FGDC is considering the recommendations of its Future
implementation. Directions Project regarding the creation of a new governance
model that includes representatives of all stakeholder groups to
3.1.1 The Multi Level Nature of SDI Implementation: The guide the NSDI (FGDC 2005). This is supported by a joint
impression given by many national SDI documents is that they FGDC/NSGIC (2005) initiative which aims to get all 50 states
abide by the principle of 'one size fits all.' In other words they actively involved and contributing to the NSDI. Similar
suggest that the outcome of SDI implementation will lead to a developments are already under way in Australia. The Australia
relatively uniform product. However there is both a top down New Zealand Land Information Council’s proposals for an
and a bottom up dimension to the relationships between the action plan (ANZLIC 2004) involve a new governance model
different levels involved in national SDI implementation. that takes account of the balance between public and private
National SDI strategies drive state wide SDI strategies and state sectors, data sources and data users. These developments will
wide SDI strategies drive local level SDI strategies. As most of bring both these countries into line with Canada where the lead
the detailed database maintenance and updating tasks are carried Canadian agency, GeoConnections, has always been an
out at the local level the input of local government has also a inclusive organisation that seeks to bring together all levels of
considerable influence on the process of SDI implementation at government, the private sector and academia.
the state and national levels. The outcomes of such processes
from the standpoint of a national SDI such as that of the US are A good example that highlights the need for more inclusive
likely to be that the level of commitment to SDI implementation models of SDI governance at the outset of a SDI initiative is the
will vary considerably from state to state and from local formulation of a GI strategy for Northern Ireland in the UK.
government to local government. Consequently the US NSDI Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland and its parent ministry,
that emerges from this process will be a collage or a patchwork the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, decided that a new
quilt of similar but often quite distinctive components that approach was required to the development and implementation
reflect the commitments and aspirations of the different sub of geographic information policy in Northern Ireland (Masser,
national governmental agencies. 2005, chap 4). It was decided to make use of the Future Search
method to develop an initial GI policy agenda for the province.
This vision of a bottom up SDI differs markedly from the top Weissbord and Janoff (2000) claim that Future Search is 'a
down one that is implicit in much of the SDI literature. While unique planning meeting that meets two goals at the same time,
the top down vision emphasises the need for standardisation and 1) helping large diverse groups discover values, purposes and
uniformity the bottom up vision stresses the importance of projects they hold in common, and 2) enabling people to create
diversity and heterogeneity given the very different aspirations a desired future together and start working towards it right
of the various stakeholders and the resources that are at their away.'
disposal. Consequently the challenge to those involved in SDI

