SDI Convergence - Nederlandse Commissie voor Geodesie - KNAW

(GPS) devices have changed the nature of GI production for both geomatic experts
and common users (Bergeron et al., 2005; Caron et al., 2006).
GI is considered to be extremely valuable and its collection, processing and management
are expensive. Conversely, it is inexpensive to disseminate (Longhorn and
Blakemore, 2008). Everyone is a user of GI, and the same information can be used by
all segments of society - citizens, businesses, and public bodies - usually for different
intentions. Therefore, there is a wide debate on how society assigns different values to
GI.
Despite the massive use of GI and the substantial body of literature on return on investment
for general GI technology projects, a scientific framework providing the appropriate
criteria (necessary to determine and compare the value and the benefit associated
with GI projects) has yet to be defined (Genovese et al., 2008). The high number
of variables and attributes that has to be taken into consideration when evaluating GI
may explain this (Longhorn and Blakemore, 2008).
Thus it is necessary to define the basis on which or the conventions with which it will be
possible to evaluate the effectiveness of investment in the implementation of GI projects.
Recent studies (Crompvoets, 2006; Samborski, 2007; Grus et al., 2007; ACIL
Tasman, 2008; Genovese et al., 2008; Longhorn and Blakemore, 2008; Crompvoets et
al., 2008) have developed theoretical frameworks to evaluate GI.
On the practical level, the “lack of knowledge” about GI clearly hinders decision-makers
and policy-makers, both in public and private sectors. Without accurate quantitative
studies, it is difficult to identify the GI value chain and to evaluate the benefits of committing
inadequate budgetary funds to investments in GI products or infrastructures
(Genovese et al., 2008).
2. ASSESSING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Increasing volumes of GI resources were produced in the 1990s by public, private and
non-government agencies (Onsrud, 1998). Over the past decade, many countries have
responded to the need of standardising data quality and documentation formats by
investing in national, regional or supranational Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDIs). The
Canadian Geospatial Data Infrastructure (CGDI) and the United States’ National Spatial
Data Infrastructure (NSDI) are two examples of national SDIs, while Europe’s IN-
SPIRE and Australia and New Zealand’s ANZLIC are examples of supranational SDIs
(Genovese et al., 2008).
These investments in SDIs have improved access to GI and services, reducing data
production costs through less duplication, providing policies, tools and mechanisms to
promote data sharing at regional, national, and international levels (Crompvoets, 2006).
Consequently, at all community levels, it is increasingly important to assess the GI return
on investments to justify the resources spent on those infrastructures (Grus et al.,
2007).
Until recently, the impact of these expenditures had yet to be evaluated systematically
(Crompvoets, 2006). The INSPIRE directive (2007/2/EC), which establishes an Infrastructure
for Spatial Information in the European Community, explicitly calls for regular
monitoring and reporting to determine the extent to which the initiative is successful
and to establish the impacts the infrastructure has on social and economic systems
(Directive 2007/2/EC).
176