A Comparative Study on the NSDI Assessment

Journal of the Korean Society of Surveying, Geodesy, Photogrammetry and Cartography Vol. 35, No. 5, 375-388, 2017 https://doi.org/10.7848/ksgpc.2017.35.5.375

ISSN 1598-4850(Print) ISSN 2288-260X(Online) Original article

A Comparative Study on the NSDI Assessment Kim, Moon Gie1)·Koh, June Hwan2) Abstract United States of America started NSDI in 1994 for the first time in the world. EU and other many countries invested lots of budget on NSDI due to necessity to manage countries and social economy. As skepticism for effect of such investment has risen, developed countries predicted higher effect compared to investment using ROI and other methods. FGDC clarified that geospatial information is a critical national assets. USA has managed NSDI by introducing portfolio concept for it recognizing NSDI as financial assets from fixed assets. Currently directions of NSDI and its advancement has been proceeded variably depending on corresponding organizations, human resources, budget and national policies. This study analyzed recent trends regarding NSDI assessment methods from developed countries and researchers. Assessment of NSDI is introduced only by some countries such as EU, USA and Canada. This study analyzed USA’s assessment model and indicator that assess NSDI in a way that various external organizations (COGO, URISA) participate, EU INSPIRE Directives, monitoring and Canada’s CGDI assessment methods. Besides these, this study analyzed STIG that adopted Financial Infrastructure from European studies and Korea’s NSDI monitoring assessment indicator research. Further this study suggested assessment directions for future NSDI through implications of NSDI assessment method analysis. Keywords : SDI, NSDI, NSDI Assessment, NSDI Indicators, NSDI Monitoring

1. Introduction

critically in the next few years (UN-GGIM, 2015). Coppa, et al. (2016) appointed SDI as one of top 18 spatial industry

The report of FGDC (Federal Geographic Data

trends of 2016.

Committee) on December 2016 predicted that geospatial

SDI (Spatial Data Infrastructure) is a institutional concept

information is a critical national assets and USA’s geospatial

whose goal is to improve measurement against requirement

information businesses reached at 73 billion Dollars per

of informational society to solve various problems being

year and it created 500,000 high salary jobs along with 1.6

referred spatially. This concept continues to evolve and

trillion Dollar of Geospatial information service, 1.4 trillion

it is a core information infra supporting wide social and

Dollar of cost saving and more over 65% of USA’s open

economic policies in worldwide government organizations.

data catalogue are geospatial information and economic

Advancement of SDI contributes to effective management of

ripple effects of geospatial information service in strategic

spatially referred data and related information wide human

decision making areas is predicted to 10% of growth in

activities in public areas for good governance, expediting

the next 5 years (FGDC, 2016). Recently recognition of

economic growth and sustainable resource management

geospatial information values from high decision makers in

(Douglas, 2004; Koh, 2007; Rajabifard and Williamson,

governments and corporations has increased worldwide and

2001; Williamson et al., 2003; Williamson, 2004; Williamson

geospatial information is predicted to affect our societies

et al., 2006).

Received 2017. 9. 29, Revised 2017. 10. 17, Accepted 2017. 10. 31 1) Member, Dept. of Geoinformatics, University of Seoul, Korea(E-mail: [email protected]) 2) Corresponding Author, Member, Dept. of Geoinformatics, University of Seoul, Korea(E-mail: [email protected]) This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

375

Journal of the Korean Society of Surveying, Geodesy, Photogrammetry and Cartography, Vol. 35, No. 5, 375-388, 2017

National Research Council defined the term of NSDI in

other issues. In terms of geospatial information as well,

1993 for the first time (Pashova and Bandrova, 2017). The

INSPIRE in information strategic business was proposed

next year, in 1994 USA’s NSDI was started for the first

as necessity by EC (European Commission). In 2007, EC

time in the world by Executive Order 12906 (FGDC, 2016).

adopted INSPIRE Directives 2007/2/EC for SDI and now

Building of SDI necessary for managing countries and social

28 MS (Member State) are implementing it (Dangermond et

and economic growth has prompted establishment of each

al., 2017; EEA, 2014; Masser, 2015). NSDI is SDI belonging

country’s reasonable strategy and action plans depending

to each country’s level while LSDI indicates SDI for state or

on each situation in the world and it’s reported that 50% of

local government.

all countries in the globe are built as of 2002 (Crompvoets

Only some countries including USA, EU and Canada

et al., 2004). This SDI is under processing in the names of

adopted monitoring system and its indicator to enhance level

INSPIRE for EU, GDI-DE for Germany, NSDI for Japan,

of NSDI and assess level of it. In United States of America

CGDI for Canada, ANZLIC for Australia and New Zealand,

owns assessment models for NSDI policies participated

UK Location Strategy for United Kingdom and NSDI for

by various external organizations (COGO, URISA). In

Republic of Korea respectively.

addition, there are also STIG (Stress Test for Infrastructure

Classification of SDI hierarchy(Fig. 1) primarily consists

of Geographic information) that adopted assessment concept

of GSDI (Global SDI), RSDI (Regional SDI), NSDI (National

for Financial Infrastructure as a European study and Korea’s

SDI) and LSDI (Local SDI) (Jacoby et al., 2002; Williamson,

NSDI monitoring assessment indicator research. The purpose

et al., 2003).

of this study is to analyze NSDI of developed countries that introduced NSDI assessment and monitoring, and to analyze existing NSDI assessment and monitoring indicators in order to provide a desirable NSDI assessment method.