11
ISPRS Workshop on Service and Application of Spatial Data Infrastructure, XXXVI (4/W6), Oct.14-16, Hangzhou, China

The Future Search process worked well at a special workshop continuing maintenance and distribution of four primary
involving all the main stakeholders at Lusty Beg, an island on a provincial data sets. From the outset the partners recognised that
remote lough in Northern Ireland. The participants collectively they did not either the expertise or the resources to maintain and
created a mind map with 32 main trends and an even larger disseminate the existing databases. Consequently they
numbers of sub trends within these trends. In the process the negotiated a long term Joint Venture Agreement with two
following issues emerged as key elements in the common private sector companies in 1999 to carry out these tasks. This
ground for a future strategy: the importance of creating an covers the reengineering of the databases and also makes it
overall GI strategy for Northern Ireland, the need to facilitate possible to implement new pricing and licensing options.
access and promote awareness, and the importance of
partnerships in realising these objectives. On the basis of this Finally, initiatives such as the MetroGIS collaborative in the
experience the participants set up a number of working groups Minneapolis St Paul metropolitan region of the US bring
to further develop Northern Ireland’s GI strategy. together a large number of data producers and data users. Such
initiatives are both more ambitious and more open ended in
3.1.3 The emergence of new organisational structures: In their potential for development than either of the other joint
many cases it is likely that the multi level nature of national SDI ventures. The distinctive feature of this initiative lies in its
implementation will also require the creation of new kinds of insistence on voluntary, open and flexible and adaptive
organisation. These can take various forms. Masser (2005, chap collaborations which optimise the interdependencies between
5) shows some of the different kinds of organisational structures citizens and organisations.
that have already emerged in the US, Australia and Canada to
facilitate national SDI implementation. This shows that at least 3.2 SWOTs Analysis
five different types of partnerships are in operation. These range
from the restructuring of existing government agencies to the 3.2.1 Strengths: The most important strength of the SDI
establishment of joint ventures involving different combinations concept is the way in which it enables a diverse group of users
of the key stakeholders. to access a wide range of geo referenced data sets. The
underlying rationale for SDIs is to maximise the use that is
made of local, national and global geographic information
The simplest case is the merger of various government
assets and their success or failure is likely to be measured
departments with responsibilities for various activities based on
largely in these terms. In this way SDIs also make an important
geographic information. The driving force for this kind of
contribution to economic growth and job creation at the local,
restructuring is typically the perceived administrative benefits to
national and global levels as well as promoting more effective
be derived from the creation of an integrated database for the
and transparent decision making in both the public and private
agency as a whole. This can be seen in the creation of Land
sectors.
Victoria in 1996 in Australia which is the product of a merger of
various state government entities with responsibilities for
The second main strength is the degree to which the SDI
various aspects of land administration. The objective of this
concept straddles existing professional and administrative
merger was to establish an integrated land administration
sectoral boundaries. It is a truly integrating concept that
agency with a shared geographic information resource for the
facilitates the use of local, national and global geographic
State of Victoria.
information assets many times in many different applications.
Recognition of the importance of integrating data from many
An alternative strategy is to set up a special government agency diverse sources is already encouraging the merger of previously
outside the existing governmental structure with a specific remit separate professional bodies in some countries. In Australia, for
to maintain and disseminate core datasets. Service New example, a Spatial Sciences Institute was set up in 2003 to bring
Brunswick in Canada is a good example of such a strategy. It is together the professional disciplines of surveying, mapping,
a Crown Corporation owned by the State of New Brunswick. It engineering and mining, surveying, remote sensing and
was originally set up to deal with matters relating to land photogrammetry (www.spatialsciences.org.au). At the global
transactions and topographic mapping for the Province as a level a Global Spatial Data Infrastructure Association was set
whole. Since 1998 it has shifted its position to become the up in 2004 ‘to promote international cooperation and
gateway for the delivery of a wide range of basic government collaboration in support of local, national and international
services as well as national SDI implementation. spatial data infrastructure developments that will allow nations
to better address social, economic and environmental issues of
There are also some interesting examples of joint ventures pressing importance’ (www.gsdi.org). Its membership includes
between different groups of the stakeholders in SDI organisations of all kinds in both the public and private sectors
implementation. The simplest case is a data producer driven as well as not for profit organisations and academia from all
joint venture involving the Australian public sector mapping parts of the world.
agencies that was originally set up in 1993 to create an
integrated national digital base map for the 1996 Census of The third main strength of the SDI concept is the way it has
Population (www.psma.com.au). The driving force behind this exploited recent developments in location based services and
partnership was the recognition the whole is worth more than the Internet and the World Wide Web. The importance of the
the sum of the parts in that there are clear economic and social latter was recognised by the US Mapping Sciences Committee
benefits for the nation to be derived through the assembly and in their report on Distributed Geolibraries (National Research
delivery of national data sets from the data held and maintained Council 1999, 31). In their view, 'the WWW has added a new
by the consortium members. and radically different dimension to its earlier conception of the
The other two types of joint ventures involve more complex NSDI, one that is much more user oriented, much more
structures. Alberta's Spatial Data Warehouse is very much a effective in maximising the added value of the nation's
data user driven initiative. It is a not for profit joint venture geoinformation assets, and much more cost effective as a data
between key data users including the State itself, the local dissemination mechanism.
government associations and the utility groups to facilitate the

