Government digital cartographic data policy and environmental research needs

Pergamon

Comput.. Environ. and Urban Systems. Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 95-101. 1994 Copyright Q 1994 Elsevier Science Ltd hinted in the USA. All rights reserved 0198-9715194 $6.00 + .OO

019%9715(94)E0004-D

GOVERNMENT DIGITAL CARTOGRAPHIC DATA POLICY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH NEEDS Karen A. Mulcahy The Graduate School and University Center, City University of New York Keith C. Clarke Hunter College and The Graduate School and University Center, City University of New York

Governmental digital cartographic data distribution policies can benefit environmental efforts and global change research. Currently, there are two main approaches towards data dissemination. The UK represents the cost-recovery approach where the data users help cover the costs of data creation and data are copyrighted. Alternately, the U.S. federal government distributes data on the basis of the marginal dissemination costs and does not copyright data that have been generated using public finds. The UK approach, which is typical of most of Europe, is more responsive to its data users and can engage in partnerships with private companies in data development efforts, but the cost of data may limit basic research as its cost goes beyond the reach of many users and the copyright restrictions prevent open data sharing between scientists. This can have a significant impact in the area of basic environmental research, which is data intensive, and often requires many data sets from different time periods. In the United States, data are freely available at minimal cost and unrestricted by copyrights. This has allowed wide dissemination and supports greater innovation and public participation in environmental research. Interestingly, both of these policies find supporters in the business community Government policy can also benefit environmental efforts by leading in standardization and cooperation on issues of scale, geodetic datum, terminology definition, and measurement consistency; both within country by coordinating local and national data, and as a part of a larger regional and global realm. As data dissemination becomes a global issue, and as the demand for digital map and other data to support environmental problem-solving becomes of critical importance, governments will increasingly have to choose a pathway between these dissemination strategies. This paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, and offers some results and case studies to highlight the problems for those nations that are only now becoming involved with digital maps for decision-making and information management.

ABSTRACT.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Karen A. Mulcahy, PhD Program in Earth & Environmental Science, Room 1201, The Graduate School and University Center, City University of New York, 33 West 42nd Street, New York, NY 10036. 95

96

K. A. Mulcahy and K. C. Clarke

Nothing astonishes men so much as common-sense

and plain dealing. Ralph Waldo Emerson

INTRODUCTION Earth’s environment consists of a borderless realm. Natural processes almost never follow imaginary political boundaries, respect language differences, or recognize land ownership. The concerns of the earth are everyone’s affair. Environmental researchers, whether studying the entire system of the earth through global climate models or a portion of it by examining the environmental consequences of an isolated development effort, all need access to cartographic data. Digital map data have become the basic infrastructure around which environmental planning and monitoring takes place. Digital data on computers can move freely over computer networks, allowing far more use of this information than during the days of paper maps and use constraints such as military control. Both the global researcher and the local researcher need data from each other because they are a part of the same, interdependent whole. Nevertheless, we live our daily lives within artificially delineated realms where it matters a great deal in which bordered area we reside and to which area we belong. How can we integrate these two disparate world views so as to provide for all of the earth’s tenants? The development and availability of digital cartographic resources is very unevenly distributed over the globe. Global environmental problems, on the other hand, are not. It is the responsibility of governments as the stewards of the earth’s peoples to monitor, understand, and protect earth systems. Because digital cartographic resources are becoming essential in environmental problem solving, governments should support the production and dissemination of that data. There are currently two general approaches to digital cartographic data dissemination. One is represented by the United Kingdom, where digital cartographic data is sold to the public on a cost-recovery basis and closely protected by copyright. The United States federal government represents the other approach, where data is distributed at only the marginal cost of dissemination and is free from copyright restrictions. We argue that a government policy of open data sharing is an essential prerequisite for effective environmental research, especially at the global level. The implication is that governments can actively support environmental efforts by adopting and implementing a policy conducive to universal data sharing and by supporting standardization efforts, Conversely, restrictive policies toward environmental data preclude effective global and local environmental planning, and hinder cleanup efforts and essential global data gathering. DATA DISTRIBUTION

ISSUES

In a 1992 article, David Rhind of the UK Ordnance Survey drew upon work by Maffini of the Australian Land Information Council on the role of the state in making information available to citizens. Several of his arguments against the free availability of data are examined from an environmental perspective. Rhind used five arguments to support a cost-recovery data distribution policy at the Ordnance Survey. The first argument holds that, “only a small number of citizens may benefit from the free availability of data which has been paid for by all and that this is unfair” (Rhind, 1992). On the contrary, in an environmental context, it is the “grass roots” type of group that will be able to access freely available government data and will work for the public good. Rhind reports that under the cost-recovery policy in the UK some state-funded organizations such as higher education are considered outside the government systems and are charged as such. He reports that some of these higher education organizations have received lower cost data from private companies than from their own government agencies.

