This paper traces the history and context of international spatial
data initiatives in Europe, outlining the efforts made by bodies
such as Directorate General XIII/E of the European Union, EUROGI,
MEGRIN, ESF-GISDATA, CEO, OGIS and others to further interoperability,
the use of meta data and efficient data exchange. The internal
and external social, economic, political and technical forces
driving internationalism in GI in Europe are described with special
attention for the aspects in which Europe differs from North America.
Experience with several discipline-related GI data integration
efforts is presented in terms of the ease or difficulty with which
interoperability has been achieved. The role of the Open GIS Consortium
and US GI Companies in determining Europe's approach to interoperability
is examined and suggestions are made as to how Europe can improve
coordination and cohesion to enhance its world position with respect
to GI matters.
1. THE HISTORY OF INTERNATIONAL SPATIAL DATA INITIATIVES IN
EUROPE.
Although the opening up of the single market in Europe means that
both organisations and individuals originating in any single Member
State may move freely across borders to compete for work and opportunities
in other Member States there are still many situations where neither
the spirit nor the letter of the various European Treaties is
followed at national nor local levels. Even where agreed EU Directives
have been approved by Parliament and the Council of Ministers,
in a number of diverse subject areas, Member State governments
are still often loath to implement them - at the end of 1996,
something like 12 Member States were in default of implementing
important, fully agreed EU Directives, and many were or will be
taken before the European Court of Justice if the appropriate
national law changes are not enacted shortly. Small wonder, therefore,
that sharing of spatial data is fraught with difficulties. Until
relatively recently, most spatial data were regarded as national
property, or even as state secrets, that were definitely not to
be shared.
In recent years, however, much has been happening to change the
situation in Europe with respect to geographical information.
A year ago, under the auspices of European Commissioner Dr Martin
Bangemann, a meeting was held in Bonn to discuss activities concerning
the Emerging Global Spatial Data Infrastructure (GSDI). This meeting
was organised by the European Umbrella Organization for Geographic
Information (EUROGI) together with the Deutscher Dachverband für
Geoinformation (DDGI), and North American and International Institutes:
the Atlantic Institute, the Institute for Land Information and
its Land Information Assembly (ILI/ILA), the Open GIS Consortium,
Inc. (OGC), the US Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) and
La Fédération Internationale des Géomètres
(FIG), Commission 3 (Chenez 1996). This was perhaps the most far
reaching activity in the history of the globalization of Geographical
Information initiatives in Europe. A second GSDI meeting will
be held in Raleigh, North Carolina on 20-21 October 1997, with
Michael Brand, President of EUROGI in the Chair. Not long ago,
the idea of a national spatial data infrastructure was unthinkable
in many countries. Ten years ago there were few persons outside
specialist areas (in which I include the armed forces) who would
have envisaged the creation of shared, on-line geographical databases
that are available to all persons with a personal computer linked
to the World Wide Web. In Bonn, people did not just discuss if
this was technically possible, but also how this development could
be guided along the best possible paths, while recognizing that
the huge amount of work to be done to properly identify or specify
even a basic framework within which to address, discuss and resolve
the many issues involved in globalization of GI.
Before going further, I must clarify the meaning of "Europe".
The term "European Union (EU)" refers to the current
political association of 15 states (Finland, Sweden, Denmark,
Germany, UK, Ireland, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Austria,
France, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece), "Western Europe"
includes all the foregoing plus Norway, Iceland, Switzerland and
the smaller states like Andorra, Monaco, the Vatican, Liechtenstein
and San Marino. "Former Eastern Europe" includes the
new Baltic States of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, and the states
of Poland, Russia, Belarus, Ukraine, Bulgaria, Romania, Macedonia,
Albania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, Hungary, Croatia,
Bosnia and Yugoslavia. Obviously, with such diversity in history
and political organisation it is difficult to speak of a single
"European" view of anything, let alone spatial data.
Yet means must be found to improve the coordination of the collection
and use of GI on a continental basis, e.g. in environmental monitoring
(Chernobyl is still there - and leaking), for watershed management
(the major river basins of Europe transgress political boundaries),
coastal zone management or in transport planning (land routes,
air routes and sea), to mention but four.
