Abstract    Table of  Contents   Acknowledgments Chapters  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   Bibliography

Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Information Systems in Planning

at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

© 1997 John D. Evans. All rights reserved.

The author hereby grants to MIT permission to reproduce and to distribute publicly paper and electronic copies of this thesis document in whole or in part.  

---

Infrastructures for sharing geographic information among environmental agencies

Submitted to the Department of Urban Studies and Planning in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Information Systems in Planning

This research draws on several organizational and technological perspectives to examine the design and growth of infrastructures for inter-organizational geographic information sharing, and their role in collaborative environmental management. The study draws, first, on the experiences of selected coalitions of government agencies to discern their organizational dynamics; and on a software prototype that illustrates coming technological trends. The study gives special attention to geographic information, which often requires special handling and promises particularly important influences on organizations and joint policy-making. It also seeks to understand the interdependence between human and technical aspects of geographic information infrastructures.

The first research phase is a case study of three groups of government agencies that are building networked information-sharing systems for the joint protection of large ecosystems (the Great Lakes, Gulf of Maine, and Pacific Northwest rivers). These cases richly illustrate the challenges and benefits of designing flexible standards, rethinking organizational structures, and adjusting decision-making processes to depend on shared geographic information. The study’s second phase, a prototype networked service for digital orthophotos, suggests that shifting the focus of information sharing from datasets to data services is becoming increasingly feasible, but that organizations may need to adapt to new forms of information sharing. Together, these findings suggest an expanded view of standards as layered, strategic choices; and of organizations in complex, interdependent relationships.
 

Thesis Supervisor: Joseph Ferreira, Jr.
Title: Professor of Urban Planning and Operations Research

Chapter 1: Introduction

Chapter 2: Background and Scope

1. Overview

2. Concept Definitions

a. Various conceptions of sharing
b. Information sharing infrastructures

3. Related research

a. Organizational aspects of geographic information sharing

i. Factors in information sharing, consensus, and coordination
ii. Processes of information sharing, consensus, and coordination

b. Technological aspects of geographic information sharing

i. Levels of connectivity: physical, logical, semantic
ii. Standards, metadata, and non-intrusive sharing
iii. Network tools and network management

c. Interdependence of organizational and technological aspects

d. Organizational and technological change

1. Overview

a. Case studies: contextual views of information sharing infrastructures
b. Prototype development: anticipating the effects of emerging technologies

2. Organizational case studies

a. Criteria for evaluation and comparison
b. Choice of cases
c. Data collection methods
d. Qualitative analysis
e. Discussion

3. Prototype development

a. Selection of prototype
b. Design choices
c. Evaluation

4. Synopsis

1. Overview

2. Brief history

3. Context of the infrastructure

a. Institutional context
b. Technological context

4. Infrastructure choices

a. Institutional arrangements
b. Technological design

5. Information sharing characteristics

a. Forms of information sharing
b. Size of the infrastructure
c. Quality of the shared information

i. Precision and accuracy
ii. Concurrency and timeliness
iii. Usability and encapsulation

d. Quality of the information infrastructure

i. Reciprocity: what it takes to publish data
ii. Flexibility: how people join the network
iii. Scalability and sustainability
iv. Non-intrusiveness and transparency: how much change is required

6. Infrastructure impacts

a. Interdependent, "ecosystem" thinking
b. RAPIDS: a clear impact?

7. Challenges and lessons

a. Supporting GLIN's growth
b. Populating GLIN with "real" data

i. Security concerns
ii. No perceived need
iii. Risk of misinterpretation or misuse
iv. Staff burdens

c. Adjusting to a complex network-of-networks

i. Distinct approaches to data sharing
ii. Reconciling the different approaches

8. Conclusions

1. Overview

2. Brief history

3. Context of the infrastructure

a. Institutional context
b. Technological context

4. Infrastructure choices

a. Institutional arrangements
b. Technological design

5. Information sharing characteristics

a. Forms of information sharing
b. Size of the infrastructure
c. Quality of the shared information

i. Precision and accuracy
ii. Timeliness and concurrency
iii. Usability and encapsulation

d. Quality of the information infrastructure

i. Reciprocity
ii. Scalability
iii. Non-intrusiveness

6. Infrastructure impacts

7. Challenges and lessons

8. Conclusions

1. Overview

2. Brief history

a. The Northwest Power Act
b. Pacific Northwest Rivers Study and Northwest Environmental Database
c. Anadromous fisheries and the Coordinated Information System.