2. Assessment for NSDI in Developed Countries Geospatial information is a very important asset for a counFig. 1. SDI hierarchy(source: Williamson, et al., 2003)

try and many countries are spending budget to build NSDI. They have concerned over assignment of feasibility against such effects and return on investment as well. NSDI-ad-

GSDI is top level of SDI which was started Bonn of

vanced countries abstracted pretty much positive analysis

Germany in 1996. This is focused on SDI whose area is

results. MS Report United Kingdom (UK-INSPIRE, 2013)

not particular areas such as UN-GGIM, ISPRS and GEO.

and MS Report Germany (LG GDI-DE, 2013) analyzed Cost/

This plays a role for international cooperation such as

Benefit. Measurement guide for ROI (Return On Investment)

worldwide SDI implementation, supporting practicing and

and CBA (Cost Benefit Analysis) on USA’s NSDI had been

promoting knowledge sharing. This consists of government

published in 2009 based on OMB Circular A-94 Appendix C

organizations, academic circles, corporations and individuals,

(USGS, 2009). Real Estate Cadastre Agency of the Republic

and provides network sharing and best practices to SDI

of Macedonia (2011) practiced CBA as shown in Table 1 for

Cookbook Wiki through international conference (GSDI,

economic decision making to assess NSDI strategy. Nether-

2014). RSDI belongs to EU’s INSPIRE (INfrastructure for

lands performed BCA (Business Case Analysis) by adopting

SPatial InfoRmation in Europe) integration that is accelerated

Basic model and Collective model in connection with intro-

primarily by EU is required to handle environmental issues

duction of INSPIRE in 2009 (ECORYS Nederland BV. and

across Europe, security, traffic and social integration and

Grontmij Nederland BV, 2009). United Kingdom performed

376

A Comparative Study on the NSDI Assessment

CBA in 2014 for UKLP and its estimated cost benefit was

local government by cooperating with civil and academic

predicted to be approximately 1,000￡ (Defra, 2014). EC es-

circle to develop NSDI. In 2014, COGO consigned its

timated more than 6 to 7 times of benefits for INSPIRE after

assessment model to professional committee which makes

2004 (Craglia et al., 2004).

NSDI Report Card. COGO report model is report card type

Although it’s important to predict ROI, CBA and BCA to

which is developed by ASCE (American Society of Civil

enhance feasibility of business investment, an objective as-

Engineering). This national major infra category every 4 year

sessment model well matched for national NSDI is required.

listed by ASCE. This performance sheet assess all of current

USA’s NSDI is deep-rooted and has NSDI model for national

NSDI situation, its requirements, score assignment and how

level and local level and also assessment model participat-

to improve score using school score sheet with easy-to-

ed by professional civil groups. Chapter 2 suggested USA

reading A to F level. Performance sheet-approaching method

NSDI, EU INSPIRE and Canada’s CGDI assessment while

is a tool to assess NSDI’s performance. It is widely used from

Chapter 3 analyzed STIG applying Financial infrastructure

some countries even to United States of America (Masser,

and Korea’s NSDI assessment indicator researches and sug-

2017). Fig. 2 shows Grade report of NSDI that was performed

gested their implications.

Fall in 2014, which indicates COGO submitted it to FGDC. NSGIC (National States Geographic Information Council)

2.1 US assessment : COGO, NSGIC, URISA

is an organization contributing to government effectively and

COGO (The Coalition of Geospatial Organizations)

efficiently through careful adoption of geospatial technologies.

are 16 national professional societies, trade associations,

NSGIC

membership organizations for Geospatial information

Assessment) Model. GMA solves problems with objective

used

statewide

GMA

(Geospatial

Maturity

areas. It is Geospatial information institutional association

reports by comparing state-state issues. This enables 7

established in 2008 representing more than 30,000 individual

sections (people, data, processes, policy, strategy, technology,

producers and users of geospatial data and technology.

legal) and maturity of related sub-items to be measured. Result

This association plays a role for non-organizational forum

of GMA is a general and reliable standard assessment method

and expert’s panel to make report card regarding USA’s

developed by NSGIC and also makes it possible to monitor

NSDI performance. This expert’s panel is focused on NSDI

and verify statewide geospatial capability. This requires very

framework to assess efforts of federal government. This

detailed questionnaire to know characteristics of each state’s

panel consists of around 170,000 geospatial informational

geospatial information program (Fig. 3). GMA is a model for

personnel and performs assessment of NSDI with external

every state and supports LSDI. This is based on each item and

expert group. They are under processing with country and

performance sheet for each category or executable item and

Table 1. Overview of CBA studies and results (Source: Real Estate Cadastre Agency of the Republic of Macedonia, 2011) Year

