Registration still open for Workshop on Socio-economic Benefits of Geospatial Info/GEOSS

The Workshop on the Socio-economic Benefits of Geospatial Information/GEOSS is set to take place from June 12-14 in Boulder, Colorado. Registration is still open. Geospatial information, whether derived from Earth observation sources or elsewhere, can be an important tool in approaching the many challenges we face on the local, regional, and global level. Those include assessing food security, flooding, air quality, disasters, and more. Effective uses of this information can assist in decision-making to enhance the social and economic well-being of communities. The workshop, at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), Foothills Campus, will review quantitative and socioeconomic methods for assessing and communicating the value of geospatial information

For full text of the article, vitist The Latest on the Socio-economic Workshop in Boulder | Earthzine.

Related articles

• Congressional Research Service Update to Federal GIS Report (geodatapolicy.wordpress.com)

New CRS Report: Foreign Assistance: Public Private-Partnerships

Image via Wikipedia

Marian Leonardo Lawson
Analyst in Foreign Assistance
Congressional Research Service

June 13, 2011

SUMMARY: The flow of private sector resources to developing countries has increased significantly in recent decades. Seeking opportunity in this changing environment, government development assistance agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department are  working with private sector entities in unprecedented ways to determine when and if such partnerships can lead to improved development results. As explained in the Obama Administration’s 2010 Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR), “private sector partners can add value to our missions through their resources, their capacity to establish presence in places we cannot, through the technologies, networks, and contacts they can tap, and through their specialized expertise or knowledge.” More than 1,000 such partnerships, involving more than 3,000 private entities, have been established since 2001.

Potential Benefits of and Concerns About Partnerships
Modern public-private partnerships (PPPs), characterized by joint planning, joint contributions, and shared risk, are viewed by many development experts as an opportunity to leverage resources, mobilize industry expertise and networks, and bring fresh ideas to development projects. Partnering with the private sector is also widely believed to increase the likelihood thatprograms will continue after government aid has ended. From the private sector perspective, partnering with a government agency can bring development expertise and resources, access to government officials, credibility, and scale.

Nearly 10 years after the formation of USAID’s Global Development Alliance (GDA), PPPs for development have received mixed reviews. PPPs require significant effort to create and manage, and critics argue that inadequate data exist to demonstrate that these efforts are the most effective way to use limited development resources. Others have expressed concern about partnerships diverting resources away from proven development programs or recipients. Still others are concerned that PPPs, particularly those involving corporate partners and focusing on trade and economic growth, may lead to outsourcing of U.S. jobs. Partnership proponents have varying views as well. Some feel that the goal of mainstreaming the PPP model as a tool for development has been achieved and they are ready to declare victory and move on, while others contend that the potential for using PPPs in development has only begun to be realized and that expanded partnerships are the future of development assistance.

Issues for Congress and the Scope of This Report
To date, the movement toward this “new generation of partnerships,” as it has been called by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, has been driven by successive administrations with limited congressional involvement. However, recent reviews of U.S. foreign assistance policy, through the QDDR and a Presidential Study Directive on Global Development Policy, may spur congressional action on foreign assistance reform in the 112th Congress. As part of this effort, Congress may consider several issues that affect or are affected by the use of PPPs, including budget and procurement policies, interagency leadership, international commitments, and the role of aid within broader development policy. This report discusses the evolution of private sector involvement in U.S. foreign assistance programs over recent decades, how globalization has driven the modern approach to development partnerships, potential benefits and drawbacks of PPPs, and how partnerships are being used by other bilateral donors and multilateral development Foreign Assistance: Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) agencies. The report then discusses partnership-related issues that may be of interest to Congress as part of the foreign assistance authorization and reform process.

For full text of the report, visit the Federation of American Scientists’ website:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41880.pdf

Federal Research and Development in the FY 2011 Budget Compromise

On Monday, April 11, the U.S. House of Representatives introduced the bill to fund the federal government for the last half of FY 2011. This bill will be taken up in the House on April 13th and in the Senate on April 14th, and then sent to the President for his signature, hopefully before the midnight deadline on Friday, April 15th. If passed, non-defense funding levels will be reduced by a 0.2 percent across-the-board cut to achieve savings of approximately $1.1 billion. Specific details on programmatic cuts for Federal R&D can be found in the articles blow:

Text of the Legislation:

• Final FY 2011 appropriations legislation

A summary of the legislation:

• House Appropriations Committee
• Senate Appropriations Committee

 

R&D in the FY 2011 Compromise

by Patrick Clemins, Ph.D., AAAS R&D Budget and Policy Program, April 13, 2011

Congress released their year-long continuing resolution for FY 2011 this morning which contains a total of around $38.5 billion in cuts, the largest collection of spending cuts in history. R&D intensive programs and agencies were spared the worst of the cuts. Basic research programs faired the best, while applied research programs, especially at the Department of Energy did less well, accurately reflecting the current policy debates taking place. Basic research generally has broad, bi-partisan support, but there is discussion as to how much the federal government should be involved in applied research and the role of industry in funding the applied research stage of the innovation pipeline.