The current state of the international situation with respect
to spatial data in Western Europe is the result of several actions
taken by a relatively limited number of individuals in several
key organisations and disciplines. At the upper political levels
the stage was set by former Commission President Delors who in
December 1993 presented the European Council in Brussels with
a major vision for Europe. A critical element was the development
of the information society, especially within the triad of the
European Union, the United States and Japan. High-level, senior
representatives from the industries which would implement the
information society met early in 1994 under Commissioner Martin
Bangemann and made recommendations which were presented to the
European Council at the Corfu summit in June 1994: these were
later given more substance in the Commission's action plan "Europe's
Way to the Information Society" (COM(94) 347 of 19.7.94).
The European Council in Essen in December 1994 further underlined
the importance of the emerging information society on the role
of new information services, and especially the content,
or the information itself. The G7 Ministerial Conference in Brussels
on 25-26 February 1995 confirmed the opportunities the information
society should offer and stressed the need for global co-operation.
Several of the projects defined at this summit involve significant
use of geographic information, in particular projects on Environment
and Natural Resources Management, Global Emergency Management
and Maritime Information Systems (Burrough 1996).
At the levels of professionals, disciplinary organisations and
governmental and inter-governmental bodies there have been recent
moves towards a European approach to harmonising activities concerning
spatial data. MEGRIN - the Multipurpose European Ground Related
Information Network, set up as a collaborative project by CERCO
(Comité Européen des Responsables de la Cartographie
Officielle) in 1993 has created SABE (seamless dataset of the
administrative units) from digital data supplied by all MEGRIN
partners (Salgé 1997). EUROGI - the European Umbrella Organisation
for Geographic Information, was researched by a handful of professionals
in 1992-1993 before it was set up with support from an EC DG XIII/E
IMPACT programme initiative in 1994. The creation of EUROGI as
a single pan-European umbrella organization representing national
and other pan-European GI/GIS related umbrella organizations significantly
affected the development of national spatial data organisations
in countries where national organisations did not yet exist. Today,
most countries of the European Union and EFTA are members of EUROGI,
which plays an important role in leading the discussion and communicating
ideas about European GI initiatives through studies, workshops,
presentations at International GI conferences, and an on-line
web site (http://www.frw.ruu.nl/eurogi/eurogi.html)
Other European activities include the work of GI standards committees
(specifically CEN TC287/TC278 - David et al. 1996), the
establishment of international GI conferences and workshops (e.g.
EGIS - 1990-1994, AM/FM 1988- present; the Joint European Conference
JEC - 1995-1997, the EC-GIS Workshops held in June in each year,
to name but a few), the setting up of academic research programs
like GISDATA, sponsored by the European Science Foundation, and
training programmes sponsored by COMETT (GISIG). The EGIS and
ESF-GISDATA academic initiatives throughout Europe are being followed
up by the creation of AGILE - the network for Academic Geographic
Information Laboratories in Europe.
Private sector initiatives include the development of seamless
road databases for all of western Europe, moves towards interoperability
and the publication of several European monthly trade journals
(e.g. GIS-Europe and Geomatics Info Magazine) and several book
series by major publishers. The activities concerning road navigation
systems have stimulated interest in de facto standards
(TC278) for the GSDI discussion. DGIII (industry) has provided
support to GI industrial initiatives.
European initiatives in space research and remote sensing are
significant in terms of investment and the GI products they produce,
but in general activities in remote sensing have proceeded independently
of conventional mapping and ground-based GI initiatives. The European
Space Agency (ESA) and private companies (e.g. SPOT Image and
companies such as Eurosense to name but one) have made major investments
in imaging technology (hardware, software, interpretation techniques,
etc.) generally, in regard to GI. The EU-financed Centre for Earth
Observation (CEO) located at the Joint Research Centre at Ispra,
Italy (sponsored by 50 Mecu of Member State government money,
matched by 50 Mecu of EC funding ) is a major player in the coordination
of GI and earth observation data from remote sensor platforms.