Organization

Country

Type of study

Benefit : Cost

2009

Geonovum

Netherlands

Cost-Benefit Analysis INSPIRE in Netherlands

2:1

2007

Information society department

Spain

Socio-Economic impact of the SDI of Catalonia

8:1

2006

OMB

USA

Geospatial One Stop

2:1

2004

EU INSPIRE

EU wide

Extended impact assessment for INSPIRE

5.4 : 1 to 12.4 : 1

1995

ANZLIC

Australia/ New Zealand

Australian SDI benefit study

4:1

1993

Government of Victoria

Australia

Strategic framework for SDI development

5.5 : 1

377


Fig. 2. The COGO report card also available to use as a framework for province, local and government (NSGIC, 2010).

Fig. 4. URISA geospatial management competency model (URISA, 2012) Major purpose for URISA GISCMM is to provide theoretical model for capability in assigned organizations and matured corporation GIS works. Most of corporations in civil businesses and industries improve efficiency of jobs more and more and also provide profits based on investment using corporation’s GIS. GISCMM that is proposed for local government by URISA is shown as Fig. 5. URISA GCMM has its purposes to maximize effectiveness of GIS infra in corresponding processes that are developed by matured institutions using sufficiently developed technologies and resources.

Fig. 3. State government GMA URISA

(Urban

Regional

Information

Systems

Association) is a non-profit organization to use geospatial information and information technologies effectively and morally to enhance understanding and managing city and local systems and also shares ideas participated by experts from various geospatial information areas. GMI (GIS Management Institute) of URISA approved GMCM (Geospatial Management Competency Model) on June 2012 and GISCMM (GIS Capability Maturity Model) on Oct 2013. The GMCM specifies 74 essential competencies and 18 competency areas that characterize the work of most successful managers in the geospatial industry (URISA GIS Management Institute, 2015). The GMCM is an element of the USDOLETA (U.S. Department of Labor Employment and Training Administration)’s Competency Modeling Initiative (Fig. 4).

378

Fig. 5. Local government GISCMM (URISA GIS Management Institute, 2015) The EC (Enabling Capability) assessment includes 23 components(Table 2) with a scale modeled after the NSGIC GMA. Because GIS-enabling capability is dependent on resource availability, the GMA scale is well suited to indicate capability. The EA (Execution Ability) assessment includes 22 components(Table 2) and is modeled after the typical CMM process-based, five-level scale (URISA GIS Management Institute, 2015).


Table 2. URISA GISCMM components (URISA GIS Management Institute, 2015)

EC19 EC20

EC(Enabling Capability) Component Framework GIS Data Framework GIS Data Maintenance Business GIS Data Business GIS Data Maintenance GIS Data Coordination Meta data Spatial Data Warehouse Architectural Design Technical Infrastructure Replacement Plan GIS Software Maintenance Data back-up and security GIS Application Portfolio GIS Application Portfolio Management GIS Application Portfolio O&M Professional GIS Management Professional GIS Operations Staff GIS Staff Training and Professional Development GIS Governance Structure GIS is Linked to Agency Strategic Goals

EC21

GIS Budget

EA21

EC22 EC23

GIS Funding GIS Financial Plan

EA22

EC1 EC2 EC3 EC4 EC5 EC6 EC7 EC8 EC9 EC10 EC11 EC12 EC13 EC14 EC15 EC16 EC17 EC18

EA1 EA2 EA3 EA4 EA5 EA6 EA7 EA8 EA9 EA10 EA11 EA12 EA13 EA14 EA15 EA16 EA17

EA(Execution Ability) Component New Client Services Evaluation and Development User Support, Help Desk, and End-User Training Service Delivery Tracking and Oversight Service Quality Assurance Application Development or Procurement Methodology Project Management Methodology Quality Assurance and Quality Control GIS System Management Process Event Management Contract and Supplier Management Regional Collaboration Staff Development Operation Performance Management Individual GIS Staff Performance Management Client Satisfaction Monitoring and Assurance Resource Allocation Management GIS data sharing

EA18

GIS Software License Sharing

EA19 EA20

GIS data inter-operability Legal and policy affairs management Balancing minimal privacy with maximum data usage Service to the community and to the profession

2.2 EU assessment : INSPIRE monitoring

of 2 indicators : MDi1 and MDi2 while spatial Data-sets

As huge amount of public finance is invested every year

consists of 2 indicators : DSi1 and DSi2, and Network

to build NSDI, all countries and NSDI executive officers

Services consists of 4 indicators : NSi1, NSi2, NSi3 and NSi4

have increasingly concerned as to scale of finance for NSDI

indicating a total of 8 key technological INSPIRE indicators

is feasible and whether such finance is used effectively.

to monitor INSPIRE (INSPIRE, 2013).

Assessment and monitoring for NSDI policies and plans are urgent issues to secure feasibility of public financial investment. Although initial assessment for INSPIRE showed intuitive aspect, recently it is changed into reasonable assessment using various indicators.