Digital Data Policy and Research Needs

97

The taxpayer is called into action in the statement that “any legal method of reducing taxes through the recouping of expenditure is generally welcomed by the citizens” (Rhind, 1992). Reasonable activities that truly benefit the public are supported by the public. Conservation of the environment through the support of research activities can be considered the most basic of governmental responsibilities. Certainly the taxpayer appreciates the need for understanding and managing the environment. Government agencies are considered not well suited for the “packaging, documentation, promotion, and dissemination of data” which will “invariably cost considerable sums of money” @hind, 1992). Documentation is required of any data program for any use; without it the data would be essentially useless for any analytical purpose and so documentation costs are inevitable no matter who the intended user is of data. The other costs of packaging and dissemination of data are, indeed, those costs that are passed on the users of the U.S. federal govemment data. This statement also lists “promotion” of data as a particular expense. This is the response of a market-based approach where “encouraging and stimulating the market are needed to ensure that maximum use is made of data and information . . .” (Rhind, 1992). As viewed from a profit motive, this is a serious consideration, from a global context of data being used for the public good the market-based argument loses validity. Researchers are adept at seeking out all possible resources and depend greatly on data managed through library systems and through free sharing of information with one another. As the technology of data capture and storage has evolved, so, too, are distribution mechanisms evolving to meet the needs of users. Whether these techniques come under the jurisdiction of traditional library systems is yet to be determined, but it is not clear that the “promotion” of data is required for optimal data use. The U.S. federal government instructs agencies responsible for geographic data to facilitate data sharing between agencies and with the public through all available distribution channels as a means for ensuring maximum use of its data. Fourth in this list of arguments presented in favor of charging for data, “is that putting a price on information inevitably leads to more efficient operations and forces consumers to specify exactly what they require” (Rhind, 1992). Data pricing may provide strong incentives for exact specifications of user needs, and it is possible that putting a price on information leads to more efficient operations. Still, it can be argued that putting a price on information can encourage a data monopoly where those who cannot afford the cost of the data effectively will be denied access, including government-sponsored higher education institution researchers. Instead of environmental research being based upon the free access to information and the inclination of the researchers, it will be limited to a smaller, well-funded group. Often the groups with significant funding are those functioning on a profit motive and not specifically in the public interest. Greater bias in research findings can be expected, as only well-funded special interests will have the data. Last in this list of arguments in the paper by Rhind is the statement that making data freely available may discourage cost-sharing agreements for compilation and assembly of data. One can recognize the validity of this statement in the context of the UK’s current market based approach. Yet the U.S. also encourages cost-sharing agreements by providing for exclusive data use for some cases of database development. Limited partnerships are useful in reducing government expenditures but only as long as the government is in control. National mapping agencies should not be put under pressure from private organizations, and the scientific community should not be excluded. The greatest benefit of the UK policy can be seen in the attention to the customer by the government. The Ordnance Survey has account representatives and other means for determining user needs (Rhind, 1992). By policy and, in practice, the British government sends a clear message “customers come first,” (Rhind, 1992). New products have been developed as a response

98

K. A. Mulcahy and K. C. Clarke

to customer requests. For example, agents at the Ordnance Survey can produce customer specified maps in a matter of minutes by drawing upon the digital cartographic database (Rhind, 1992). In contrast, the U.S. is accused of being fairly unresponsive to customer needs. This is in part due to the large land area to be mapped, in part due to the unwieldy mass of govemmental inertia and, in part due to the fact that data products are generally those that are required by another governmental agency. COPYRIGHT

PROTECTION

The U.S. approach to data dissemination stems from the American concept of freedom of information. This concept means that any citizen has a “right to question and examine the bases on which the federal government makes decisions” (Tosta, 1993). Furthermore, any citizen should be able to obtain information that the government has collected. Exceptions exist for matters of individual privacy and national defense, but, otherwise, data that was collected to serve the needs of the people and paid for by the taxpayer. The data belongs to the people of the United States, but also to everyone. An extension of this policy prevents the federal U.S. government from placing copyright protection on its data. This allows for open sharing of information and maximum possible usefulness. From the perspective of academic researchers and environmental investigations this sharing of data is essential. Though in certain cases a period of exclusive use of data may be granted to principal investigators. Dissenters of this policy argue that copyright protection encourages investment in data development projects. Opponents of the policy can be found both within the U.S., as state and local governments are not bound by this policy, and outside the U.S. where no one else seems bound to such a policy. The validity of arguments about government policy for digital cartographic data depends upon the point of view of the speaker. If a commercial business takes the free U.S. government data, improves it, and makes a profit through the value added process, they will support free sharing of government data. Conversely, if a commercial establishment is involved in data development and depends upon copyrights to protect its interests, they will support govemmental charges and copyright provisions. Likewise, governmental agencies seeking cost recovery or profit from its data development activities will support charging for data and copyrights. Researchers depend upon freely available and unrestricted data for basic research and argue for free and open data sharing. THE JAPANESE