12
ISPRS Workshop on Service and Application of Spatial Data Infrastructure, XXXVI (4/W6), Oct.14-16, Hangzhou, China

3.2 2 Weaknesses: Each of the strengths referred to above also will be swallowed up by these broader debates and lose its
brings with it its weaknesses. SDIs can only facilitate access to identity in the process. As a result some of the special qualities
a wide range of users if radical changes take place in existing of geographic information may not be adequately considered in
organisational cultures. To be effective SDIs require data future applications. These include the questions such as those
sharing on an unprecedented scale. Some indication of the associated with transforming 3D information relating to the
nature of the barriers that must be overcome is given in Uta globe into two dimensions for display and analysis, the need to
Wehn de Montalvo's (2003) study of spatial data sharing be to able to deal with multiple representations of the same data
perceptions and practices in South Africa from a social at scales varying from 1:1,000,00 to 1:500, and the voluminous
psychological perspective. This study utilises the theory of sizes of geographic databases which can easily exceed one
planned behaviour. This theory suggests that personal and terabyte in size.
organisational willingness to share data depends on attitudes to
data sharing, social pressures to engage or not engage and
perceived control over data sharing activities of key individuals 4. KEY ISSUES FOR THE FUTURE
within organisations. The findings of her analysis generally
show that there was only a relatively limited commitment In the light of the preceding analysis four sets of issues can be
amongst those involved to promote data sharing in high profile identified that will play a vital role in determining the future
initiatives such as the South African national SDI. success of SDIs. These are listed below in order of priority.

Similarly, the extent to which SDIs straddle professional and 4.1 Creating Appropriate SDI Governance Structures
administrative sectoral boundaries may lead to problems in
building up and maintaining a consensus among the Top priority must be given to the creation of appropriate SDI
stakeholders involved over time. The old adage that Rome governance structures which are both understood and accepted
wasn’t built in a day is equally applicable to SDIs. The creation by all the stakeholders. This is a daunting task given the number
of SDIs is a long term process that may take years or even of organisations that are likely to be involved. In the US, for
decades in some cases before they will be fully operational. example, there are more than 100,000 organisations engaged in
Such a process is also dependent on sustaining political support SDI related GIS activities. Under these circumstances it will not
and commitment for such initiatives. This is likely to present be possible in most cases to bring all the stakeholders together
particular problems in some less developed countries where for decision making purposes but structures must be devised
financial and human resources are scarce and governments may that keep all of them informed and give them an opportunity to
be politically unstable. have their opinions heard. The simplest solution to this problem
is to create hierarchical structures at the national, state and local
3.2.3 Opportunities: The most important opportunity is the level for this purpose. As noted above, this kind of structure is
growing public awareness of the potential for SDI development already operational to some extent in Australia and is implicit in
in an Information Society. This can be seen from the agenda for the proposals for a fifty states initiative in the US.
the UN World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis in
November 2005. Key factors underlying this Summit are the It also important in this respect that such governance structures
extent to which the Digital Revolution is changing the ways should as inclusive as possible from the outset of a SDI
people think, communicate and earn their livelihood and the initiative so that all those involved can develop a shared vision
need to bridge the digital divide between rich and poor both and feel a sense of common ownership of a SDI. Otherwise it
between and within countries (www.itu.int/wsis/). Because of may be difficult or even impossible to bring new participants
the degree to which a large proportion of all data is geo into a SDI initiative at a later stage. This is likely to be a
referenced SDIs are likely to play a major role in the challenging task that may slow down the progress of the work
achievement of the Millennium Development Goals that the UN in the short term but building up a base for future collaboration
has set itself for improving the living standards of millions of is an essential prerequisite for the long term success of the SDI.
people throughout the world.

Another important opportunity for SDIs arises from the growing

pressure to make public sector information more readily 4.2 Facilitating Access
available for reuse by the private sector. The rationale behind
these debates in Europe is the recognition that the public sector Facilitating access is the second highest priority after
is the largest single producer of information in Europe and that developing appropriate governance structures because one of
the social and economic potential of this resource has yet to be the biggest problems faced by users is the lack of information
tapped. Geographic information held by public sector about information sources that might be relevant to their needs.
organisations has considerable potential for the development of Consequently, without appropriate metadata services which
digital products and services. With this in mind EU Directive help them to find this information it is unlikely that a SDI will
2003/98/EC sets out a framework for the conditions governing be able to achieve its overarching objective of promoting
the re-use of public sector information (CEC 2003). The greater use of geographic information. There is also a very
adoption of this Directive has important implications for the practical reason why the development of metadata services
future development of the geographic information field in should be given a high priority in the implementation of a SDI.
Europe because the measures that it contains are mandatory on This is because they can be developed relatively quickly and at
all 25 national member states which had until July 2005 to a relatively low cost. In this respect they can be regarded as a
incorporate them in their respective national legislation. potential quick winner which demonstrates tangible benefits for
those involved in SDI development.
3.2.4 Threats: As was the case with respect to the strengths and
weaknesses the opportunities created by the Information Society The establishment of Web based metadata services that provide
and public sector information debates also bring with them information to users about the data that is available to meet their
threats. There is already some concern that the GI/SDI sector needs. is also one of the most obvious SDI success stories. The