2.3 Canada assessment : 2015 assessment of the CGDI Canada is running national program on duty and responsibility to lead CGDI (Canadian Geospatial Data

In 2007, INSPIRE’s monitoring system was enacted as a

Infrastructure) using standard technology and operation

part of Directives 2007. MS needed to report to Commission

policies named GeoConnections and this program has been

of the European Communities in order to achieve goals

established in Natural Resources Canada (GeoConnections,

set by INSPIRE and then draft team consisting of experts

2016). CGDI’s 1st term was 1999~2005, 2nd term was

appointed by Commission of the European Communities

2005~2010 and 3rd one was 2010~2015, which performed

developed Implementing Rules after reviewing stakeholder

geospatial information policies (KPMG, 2016).

of INSPIRE. As shown in Table 3, meta data is composed

GeoConnections researched worldwide various NSDI

379


Table 3. INSPIRE indicators INSPIRE components Meta data Data-Sets

Indicator

Description

Measure

MDi1

Existence of meta data for spatial data-sets and services Conformity of meta data for spatial data-sets and services with the implementing rules on meta data Geographical coverage of spatial data-sets Conformity of spatial data-sets with the data specifications and of their meta data with the implementing rules on meta data Accessibility of meta data for spatial data-sets and services through discovery services Accessibility of spatial data-sets through view and download services Use of network services : annual number of service requests for discovery, view, download, transformation, and invoke services Conformity of network services to the implementing rules on network services

%

MDi2 DSi1 DSi2 NSi1

Services

NSi2 NSi3 NSi4

% % % % % Number %

assessment model and also consulted with international

· Sweden’s success rate measurement : This assesses

NSDI assessment experts whose purposes are to define

NSDI’s success rate based on factors to measure social ROI

practical and cost-effective assessment framework to

(data, service and user’s point)

measure proceeding of CGDI, performance and level of

· Self-assessment of EUROGI : Its important goal it to

completeness. Assessment of NSDI was proved to be difficult

help NSDI to describe its own characteristics and to regard

due to its complexity, continuously evolving features and

nationwide NSDI development as useful inspection list for

ambiguous definition. Moreover, in terms of comprehensive

critical issues

assessment, it is proved that one single model for all sorts of assessment couldn’t exist due to complexity of NSDI

Assessment framework developed for CGDI was based primarily on INSPIRE State of Play (2010/2011)

developed worldwide. 9 international NSDI models are

This framework assessed CGDI in 2012 and 2015 and

reviewed against feasibility of CGDI application and its

compared its progresses to measure development, use, success

results are shown as followings :

and state of Canada’s CGDI since 2010 according to 6th CGDI

· INSPIRE State of Play(European NSDI) : This is focused

Performance Project (Fig. 6). Assessment in 2015 performed

on measurement of advancement in NSDI for membership

CGDI assessment measurement data and 33 indicators’s

government including all of quantitative report for usable

analysis for revised CGDI assessment framework. The CGDI

data/service and qualitative report for governance

assessment (Table 4) consists of 5 CGDI components including

· CP-IDEA(NSDI in North and South America) : This emphasizes

governance,

data/service,

social/economic

effects · USA NSDI : 5 categories for potential indicators (Society, environment measure, data, technology and governance) · Netherlands model : Goal-oriented approach including

Collaboration, Operational Policy, Standards, Technology and Framework data and the score card for performance result consist of 3 categories (Green : Fully meets the criteria; Yellow : Partially meets the criteria; and Red : Does not meet the criteria). In addition, this framework expressed progress of performance symbols of Horizontal bar and Vertical

various assessment indicators · Suitability of Clearing house : Measuring quality and performance for national clearing house · NSDI preparation : Measure national capability and wills to use NSDI · NSDI’s matured level-approach : Verifying NSDI mature matrix and 4 development steps for NSDI development

380

Fig. 6. Results of CGDI collaboration component


Table 4. 2015 assessment of CGDI idicators CGDI components Indicator 1 2 3 4 Collaboration

5 6 7

Operational policy

Standards and specifications

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Technology

Framework Data

27 28 29 30 31 32 33

Description Evidence of an identified leader/coordinating body to coordinate the ongoing maintenance and evolution of the CGDI Evidence of a network of resources within the coordinating body for the ongoing coordination of the CGDI Evidence of a vision and a strategy for the CGDI that includes stakeholders’ roles and is aligned with key stakeholder priorities Evidence that CGDI stakeholders contribute to strategies in support of CGDI development Evidence of the commitment and engagement of CGDI stakeholders through structured and formalized networks Evidence that the identified leader/coordinating body communicates and promotes the CGDI with stakeholders Policy makers use CGDI components(policies, standards, technology, framework data) to facilitate decisions Evidence of promotion/exchange of experience with international organizations Evidence that the identified leader/coordinating body monitors and reports on SDI activities Operational policy guidance and best practices Evidence of federal open data policies Evidence of open data policies within other non-federal jurisdictions Evidence of data sharing arrangements other than open data policies Evidence of alignment with international policy Evidence of available resources to develop organizational capacity on operational policies Examples of adoption of geospatial operational policy Evidence that mechanisms and a process exists to cover the lifecycle of geospatial operational policies Evidence of geospatial standards that support geospatial data interoperability Evidence of geospatial standards that support service interoperability Evidence of geospatial standards that support application/system interoperability Evidence of alignment with international standards and specifications Evidence of the CGDI influence on international standards Availability of capacity development resources Evidence of use of standards and specifications capacity building resources Evidence that mechanisms and a process exists to cover the lifecycle of geospatial standards and specifications Technology tools exists for the discovery, access and dissemination of location-based information based on an architecture model Technology tools are aligned with emerging internet and technology trends Availability of implementation capacity building resources to support technology implementation Evidence of CGDI architecture model/tools used in specific implementations Completion of a pre-defined table of data themes to include information Evidence that spatial data themes are being integrated Evidence of data sharing agreements between data suppliers Evidence of coordinated data collection, data quality control and data maintenance/updating processes