3. Context of the infrastructure

a. Institutional context

i. Many conflicting stakeholders
ii. Other regional data sharing efforts: reinforcement and competition
iii. Increasingly mature & formal state data sharing
iv. Informal communities

b. Technological context

i. Widely varying degrees of experience
ii. Increasing prominence of GIS standards and networking

4. Infrastructure choices

a. Institutional arrangements

i. Northwest Environmental Database: stakeholder cooperation and interdependence
ii. Coordinated Information System: neutrality through isolation from stakeholders

b. Technological design

i. Northwest Environmental Database: decentralized, qualitative, geographic
ii. Coordinated Information System: centralized, quantitative, tabular

5. Information sharing characteristics

a. Forms of information sharing
b. Size of the infrastructure
c. Quality of the shared information

i. Precision, accuracy, and scale
ii. Timeliness and concurrency
iii. Usability and encapsulation

d. Quality of the information infrastructure

i. Reciprocity
ii. Scalability
iii. Non-intrusiveness

6. Infrastructure impacts

a. Consistent, region-wide strategies
b. Enhanced public access to information
c. Improved inter-state collaboration
d. Enhanced data management: CIS and other NED offshoots

7. Challenges and lessons

a. Decentralized vs. centralized coordination
b. Providing data connectivity among data suppliers
c. Teamwork and coordination

8. Conclusions

1. Salient findings from the three cases

a. History and context
b. Infrastructure choices
c. Infrastructure characteristics
d. Infrastructure impacts
e. Challenges and lessons

2. Differing views of information and sharing

a. "We will serve no data before its time!": Information sharing as data management
b. "Democracy in action": information sharing as public disclosure
c. If we build it they will come: information sharing as a networking project
d. "We learn from each other": information sharing as a meeting of the minds
e. Getting it right: creatively solving new problems, organizational change, integrated choices

3. Mutual influence of technology, organizations, and policy/planning

a. Technology influences actions
b. Actions influence organizations
c. Organizations influence actions
d. Actions affect technology
e. Policy and planning influences action
f. Actions influence policy and planning
g. Technological and organizational change

4. Technology choices

a. From datasets to data services
b. From standards to metadata
c. From compatibility to interoperability

5. Organizational choices

a. From autonomy to interdependence
b. Growing complexity over the long term
c. Sharing costs and benefits reliably

1. Introduction

2. The National Spatial Data Infrastructure and the orthophoto browser

a. National Spatial Data Infrastructure overview
b. Relation of the orthophoto browser project to the NSDI

3. Design goals and development stages

a. Background and design goals
b. Development stages

i. FGDC-compliant metadata for pilot orthophotos; begin manipulating images
ii. Preliminary Web-based interface to (tiled) orthophoto excerpts
iii. Build a final orthophoto browser interface with custom image "snippets" and GIS headers
iv. Unveil full-scale service to a wide audience; examine management and replication issues.
v. Discussion of development stages

4. Product functionality

a. Browser overview
b. Links to metadata

5. Evaluation

a. Fulfillment of project objectives
b. Demonstrated value to the research community
c. Usage reports
d. Performance along the case-study criteria

6. Implications: what’s different about the orthophoto browser?

a. A widely accessible, "just-in-time" data service
b. Information integration through metadata
c. Interoperability between software systems
d. Towards a scale-free referencing system

7. Implications for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure

a. Growing the NSDI Clearinghouse beyond metadata
b. Shifting the focus of NSDI standards
c. Networked orthophoto services in the NSDI Framework

8. Implications in the case-study contexts

a. More-than-incremental change
b. Who pays? Distributing responsibilities, costs, and benefits

1. Overview

a. Motivation
b. Findings from the case studies
c. Findings from the orthophoto prototype
d. Synthesis of the two studies

2. Technology implications: choosing strategic standards

a. National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse
b. OpenGIS
c. Proprietary protocols: GIS-network integration
d. Evolution of a standard

3. Organizational implications: towards dynamic interdependence

a. Inter-agency teamwork and collaboration

i. The "shadow organization" and emerging structures
ii. From partnership to marketplace: dynamic, chaotic organizational relationships

b. Redistributing responsibilities, costs, and benefits

i. When is geographic information sharing worthwhile?
ii. Incremental vs. radical change
iii. Maintaining infrastructures for the long term

4. Policy implications: role of government, impacts on government

a. Government policy in infrastructure development

i. Information to fuel applications; rethinking ownership
ii. Setting de jure standards

b. Infrastructures in government policy

i. Broader participation and more effective consensus
ii. Improved scientific analysis before and after policies are made

5. Hypotheses for further research

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation, under Grant No. SBR-9507271, and by the 1995 Competitive Cooperative Agreements Program of the Federal Geographic Data Committee. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are my own and don’t necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or of the Federal Geographic Data Committee.