For full text of the article and other related resources, visit: http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/

 

FYI #48: Details of Final FY 2011 Appropriations Bill Emerging

By Richard Jones, American Institute of Physics

Total FY 2011 funding will be $78.5 billion less than that requested by the Obama Administration. … A release from the Senate Appropriations Committee states, “as these cuts must be implemented in just the remaining six months of the fiscal year, their impact will be especially painful in some instances.” The below figures, provided by the House Appropriations Committee, do not include the 0.2 percent across the board cut that was made to all non-defense accounts.  In all instances, reductions from current FY 2010 levels are shown, and the numbers are rounded.  It should also be noted that the House Appropriations statement explains: “This list contains highlighted program cuts. This list is not comprehensive of all program funding levels in the legislation.”

National Science Foundation
Research and Related Activities: Down $43 million
Education and Human Resources: Down $10 million

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Education: Down $38 million
Cross Agency Support: Down $83 million

U.S. Geological Survey: Down $26 million

For full text of the article, visit: http://www.aip.org/fyi/2011/048.html

Related Articles

• AGU Science Policy Website
• Summary Analysis of the President’s FY 2012 Budget Request for Federal Research and Education Programs, Lewis-Burke Associates, LLC, February 14, 2011
• Lewis-Burke Associates Research & Education Policy Analysis Webpage

• As Congress Slashes EPA Budget, Research Least Harmed (news.sciencemag.org)
• Defense Spending Rises In Budget Bills, Despite U.S. Drawdown In … (huffingtonpost.com)
• Research Survives in 2011 Budget After Earlier Scare (news.sciencemag.org)
• Blog – Is the Death of Intel Research a Harbinger of Doom for Privately-Funded Technology Research? (technologyreview.com)

Grand Challenges in Geospatial Science Research

The  Directorate for the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences of the National Science Foundation (NSF/SBE) seeks to frame innovative research for the year 2020 and beyond that enhances fundamental knowledge and benefits society. NSF/SBE invited individuals and groups to contribute white papers in which authors were asked to outline grand challenge questions that are both foundational and transformative. At the conclusion of the submission period on October 15, 2010, 244 unique papers were received covering the full range of the SBE sciences.

The University Consortium for Geographic Information Science (UCGIS) submitted the following white paper on spatial dynamics and CyberGIS. The UCGIS Winter Meeting:  Place-Based Geospatial Summit will be held at the Doubletree Hotel in Washington, DC on February 3rd and 4th, 2011. For registration and the agenda, click here.

 

Spatial Dynamics and CyberGIS for NSF SBE 2020

Lead Author: Yuan, May

Abstract: University Consortium for Geographic Information Science (UCGIS) advocates that spatial dynamics and cyberGIS be identified as two grand research challenges for SBE 2020. Spatial dynamics and cyberGIS ask fundamental questions about the complexity, dynamics, and synthesis of social, behavioral, and economic systems. Making connections across space and time enables knowledge building beyond disciplinary boundaries to understand how new findings in one discipline relate to another for a holistic understanding of human dimensions. Expanding upon the spatial emphasis in geographic information science research, spatial dynamics research investigates cognitive and methodological advances to conceptualize, represent, analyze, and model the integrative spatiotemporal characteristics and processes of global systems. CyberGIS research enables a synthesis framework leveraging GIS and cyberinfrastructure to build a collaborative cybercommons of distributed benchmark datasets, computational testbeds, and knowledge webs for social, behavioral, and economic sciences. The fact that social network media is expanding rapidly and being accessed by a broad spectrum of society, and new generations of digital natives are stepping up to take center stage, gives unprecedented opportunities to allow real-time or near-real time spatially referenced data for SBE research. Grand research challenges of spatial dynamics and cyberGIS, both individually and more effectively together, are essential to understand spatial connections of activities, events, and processes across scales and dimensions for a cyber SBE knowledge enterprise with capabilities for SBE forecasting and predictions, and even nowcasting enabled by sensor networks, cell phone signals, or twitters.

For full text of the article, click here.