arrows by comparing scores of 2012 assessment results.

2.4 Republic of Korea NSDI assessment

CGDI is being matured and it fulfilled almost more than 80%

Contents related to assessment of Korea’s NSDI are

of standards for assessment targets and its performance was

relying on Enforcement Decree of National geospatial data

significantly increased since 2012.

infrastructure ACT(Article 13) Performance achieved by central government (First half of year) and local government

381


(Second half of year) is assessed by experts’ committee

Basel Core Principles used by assessment of FI (Financial

consisting of civil GIS professionals and MOLIT (Ministry

Infrastructure) include regulations on soundness and minimum

of Land, Infrastructure and Transport in Korea) by taking

audits by banks and financial systems. After 29 Basel Core

into account businesses, outputs, level of usage, business

Principles using 31 NSDI performance indicators proposed

effects and contribution to national geospatial information

by Crompvoets et al. (2008) are strictly assessed against their

establishment. Such results are notified to related

compliance, a total 10 The Basel Core Principles including 4

organizations and it’s recommended to reflect them for next

articles for definition of supervising and rights, responsibilities

year’s action plans. Although new plan established in every

and functions and 6 articles requiring regulations on

5 year attempts to assess some of them by reviewing past

soundness and requirements are selected for indicators. 8 key

plans, achievements and problems, it’s merely ended up with

technological INSPIRE indicators are applied as quantitative

assessment only. It’s believed to be somewhat insufficient.

technological principle and indicators. STIG applies INSPIRE

Although a huge amount of budget is invested on NSDI,

monitoring method which adopted new principles and it

there is not monitoring as to by which institutions and what

appointed one indicator which is implementation of the meta

kinds of geospatial information is built. Moreover, there is

data, the data and the networks services. 13 indicators are

not objective decision supporting data such as feasibility of

selected for qualitative principle while there are 4 indicators :

investment, continuous progressing as they did not analyze

political, economic and social stability, 3 indicators : steering

effectiveness of NSDI nor monitor such things either. Besides internal assessment by MOLIT, The Board of audit and inspection of Korea, like US’s GAO, performs NSDI assessment. Started with first audit against local government’s GIS performance in 1994, Korea is performing very strict “Inspect of The Government Offices” every year. There were revision of policies and reorganizing as results of such audit. A geospatial information policy is developed by a research of KRIHS (Korea research institute for human settlements) that is an affiliated organization of MOLIT.

3. Implications for NSDI Assessment 3.1 STIG 1.0 research Coleman et al. (2016) emphasized assessment of NSDI’s progress and its benefits for effective and efficient development. Worldwide NSDI is still under initial phase for such assessments not fulfilling practical requirement. As the results, he pointed out that there is no performance guide for NSDI yet. In general, financial sectors generally use Stress Test whose purposes are to assess sustainable aspects of system and its success. It’s required to make new frameworks with healthy processes for NSDI assessment and to verify adoptability of STIG 1.0 and availability tests and then supplement them. A total of 24 indicators is assigned as the results of researches.

382

Table 5. NSDI assessment idicators(STIG 1.0) Subset of the Basel Core principles 1 Responsibilities, objectives and powers 2 Cooperation and collaboration 3 Supervisory techniques and tools 4 Corrective and sanctioning powers of supervisors 5 Corporate governance 6 Risk management process 7 Market risk 8 Operational risk 9 Internal control and audit 10 Disclosure and transparency Technological INSPIRE principle implementation of the meta data, the data and 11 The the networks services Qualitative principles - Political, Economic and Social Stability 12 Rule of Law 13 Transparency/Accountability 14 Social Cohesion 15 Future Resources Qualitative principles - Steering Capability and Reform Capacities 16 Strategic Capacity 17 Implementation 18 System Adaptability Qualitative principles - Lessons learned from past Crisis Management Evidence of Successful Crisis 19 Historical Management 20 Crisis Remediation 21 Signaling Process 22 Timing and Sequencing 23 Protective Measures 24 Automatic Stabilizers


capability, reform capacities and 6 indicators lessons learned

were some indicators that are practically difficult to analyze

from past crisis management, and such indicators advanced

actual geospatial data for monitoring correlation or there is

NSDI assessment indicators (Table 5).