In spite of this large and diverse activity concerning GI in Europe,
the term 'interoperability' is relatively new here. Initially,
the concept of 'interoperability' referred to problems in the
United States of America when transferring spatial data from one
commercial computer system to another. Very soon, the concept
embraced the problems that different groups of users in the same
government or organisation had in linking data sets for the same
areas that had been created at different times, by different disciplines
for different users or applications. There are analogous problems
in Europe both within and between countries. At
first the problems of exchanging GI were perceived as being merely
technical and it was thought that they could be solved by the
use of agreed data transmission and exchange standards. To facilitate
the development of standards, committees were set up both in North
America and Europe, and elsewhere. Perceiving that many factors
could affect the quality and value of spatial data, the concept
of 'Meta data' - literally 'data about data' was born to provide
users with information about the methodology, lineage, provenance,
ownership, copyright and pricing policies of the data suppliers.
Inevitably, standards for metadata were immediately perceived
as also being necessary.
An important part of the discussion on interoperability, data
exchange and metadata, has been the question as to which individuals
or groups in Europe should take the lead in setting up standards
for GI and systems of metadata, particularly for international
applications. Should Europe simply follow a lead from North America,
or from the vendors of GI systems to proceed directly to a Global
spatial data infrastructure, or should Europe work from national
systems initiated by national agencies to a European spatial
data infrastructure, perhaps via MEGRIN or through GI users working
through EUROGI, or through the European remote sensing path via
the Centre for Earth Observation or from a lead given by the European
Commission?
There may be no simple answer to this question because the degree
to which issues such as interoperability, data exchange, metadata,
etc. matter to different types of GI user varies widely. A local
authority/commune parks manager is generally only concerned with
"his" GI (if aware of it at all!), whereas a regional
planner of parks development perhaps within Dept. of Environment
(or equivalent) is concerned with a much wider view, and both
types of use could benefit from nation-wide surveys (land use,
hydrology, geology, acid rain fallout, etc.) carried out by yet
another national or even international organisation. The problem
comes in motivating (by legislation, by encouraging some form
of altruistic "best practise", or otherwise) purely
local interests to collect, process and make available their GI
on a wider basis, perhaps to users, and for purposes, not even
dreamed of at the time of collection, while operating within typically
tight local budget restrictions. Even in the USA the new "GI
metadata standards" apply only to federal and (some) state
government GI, but not to local government, which still accounts
for three quarters of all GI in America
Realising that commercial operators and government agencies often
have different priorities and views, during the last 30 months,
the EU Directorate General XIII/E, EUROGI and other interested
parties in the European GIS circuit have prepared the document
GI2000 "Towards a European Policy Framework for Geographic
Information" (DG XIII/E 1997a). This has been freely circulated
on the Internet and by conventional means in order to open up
the discussion concerning the need to establish a European policy
framework for geographic information through which data can be
created, marketed, used, reused and shared in a cost-effective
manner for the benefit of society. The document, which has undergone
much refinement, points out the potential of a good GI policy
for providing better and more efficient government as well as
new business opportunities for the nascent European geographic
information industry. The GI2000 concept contains many ideas about
how a European Geographic Information Infrastructure could arise,
and identifies the strengths and weaknesses within Europe towards
this end. In particular the following issues that affect decisions
at global, European and national levels are noted.
Stimulating the creation of base data, bearing in mind data interoperability
Stimulating the creation of metadata services which follow/use agreed standards
Lowering legal barriers and reducing potential risks for GI collection and use
Stimulating public/private synergy, especially access to "public information"
Co-ordination at European level, while respecting the principle of subsidiarity at national level
Technological support (isn't this directly related to more help with R&D?)
Research and Development
Quality and standards
Awareness and training
Market awareness of the value of GI to both the owners of datasets
and to potential users.
DG XIII/E also commissioned three supporting studies on GI-Metadata,
GI-Policy, and GI-Base data; executive summaries of these studies
are available on the World Wide Web (DG XIII/E 1997b). Clearly,
within some EU Directorates General there is interest and activity
at integrating GI over the three levels from NSDI through ESDI
to GSDI, though there is still much to be achieved. GI is so heavily
used within and by the European Commission itself that a separate
Unit exists in the European Statistical Office (Eurostat), called
GISCO - GIS at the Commission, whose mandate is to help advise
other EC Directorates in regard to better coordinated use of GI.