13
ISPRS Workshop on Service and Application of Spatial Data Infrastructure, XXXVI (4/W6), Oct.14-16, Hangzhou, China

US Federal Geographic Data Committee Clearinghouse Burrough, P., M. Brand, F. Salge and K. Schueller, 1993. The
Registry, for example, lists nearly 300 registered users from the EUROGI vision, GIS Europe 2, (3), 30-31.
all over the world (http://registry.gsdi.org/server/status). In
recent years the development of spatial portals has opened up Commission of the European Communities, (CEC), 2003. The
new possibilities for metadata and application services (Tang reuse of public sector information, Directive 2003/98/EC of the
and Selwood, 2005). As their name suggests, spatial portals can European Parliament and of the Council, Official Journal of the
be seen as gateways to geographic information (GI) resources. European Union, L345, 90-96.
As such they provide points of entry to SDIs and help users
round the world to find and connect to many rich GI resources. Commission of the European Communities, (CEC), 2004.
These portals also allow GI users and providers to share content Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and the
and create consensus. Council establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in
the Community (INSPIRE), COM (2004) 516 final, Brussels:
4.3 Building Capacity Commission of the European Communities.

Capacity building is the next priority because SDIs are likely to Craglia, M. and I. Masser, 2002. GI and the enlargement of the
be most successful in maximising the use that is made of local, European Union, URISA Journal, 14, 2, 43-52
national and global geographic information assets in situations www.urisa.org/journal.htm (last accessed 9 August 2005).
where the capacity exists to exploit their potential. It must also
be recognised that the creation and maintenance of a SDI is also Craglia, M., A. Annoni, M. Klopfer, C. Corbin, L. Hecht, G.
a process of organisational change management. Consequently Pichler and P. Smits (eds.), 2003. Geographic information in
there is a need for capacity building initiatives to be developed the wider Europe, Sheffield: University of Sheffield,
in parallel to the processes of SDI development. This is www.ec-gis.org/ginie (last accessed 9 August 2005).
particularly important in less developed countries where the
Crompvoets, J. and A. Bregt, 2003. World status of national
implementation of SDI initiatives is often dependent on a
spatial data clearinghouses, URISA Journal, 15, APA 1, 43-50,
limited number of staff with the necessary geographic
www.urisa.org/journal.htm (last accessed 9 August 2005).
information management skills. However, although much of the
recent SDI discussion justifiably focuses on the need to need to Department of Science and Technology (DOST), 2002. NSDI
devote considerable resources to capacity building in less strategy and action plan December 2002, New Delhi:
developed countries (Stevens et al, 2004), it must also be Department of Science and Technology, also available at
recognised that there is still a great deal to done to develop GIS www.nsdiindia.org (last accessed 9 August 2005).
capabilities, particularly at the local level, in many more
developed countries if the potential of a SDI is to be exploited Department of the Environment, 1987. Handling Geographic
to the full. Information: Report of the Committee of Enquiry Chaired by
Lord Chorley, London: HMSO.
4.4 Making Data Interoperable
Executive Office of the President, 1994. Coordinating
It may come as something of a surprise to find that matters geographic data acquisition and access, the National Spatial
relating to data interoperability come last in terms of priority for Data Infrastructure, Executive Order 12906, Federal Register
future SDI development. This is because the development and 59, 17671-17674.
implementation of SDIs involves much more than database
creation. This is clearly evident from the preceding discussion. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and National
It should also be noted that the potential for making data States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC), 2005. Fifty
interoperable is heavily dependent on the specific institutional states and equivalent entities involved and contributing to the
context of each country. NSDI, www.fgdc.gov (last accessed 9 August 2005).