no reasonable standard to monitor quality levels. This study assigned indicators from existing ones that are available for

3.2 Republic of Korea assessment research

first adaptation by considering easy-to-implementation. It‘s

Park (2016) researched the necessity to develop indicators

required to revise, extend and clarify preliminary indicators

for step-by-step monitoring including establishment of

according to purposes of policy monitoring while assigned

policy making, practicing and management for well-

preliminary indicators are applied and therefore this study

organized NSDI monitoring. Although Korea’s NSDI has

emphasized systematic monitoring and enacting of its

achieved various outcomes so far, there are some difficulties

guidelines according to National Geospatial Information

to share geospatial information and use geospatial data. In

Basic Law.

spite of huge amount of resource investment, there was not monitoring as to by institutions and what kinds of geospatial

3.3 Implications

information are built. Moreover there is no objective

This study addressed that each country has assessed

data such as feasibility of policy investment, sustainable

NSDI differently so far. Especially from worldwide top 2

progresses as cost and effective analysis for NSDI and

NSDI : United States of America and EU shows pretty much

monitoring are not performed. Although some assessments

contrasts against NSDI assessment in terms of assessment

are attempted during establishment of new plans every 5

targets, its purposes and methods (Masser, 2017). Table 7

year and reviewing past performance and problems, such

summarized the comparison the study by Masser (2017) and

assessments are ended up only with assessment, and 6

Republic of Korea(Park, 2016).

policies are abstracted by considering NSDI measurement

Directions and progresses of NSDI are being carried out

possibility and policy-oriented importance (Table 6). There

differently depending on each country’s organizations and

Table 6. The monitoring indicator of NSDI(Republic of Korea) Indicator Feasibility

Redundancy Interaction Quality Usage

Articles Legal base Basic plan Compliance Complying with national projects Contents Local Time Physical Contents Quality Internal External Scope

Openness

Targets Method Meta data

Detailed measurement factors and monitoring methods Individual law, compliance with NSDI Compliance with goals, strategies and directions for NSDI Complying with national projects Redundancy with building, updating of geospatial data Redundancy with governing local administration areas Time for building, updating of data Interaction for projection, coordination and data format Interaction with data model, building and distribution standards Position accuracy, attributes accuracy, time accuracy, consistency, perfection and reliability and other quality standard Number of usages from institutions for administrative tasks, time, usages for other departments, and consequential time saving Site access through external organizations’ platform and On&Off line, viewing and downloaded data and number of usages Measuring openness in connection with geospatial information DB and system, its partial and complete openness Measuring openness such as closing of geospatial information DB, opening or partial opening for institutions Measuring openness such as closing, offline opening, online opening (file download) and using NSDI through platform Measuring openness in terms of meta data for geospatial information

383


Table 7. Comparison of NSDI assessment among Republic of Korea, EU and US (Adapted from Masser(2017)) Articles

Republic of Korea

EU

US

Assessment target

Self-assessment by MOLIT

Self-assessment by institutes that are partly involved in NSDI implementation

External groups such as COGO and URISA

Assessment purposes

Establishment of new plans and reviewing past performance and problems

Progresses to implement INSPIRE

Expecting activities to improve current situation for performance of NSDI

Assessment methods

Internal assessment

Internal assessment

External assessment

human resources, budget, level of technologies and national

for invested budget and effectiveness. FGDC asserted that

policies and there could not be single NSDI assessment for

geospatial information is a critical national asset. Countries

all countries. A researcher Coleman et al. (2016) emphasized

that haven’t still analyzed NSDI’s value and economic aspects

assessment of progresses and benefits for NSDI for effective

are required to introduce such analysis and let decision

and efficient development. Park (2016) studied on necessities

makers to aware its benefits for advancement of NSDI.

to assign step-by-step monitoring indicators ranging from establishment of policies, implementation and management

Second, Changing assessment system for NSDI to external expert group

for systematic monitoring of NSDI. Consequently it's

United States of America has been supporting perfor-

required to revise and extend research results by applying

mance measurement for government businesses and assess-

them to NSDI tentatively participated by NSDI experts and

ment through supporting systems in OMB and GAO. In ad-

also required to systematize NSDI monitoring and enact

dition USA owns various NSDI assessment model and also

guidelines according to related laws. Besides these, Cost/

external expert groups such as COGO and even monitors not

Benefit analysis needs to be accompanied and it’s possible

only NSDI but also LSDI for assessment. Countries which

to assess and monitor a country’s NSDI planning and even

are currently limited to internal assessment need to review

to utilization.

change of NSDI assessment by external expert groups be-

4. Conclusion

ing participated. In addition, government’s strong will is required. GMA method proposed by URISA in USA and NSDI

Directions and progresses of NSDI are being carried out differently depending on each country’s organizations and human resources, budget, level of technologies and national policies. In addition, it’s known that each country

assessment and monitoring supported by local government are necessary. Third, Consulting with external professional expert corporations and international NSDI experts

and researcher’s assessment of NSDI has been attempted

It’s also desirable to request external private consulting

differently. Finally this study addressed that there isn’t single

firms or accounting firms other than public organizations’

and unified NSDI assessment model. This section suggests

affiliated groups to participate in NSDI. U.K requested for

future directions for developed countries and researchers’