 

Other geospatial-related white papers submitted to NSF SBE 2020:

• Kasakoff, Alice Bee. Scaling Down: Social and Economic Processes over time at a Local Scale in the US
• Gregory, Ian N. Using Historical GIS to understand space and time in the social, behavioural and economic sciences: A white paper for the NSF
• Yuan, May. Spatial Dynamics and CyberGIS for NSF SBE 2020
• Corrigan, John.The Spatial Humanities: GIS and the future of humanities scholarship
• Lobao, Linda M. Spatial Inequality: A Research Agenda for the Social Sciences
  
• Owens, J. B. Understanding the impact of nonlinear dynamics on the processes of human systems
  

Public Sector Information Policies and their Economic Impacts

Borders in Cyberspace: Conflicting Public Sector Information Policies and their Economic Impacts

This summary report by Peter Weiss (February 2002) offers a comparison between the PSI re-use market within the US and Europe and how the impact that the different policy approaches on access, copyright and re-use related to PSI has impacted the PSI re-use market. The report seeks to demonstrate the economic and social benefits of open access and dissemination policies for public sector information, particularly as opposed to the limitations of the “cost recovery ” or  “government commercialisation” approach. The report offers good coverage of conclusions of recent economic and public policy research, as well as examples of failed or limited cost recovery experiments in the US and Europe.

Building a National Spatial Data Infrastructure 2.0

In the United States, a lively discussion is emerging on the next generation of the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, with a  focus on its governance and coordination. Below are links to articles, reports and editorials on this topic:

National Geospatial Advisory Council Reports

• NGAC Report: The Changing Geospatial Landscape [PDF 4.38 MB]
• NGAC Transition Recommendations [PDF]
• Recommendations Summary [July 2011, PDF]
• Proposal to Measure Progress Toward Realizing the NSDI Vision [PDF]

Federal Geographic Data Committee Reports and Presentations

• NSDI 2.0: Implementing Change, Challenges and Opportunities [Ivan Deloatch, October 2009]
• A History of Spatial Data Coordination [Milo Robinson, May 2008]
• National Spatial Data Infrastructure Webpage

2009 Proposals for a “National GIS”

• A Proposal for National Economic Recovery: An Investment in Geospatial Information Infrastructure Building a National GIS [Jack Dangermond, ESRI]
• A Concept for American Recovery and Reinvestment - NSDI 2.0: Powering our National Economy, Renewing our Infrastructure, Protecting our Environment [Jeff Harrison, John Moeller, Julia Harvell and others]
• A Proposal for Reinvigorating the American Economy Through Investment in the US National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) [Autodesk, Microsoft, Oracle, Google, Intergraph]
• Stimulus Proposal #4 – Funding the National Map [John Palatiello]
• A Strategic Framework for a National Spatial Data Infrastructure [NSGIC]
• Governance of the NSDI [Will Craig, President of NSGIC]

Commentary

• Mapping and Spatial Data: Infrastructures and Imagination (John Moeller, Communia Blog, Sept 6, 2011)
• Obama Should Finish What Nixon Failed to Do (Christopher Tucker, Directions Magazine, Oct 2, 2009)
• Is a National GIS on the map? (GCN, July 13, 2009)
• Update 9: ESRI Invites Support for GIS for the Nation as Part of Stimulus Bill
• Three Geospatial Proposals and U.S. Economic Stimulus: Background and Status (Directions Magazine, Feb 5, 2009)
• Landscape of National GIS (David G. Smith, February 1, 2009)
• A Second Proposal Regarding Geo and the Stimulus: NSDI 2.0 (All Points Blog, Directions Magazine, Jan 24, 2009)
• Grassroots Group Releases NSDI 2.0 Concept Paper (GISCafe, January 23, 2009)
• A Rebuttal to “Building a National GIS” (Sean Gorman, January 13, 2009)

 

NSDI Related Legislation and Hearings

Legislation:

• E-Government Act of 2002 (PL 107-347) See Section 216 – Common Protocols for Geographic Information Systems, as well as Hearing Transcript, House Report No. 107-787 , Part 1 (H.R. 2458), and Senate Reports No. 107-174 (S. 803)

Congressional Oversight Hearings:

• House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources Oversight Hearing “Federal Geospatial Data Management and Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2489″ (July 23, 2009)
•  House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census (June 23, 2004) See GAO Testimony – “Geospatial Information: Better Coordination and Oversight Could Help Reduce Duplicative Investments“
• House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census  (June 10, 2003) See GAO Testimony – “Geographic Information Systems: Challenges to Effective Data Sharing“

Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports to Congress:

• Geospatial Information and Geographic Information Systems (GIS): An Overview for Congress (CRS, May 18, 2011)
• Issues and Challenges for Federal Geospatial Information” (CRS, May 18, 201)
• Geospatial Information and Geograpahic Information Systems (GIS): Current Issues and Future Challenges (CRS, June 2009)
• Issues Regarding a National Land Parcel Database (CRS, July 2009)

Government Accountability Office (GAO) Reports to Congress and Testimony:

• Geographic Information Systems : Challenges to Effective Data Sharing (GAO-03-874T, June 2003) [Testimony]
• Geospatial Information: Better Coordination Needed To Identify and Reduce Duplicative Investments (GAO-04-743, June 2004) [Testimony]
• Geospatial Informaiton: Better Coordination Needed to Identify and Reduce Duplicative Investments (GAO-04-703, June 2004) [Report to Congressional Requesters]