EXPERIENCE

The policy choices made by government are influenced by many factors, which include a theoretical view of the role of government, economic, social, and political factors and the larger region of which a country is a part. This section is derived from a summary of the development of Japanese GIS activities by S. Kubo (Kubo, 1991). Japan has a fairly long history of GIS activities. During the 193Os, pioneering work in the use of Digital Terrain Models, grid analysis, and spatial pattern analysis was conducted (Kubo, 1991). Wartime and postwartime influences eradicated these early efforts at spatial analysis. These analyses were revived only during the 1960s as a response to the quantitative revolution in the U.S. Grid analysis was revived in the form of a 1 km grid-based data set produced from 1965 census data. A boom of grid-based analysis occurred during the 1970s with almost a hundred local governments adopting a grid-based system and hundreds of scientific papers and government reports were written using grid analysis. Attempts were made to choose a national grid definition, and a rectangular grid was adopted as the Japan Standard Grid System. Interestingly, adoption of a square grid system was still permitted. In the universities, the grid boom was

Digital Data Policy and Research Needs

99

also occurring. Systems were developed with advanced features, a spatial language was produced, and the evaluation of spatial errors according to grid size contributed to work on optimum grid size. Over a 15year period, the Japanese government spent over 20 billion yen (about U.S.$lSO million) developing national grid data and GIS. There were many problems to overcome during this time period related to limitations in computer technology, spatial resolution, or difficult format, but the greatest problem was that the government limited data access to only national and local government officials or researchers. Private institutions were ignored and data sharing was prohibited so that each user had to ask for permission and pay to transfer this data to others. This policy is credited for limiting the diffusion of GIS in universities where public domain software was available but the data was not. During the 198Os, the grid boom slowed and Japanese GIS activities grew as a response to rapid urban development which required new means for tracking and planning. The major private users of GIS were the utility companies. Serious accidents around 1970 prompted the utilities to make plans for their underground pipeline and other networks. During the late 198Os, more intensive GIS activity began to occur, Environmental problems in the country prompted adoption of GIS by Tokyo, Kanagawa, Chiba, Okinawa, and Hokkaido. PC-based GIS and desktop mapping took off in the late 1980s with private industry also taking on the task of data development. With increased use of AM/PM in the utilities, data sharing became crucial, Japan is now heavily involved with the use of GIS in government, private industry, and universities. Legal issues are being debated. Some local communities legally restrict the use of data for anything but the purpose it was originally collected for. These constraints are expected to be a major obstacle for the future of local integrated GIS. Copyright issues are also being debated with a fair amount of confusion as to what agency owns copyright of data, maps, and survey information used in maps. On the bright side, a GIS for the Environmental Change Research project was started in 1990 aimed at understanding 100 years of environmental change in Japan. The environmental database will be created through a joint effort. This project relates to the International Geosphere-Biosphere Programme and to the Human Dimensions of Global Change Programme. LESSONS TO BE LEARNED There is no one right overall approach to government cartographic data policy. Each country chooses its own path. There does seems to be, however, a right path for environmental policy for digital map data. Several points emerge from the previous discussion that would seem to best support environmental research needs. The most essential element for the success of environmental researchers is to be able to obtain needed data. This can be facilitated through data sharing. In a cost recovery, copyright system scientific researchers or private investors can easily be left out. When data is restricted, innovation and implementation of beneficial technology is thwarted. The U.S. federal government has extensive experience with public/private and public/public projects for the development of cartographic data. These partnerships may help to keep the eventual cost of data low. The ideal situation for environmental research needs is free and unrestricted access to da&The European Community’s CORINE program began in 1985 as a multinational environmental assessment tool based upon the availability of a comprehensive database and GIS (Mounsey, 1991). Essential to an environmental database is a topographical framework that operates as a mechanism to ensure spatial consistency. Such a global environmental topographic database at, for example, a 10 meter resolution, would form a single cohesive and landbased reference frame to which all other projects, layers, and data sets could be registered. This would include coastal outlines, the hydrologic network, ground elevations and slope.