In countries where large scale topographic data sets are Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), 2005. Future
incomplete the creation of an national digital topographic directions - governance of the National Spatial Data
database is also likely to be an expensive task that takes place Infrastructure: final draft report of the NSDI Future Directions
over a relatively long period of time. In the meantime those Governance Action Team, Reston VA: Federal Geographic Data
involved in SDI development must exploit alternative Committee, www.fgdc.gov (last accessed 9 August 2005).
information sources such as remotely sensed data in addition to
Hyman, G., C. Perea, D. I. Rey and K. Lance, 2003. Survey of
conventional survey technology. A great deal can be done in
the development of national spatial data infrastructures in Latin
this way without incurring the delays that are inevitably
America and the Caribbean, www.procig.org (last accessed 9
associated with conventional data base creation.
August 2005).

Lance, K., 2003. Spatial data infrastructure in Africa: spotting

the elephant behind trees, GISdevelopment 7, (7), 35-41.
REFERENCE
Masser, I., 1999. All shapes and sizes: the first generation of
Australia and New Zealand Land Information Council National Spatial Data Infrastructures, International Journal of.
(ANZLIC), 1992. Land information management in Australasia Geographical Information Science 13, 67-84.
1990-1992, Canberra: Australia Government Publishing
Service. Masser, I., 2005. GIS Worlds: creating spatial data
infrastructures, Redlands: ESRI Press.
Australia and New Zealand Land Information Council
(ANZLIC), 2004. Position paper on engagement with the
spatial information industry, Canberra: ANZLIC,
www.anzlic.org.au (last accessed 9 August 2005).

14
ISPRS Workshop on Service and Application of Spatial Data Infrastructure, XXXVI (4/W6), Oct.14-16, Hangzhou, China

National Research Council, 1993. Toward a coordinated spatial Spatial Applications Division, Catholic University of Leuven
data infrastructure for the nation, Mapping Science Committee, (SAD), 2003. Spatial data infrastructures in Europe: state of
Washington D.C: National Academy Press. play during 2003, http://inspire.jrc.it/state_of_play.cfm (last
accessed 13 August 2005).
National Research Council, 1999. Distributed geolibraries:
spatial information resources, Mapping Science Committee, Stevens, A., K. Thackrey and K. Lance, 2004. Global Spatial
National Research Council, Washington D.C: National Data Infrastructure (GSDI): finding and providing tools to
Academy Press. facilitate capacity building, Proceedings 7th GSDI Conference,
Bangalore, India, 2-6 February 2004
National Research Council, 2002. Down to earth: geographic
information for sustainable development in Africa, Committee Tang, W. and J. Selwood, 2005. Spatial portals: gateways to
on the Geographic Foundation for Agenda 21, National geographic information, Redlands: ESRI Press.
Research Council, Washington: National Academy Press.
United Nations Economic Commission for Africa, (UNECA),
Rajabifard A. and I. Williamson, 2000. Report on analysis of 2003. SDI Africa: an implementation guide, Addis Ababa:
regional fundamental data sets questionnaire, Melbourne: UNECA.
Department of Geomatics University of Melbourne.
Wehn de Montalvo, U., 2003. Mapping the determinants of
Rajabifard, A. and I. Williamson, 2003. Asia-Pacific region and spatial data sharing, Aldershot: Ashgate.
SDI activities, GISdevelopment 7, (7), 30-34.
Weissbord, M., and S. Janoff, 2000. Future Search: an action
Rajabifard, A., M.E. Feeney, I. Williamson and I. Masser, 2003. guide to finding common ground in organisations and
National spatial data infrastructures, in I. Williamson, A. communities, Second edition, San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Rajabifard and M. E. Feeney, (eds), Development of Spatial
Data Infrastructures: from Concept to Reality, London: Taylor
and Francis.

15
ISPRS Workshop on Service and Application of Spatial Data Infrastructure, XXXVI (4/W6), Oct.14-16, Hangzhou, China

16