NSDI plan to external professional expert corporations. In

NSDI assessment and monitoring which have been analyzed

case of Canada, CGDI developed Canada’s own NSDI as-

so far.

sessment model through consulting with international NSDI

First, Changing awareness necessity of NSDI’s values

experts. Until now, only some developed countries perform

USA manages NSDI by adopting portfolio concept

NSDI monitoring and its assessment. If other countries that

recognizing it as financial assets from fixed assets. In

have not attempted these, it would be possible to develop as-

addition, developed countries predicted higher benefits using

sessment model well matched with such countries.

ROI, CBA and other methods in order to solve skepticism

384

Fourth, Necessities to assign step-by-step monitoring in-


dicators ranging from establishment of policies, implementa-

publishers, Department for Environment Food & Rural

tion and management

Affairs,

It's required to revise and extend research results by applying them to NSDI participated by NSDI experts and also required to systematize NSDI monitoring and enact guidelines according to related laws.

London,

https://data.gov.uk/sites/default/files/

INSPIRE%20Benefits%20Publishers%202014.pdf

(last

date accessed: 29 September 2017). Douglas, D. (2004), The SDI Cookbook version 2.0, GSDI(Global Spatial Data Infrastructure), Bonn, http://gsdiassociation.org/images/publications/cookbooks/

Acknowledgement

SDI_Cookbook_GSDI_2004_ver2.pdf (last date accessed: 29 September 2017).

This study was supported by the 2016 research fund from the University of Seoul.

ECORYS Nederland BV. and Grontmij Nederland BV. (2009), Cost-Benefits analysis INSPIRE : Final report, ECORYS Nederland BV, Rotterdam, https://www.geonovum.nl/

References

sites/default/files/nkba_engelse_vertaling.pdf (last date accessed: 29 September 2017).

Coleman, D., Rajabifard, A., and Crompvoets, J. (2016),

EEA (2014), Mid-term evaluation report on INSPIRE

Spatial Enablement in a Smart World, GSDI Association

implementation. EEA Technical report(EUR 91574 EN),

Press, Gilbertville.

European Environment Agency, Copenhagen, https://

Coppa, I., Woodgate, P. W., and Mohamed-Ghouse Z.S.

www.eea.europa.eu/publications/midterm-evaluation-

(2016), Global Outlook 2016 : Spatial Information Industry,

report-on-inspire-implementation (last date accessed: 29

Australia and New Zealand Cooperative Research Centre for Spatial Information, Melbourne.

September 2017). FGDC (2016), National spatial data infrastructure strategic

Craglia, M. and Borzacchiello, M. T. (2004), INSPIRE Impact

framework, Federal Geographic Data Committee, Reston,

assessment : lesson learned, European Commission

https://www.fgdc.gov/nsdi-plan/2017/nsdi-strategic-

Joint Research Center Digital Earth Unit, Ispra, http://

framework.pdf (last date accessed: 29 September 2017).

inspire.ec.europa.eu/events/conferences/cost_benefits/

GeoConnections (2016), 2016 Invitation for projects,

INSPIRE_IA_Lessons_learned.pdf (last date accessed:

Announcement Code: GNS16IFP, Natural Resources

29 September 2017).

Canada,

Ottawa,

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sites/www.

Crompvoets, J., Bregt, A., Rajabifard, A., and Williamson,

nrcan.gc.ca/files/earth-sciences/files/pdf/geomatics/

I. (2004), Assessing the worldwide developments of

GeoConnectionAO2016EN.pdf (last date accessed: 29

national spatial data clearinghouses, International Journal of Geographical Information Science, Vol. 18, No. 7, pp. 665-689.

September 2017). GSDI (2014), GSDI Strategy and strategic plan 2015-2020, Global Spatial Data Infrastructure Association, Bonn,

Crompvoets, J., Rajabifard, A., Loenen, B. V., and Fernández,

http://gsdiassociation.org/images/official_docs/GSDI_

T. D. (2008), A Multi-View Framework to Assess SDIs, The

Strategic_Plan_2015-2020.pdf (last date accessed: 29

Melbourne University Press. Melbourne, pp. 193-210.

September 2017).

Dangermond, J., Sankaran, S., Lucchi, R., and Hogeweg, M.

INSPIRE

(2013),

INSPIRE

Monitoring

indicators

(2017), Article : Re-imagine INSPIRE by leveraging open

guidelines, Infrastructure for Spatial Information in

data and Web GIS, GIS Professional Magazine, Lemmer,

Europe, Brussels, https://inspire.ec.europa.eu/documents/

https://www.gis-professional.com /content/ar ticle/

inspire-monitoring-indicators-%E2%80%93-guidelines-

reimagine-inspire-by-leveraging-open-data-and-web-gis (last date accessed: 29 September 2017). Defra (2014), INSPIRE Benefits : Guide for data

document-0 (last date accessed: 29 September 2017). Jacoby, S., Smith, J., Ting, L., and Williamson, I. (2002), Developing a common spatial data infrastructure between

385


state and local government-an Australian case study,

infrastructures: concept, SDI hierarchy and future

International Journal of Geographical Information

directions, In Proceedings of GEOMATICS'80 Conference,

Science, Vol. 16, No. 4, pp. 305-322.