Executive Orders, Regulations and Guidelines

Executive Orders:

• Executive Order 12906: Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: The National Spatial Data Infrastructure
• Executive Order 13286, published in the March 5, 2003, edition of the Federal Register, Volume 68, Number 43, pp. 10619-10633 amended Executive Order 12906

OMB Circulars and Memos:

• OMB Circular A-16 Revised Coordination of Geographic Information and Related Spatial Data Activities
• OMB Circular A-130: Management of Federal Information Resources
• OMB Circular A-119: Federal Participation in the Development and Use of Voluntary Consensus Standards and in Conformity Assessment Activities 
• OMB Memo M-09-28: Developing Effective Place-Based Policies for the FY2011 Budget
• OMB Memo M-06-07: Designation of a Senior Agency Official for Geospatial Information (President Bush)

FGDC Policies and Guidelines

The Geospatial Platform

NSDI-related Reports and Publications

National Academy of Public Administration Reports:

• Geographic Information for the 21st Century: Building a Strategy for the Nation (NAPA 98-01, January 1998)
• Legal Limits on Access to and Disclosure of Disaster Information (NAPA 99-09S, May 1999)
• Enabling Collaboration: Three Priorities for the New Administration (NAPA Jan 2009)
• Conversations with Leaders: Place-Based Public Management: A National Academy of Public Administration Initiative (NAPA 2011)
• Forum on Place-Based Public Management (May 2011)

National Academy of Sciences Reports (PDFs are now free; for full list of Mapping Science Committee reports click here):

• Land Parcel Data: A Vision for the Future (NAS 2007)
• Weaving a National Map: A Review of the U.S. Geological Survey Concept of the National Map (NAS 2003)
• National Spatial Data Infrastructure Partnership Programs: Rethinking the Focus (NAS 2001)
• A Data Foundation for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NAS 1995)
• Promoting the National Spatial Data Infrastructure Through Partnerships (NAS 1994)
• Toward a Coordinated  Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation (NAS 1993)
• Spatial Data Needs: The Future of the National Mapping Program (NAS 1990)
• Federal Surveying and Mapping: An Organizational Review (NAS 1981), including a summary of the Federal Mapping Task Force Report (OMB 1973).

Academic Studies:

• A Policy Appraisal of the National Map, A Federal Program to Provide Basic Geospatial Data For the Nation (Maeve A. Boland, PhD Dissertation, 2005) 

Earth Observation Governance, Priorities and Benefit to Society:

• Earth Observations and Global Change: Why? Where are we? What Next? (CSIS 2008)
• Earth Observation, Risk Assessment and Global Change (CSIS 2008)
• A Plan for a U.S. National Land Imaging Program (OSTP 2007)
• Dr. Holdren, Director of OSTP, Remarks to the Plenary Session of GEO-VI
• U.S. Group on Earth Observations (US GEO) Website

If you know of additional related documents or commentaries, please email us the links!

DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in the links and resources listed above are not necessarily those of this blog site.

U.S. Economic Stimulus Projects and Geospatial Technology

 

Economic Stimulus Project areas that may create GIS/Geo Tech Opportunities  

Like many of you, we haven’t really had time to go through the entire 1,071 page Detailed List of Spending – you can view and download the entire document at ProRepublica We did take a little time, however, to go through this fine summary provided by ProPublica. The following were some of the spending items of interest that may indeed have a direct or indirect effect on GIS and geospatial technologies…[More]

Source: Glenn Letham (@gletham) Monday, 16 February 2009, GISUser.Com

Geospatial Return on Investment Resources

The Wisconsin Land Information Association regional meeting on October 16-17, at the Heidel House Resort in Green Lake, focused on ”Building the case for GIS and return on investment (ROI).” Doug Adams gave a dynamic presentation on a ROI case study conducted by Baltimore County, Maryland. For more information on their efforts, see the following links:

• GIS saves Baltimore County, MD $4 million dollars annually (Government Technology, August 2008)
• Baltimore County’s GIS Strategic Plan Reveals a Significant Return on Investment (ESRI, Sept 2008)
• Baltimore County’s GIS Strategic Business Plan (Revised February 2008)

Baltimore County’s GIS Benefit*

• 119,377—Hours saved with the use of GIS
• $4,052,895—Money saved with the use of GIS (total number of hours saved at $33.95 per hour)
• $606,626—Other benefits realized from the use of GIS (e.g., agriculture preservation program, savings derived from performing work in-house as opposed to using consultants, and revenue collected from data request fees)
• $4,659,521—Total annual benefits realized from the use of GIS
• 121.03%—Percentage of annual benefits realized from the use of GIS after its cost is subtracted
• 221.03%—Percentage of money saved with the use of GIS