100

K. A. Mulcahy and K. C. Clarke

While some topographic information existed for most of the EC member states, these data sets were incompatible with each other in terms of map scale and projection, which features were included, and the amount of topological structuring. There was not even a common map series at a scale larger than 1: 1,OOO,OOOacross the member states, The eventual topographic framework was provided by a 1: 1,OOO,OOOdigital cartographic data set originally digitized by the Germans from the Operational and Navigational Charts (ONC) of the U.S. Defense Mapping Agency and topologically structured in London. Mounsey reported data quality as the greatest problem in developing an environmental database. “Variations in timeliness, spatial coverage, density and measurement method may all be hidden behind imprecise definitions and inconsistent use of terminology . . .” (Mounsey, 1991). Standardization efforts on scale, datum, terminology definitions, and collection methodologies are essential for eventual sharing of environmental data. GOVERNMENT

LEADERSHIP

FOR ENVIRONMENTAL

RESEARCH

NEEDS

What can governments do to encourage environmental data sharing? The following list is drawn from policy statements for US federal geographic data sharing. The purpose of the statements “is to facilitate full and open access to Federal geographic data by Federal users and the general public” (FGDC). While in the U.S. “agencies” means federal agencies with needs for digital map data, the term could include any government agency producing digital maps to support its goals. The U.S. policy states as follows. Agencies shall commit to the maintenance, validation, description accessibility, and distribution of geographic data. Agencies shall manage geographic data in a way that facilitates data sharing and use by other agencies and the general public. Geographic data shall be maintained consistently among agencies. Data sharing maximized the net return on the investment of public resources. Federal program managers are data managers and have a responsibility to plan for information resource management as an integral part of overall mission planning. Agencies need to plan from the outset for the steps in the information life cycle. Federal, national, and international standards shall be used to the greatest extent possible for data content, processing, and dissemination of geographic data sets. The policy also dictates that agencies shall disseminate geographic data in a manner that achieves the best balance among the goals of maximizing the usefulness of the data and minimizing the cost to the government and the public, Data products should be disseminated equitably and on timely and equal terms. Agencies should take advantage of all dissemination channels, Federal and non-Federal, including State and local governments and private sector entities, in discharging agency data dissemination responsibilities. Agencies should set use charges for data products at a level sufficient to recover the cost of dissemination but no higher. They also should exclude from the calculation of the charges costs associated with the original collection and processing of the data (though exceptions do exist). In addition, federal agencies shall maintain an information dissemination management system for geographic data that shall include easily accessible information about the data holdings, including quality assessments, supporting information, and guidance and aids for locating and obtaining the data. For those programs in which selected principal investigators have initial periods of exclusive data use, the data shall be made openly available as soon as the exclusive use period has expired. In each case, the funding agency shall explicitly define the duration of an exclusive use period. What can governments do to encourage cartographic data sharing for environmental research? Clearly they can do a great deal. This is not a universal prescription. Issues that involve cost arise when scaling up problems become evident, such as matching international or regional boundaries, integrating cartographic feature definitions, and developing standards.

Digital Data Policy and Research Needs

101

Still, the combination of these policies and emerging technologies enables anyone, anywhere in the world to be able to contribute to and to benefit from environmental data sharing. Given the current state of affairs, scientists simply use whatever data they find available for the basis of their judgements. As environmental problems become more universal, more severe, and more costly to solve, society as a whole can ill afford the present ad hoc approach to the dissemination of environmental data. A final issue is that of equity. Those countries best served by data collection and sharing are already on the way to generating solutions to environmental problems. Obviously, one of those solutions may be to simply relocate those problems to areas where the data are lacking, costly or restricted. Ironically, these nations also hold the key to digital map data production in the developing world. Again, the developed/underdeveloped division between the world’s nations may emerge in a new sort of information dichotomy between north and south. REFERENCES Geographic Data Committee. (1992, July 9). Policy Statements for federal geographic data sharing. Official correspondence. Doyle Ci. Frederick, Chairman Federal Geographic Data Committee to Franklin Reeder, Assistant Director for General Manager for the U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Kubo, S. (1991). The development of GIS in Japan. In D. J. Maguire, M. F. Goodchild, & D. W. Rhind (Eds.), Geographical informafion systems: Principles and applications (pp. 47-56). London: Longman. Mounsey, H. M. (1991). Multisource, multinational environmental GIS: Lessons learnt from CORINE. In D. J. Maguire, M. E Goodchild, & D. W. Rhind (Eds.), Geographical information systems: Principles and applications (pp. 185-200). London: Longman. Rhind, D. (1992). Data access, charging and copyright and their implications for geographical information systems. International Journal of Geographical Znformation Systems, 6( 1). 13-30. Tosta, N. (1993). The data wars: Part I. Geo Info Systems, 3(l), 25-27.