21-22 October ,Tehran, Iran, pp. 1-10.

Koh, J. H. (2007), A study on the national spatial data

Real Estate Cadastre Agency of the Republic of Macedonia.

infrastructure of USA, Journal of the Korean Society of

(2011), D2.5 Cost-Benefit analysis, Real Estate Cadastre

Surveying, Geodesy, Photogrammetry and Cartography,

Agency of the Republic of Macedonia, Skopje, http://www.

Vol. 25, No. 6_1, pp. 485-497.

katastar.gov.mk/userfiles/file/NSDI/Sozdavanje%20

KPMG (2016), 2015 Assessment of the canadian geospatial data infrastructure, Klynveld Peat Marwick Goerdeler, Ottawa,

Analysis%20Corrected.pdf

(last

date

accessed:

7

September 2017).

http://ftp.maps.canada.ca/pub/nrcan_rncan/publications/ ess_sst/297/297880/cgdi_ip_0049_e.pdf

(last

date

LG GDI-DE (2013), Member state report: Germany, Lenkungsgremium

Geodateninfrastruktur

UK-INSPIRE (2013), Member state report: United Kingdom, United Kingdom-Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe, London, https://data.gov.uk/sites/default/files/

accessed: 29 September 2017).

Frankfurt,

deloven%20koncept/D25%20Cost%20Benefits%20

Deutschland,

http://inspire.ec.europa.eu/reports/country_

UK%20INSPIRE%20Member%20State%20Report%20 2013%20doc_10.pdf (last date accessed: 6 September 2017).

reports_mr2012/DE-INSPIRE-Report-2013_ENV-2013-

UN-GGIM (2015), Future trends in geospatial information

00433-00-00-EN-TRA-00.pdf (last date accessed: 29

management : the five to ten year vision, Second Edition

September 2017).

December 2015, United Nations-Global Geospatial

Masser, I. (2015), Article : The first seven years of INSPIRE

Information Management, New York, http://ggim.un.org/

implementation, GIS Professional Magazine, Lemmer,

documents/Future-trends.pdf (last date accessed: 27

https://www.gis-professional.com /content/ar ticle/

September 2017).

an-autobiography-the-first-seven-years-of-inspire-

URISA (2012), Geospatial management competency model,

implementation?output=pdf (last date accessed: 29

Urban and Regional Information Systems Association,

September 2017).

Des Plaines, http://www.urisa.org/clientuploads/directory/

Masser, I. (2017), Evaluating the performance of large scale SDIs: two contrasting approaches, International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, Vol. 12, pp. 26-38.

GMI/Advocacy/GMCM%20final.pdf (last date accessed: 9 September 2017). URISA GIS Management Institute (2015), GIS capability

NSGIC (2010), NSGIC statewide GMA model, National

maturity model, URISA GIS Management Institute, Des

States Geographic Information Council, New Orleans,

Plaines, http://www.urisa.org/clientuploads/directory/GMI/

https://www.fgdc.gov/organization/coordination-group/

GISCMM-Final201309(Endorsed%20for%20Publication).

meeting-minutes/2010/september/geospatial-maturityassessment-model-danielle-ayan.pdf/at_download/file (last date accessed: 29 September 2017). Park, J. T. (2016), A Study on the Development of Monitoring

pdf (last date accessed: 4 September 2017). USGS (2009), Advancing statewide spatial data infrastructures in support of the NSDI, United States Geological Survey, Reston,

https://docslide.net/documents/nsgic-march-2006

Indicators for National Geospatial Data Infrastructure

-advancing-statewide-spatial-data-infrastructures-in-

Policy, KRIHS, Anyang (in Korean), 38p.

support-of-the-national-spatial-data-infrastructure-nsdi-

Pashova, L. and Bandrova, T. (2017), A brief overview of current status of European spatial data infrastructuresrelevant developments and perspectives for Bulgaria, Geospatial Information Science, Vol. 20, No. 2, pp. 97-108. Rajabifard, A. and Williamson, I. P. (2001), Spatial data

386

workshop-on-developing.html (last date accessed: 8 Septem ber 2017). Williamson, I. P., Rajabifard, A., and Feeney, M. E. F. (2003), Developing Spatial Data Infrastructures: From Concept to Reality, Taylor & Francis Inc, New York. N.Y.


Williamson, I. P. (2004), Building SDIs—the challenges ahead, In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference: Global Spatial Data Infrastructure, 2-6 February, Bangalore, India, pp. 2-6. Williamson, I. P., Rajabifard, A., and Binns, A. (2006), Challenges and issues for SDI development. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, Vol. 1, pp. 24-35.

387