However, GISCO has no remit in regard to assisting or advising
non-EC users of GI. Clearly, some body, agency, organisation must
be found or formed which can take on this wider advisory and coordination
role.
2. THE INTERNAL FORCES DRIVING INTERNATIONALISM IN GI IN EUROPE - WHY SHOULD WE BE WORKING TOGETHER ANYWAY?
The collapse of the Berlin wall in 1989 marked the beginning of
a new era in European history. In the previous decades the main
political divisions were East and West and the demarcation line
ran through the European heartland. Before the collapse, Western
Europe and the European Community were inward looking, focusing
on economic integration, world trade and transatlantic and Mediterranean
issues; the dominant model of political and economic organisation
was the principle of the independent sovereign state, whose integrity
is fundamentally sacrosanct. Immediately pre-1989 there was no
vision of a Greater Europe as there was under Charlemagne and
in the later Middle Ages when the name "Europe" meant
"Unity of Christendom". The broad visions of a continental
political and cultural entity faded when Europeans explored, conquered
and divided the world to suit themselves; in recent centuries
these visions were briefly revived by forceful figures, and repulsed.
Today, partly as a result of 1989, partly as a result of globalization
of the world economy, a dream of a greater Europe is being revived,
but this time one in which European unity will be based on the
free will of European peoples who are able to express their opinions
democratically (Andriessen 1996).
The success of economic, social and political moves towards a
greater Europe as an important economic and social power block
in the world will depend on skills and services, not raw resources.
Three quarters of European jobs are in the service sectors, including
of course the provision and use of geographical information, with
its importance for running and managing any corporate, spatial
entity, be it nation state or local authority.
Just as nation states have used Geographical Information in their
land tenure and national "ordnance" or topographical
mapping programmes to give rights and status to their existence,
so must a wider Europe not only be able to draw on spatial data
that are relevant at European political levels, but also provide
information that will be shared among the people at all levels
in the member states. At the level of European government and
European government agencies there are political requirements
to address issues that cover the whole of the European Union.
These include not only Europe-wide issues like demography, agriculture,
communications or the environment, which are addressed by bodies
like Eurostat and the European Environmental Agency (EEA), but
also a host of separate projects that have been funded under the
many EU Commission programmes of the various Directorates General,
ranging from the technology driven RTD Framework programmes to
monitoring adherence to the CAP (Common Agricultural Policy),
transport planning (TENS), and scores of others. Many of the hundreds
of the latter projects, ranging from studies of soil erosion in
Mediterranean lands to cross-border projects on cadastral systems
to environmental studies modelling the effects of artificial radionuclides
in the food chain, use spatial data in different ways. In general,
the methods used by different projects are not at all co-ordinated
and it is often incidental if they use common methods, data and
standards.
The challenge in Europe is not just to move from NSDI to GSDI, but rather first to move from NSDI to ESDI and then on to GSDI, focusing in the latter case on those issues or types of GI which are needed on a truly global basis. In addition to the hierarchical steps there are also discipline related activities that need to be incorporated into a properly co-o The scope of geographic information in the European context is vast and its applications include issues such as:
Mobility in the workforce
Tourism
International infrastructure, e.g. telecommunications and transport
Banking
Security - police, military, border control (Schengen)
Primary production/Agriculture/subsidies (planning and monitoring)
Business - products such as road navigation, atlases, digital databases
Business - market research and services
Studies of international flows of goods, materials, commodities, capital, waste, etc.
Today no single Institution has a mandate to oversee all these
activities, though some European agencies, namely EUROSTAT, the
European Environmental Agency, the CEO at Ispra, and EUROGI and
its member CERCO are working in parts of the field. Improved coordination
through all agencies being members of EUROGI to work jointly on
ESDI could have many benefits, particularly for the international
growth zones that straddle the borders of one or more countries
in Europe (Table 1). All these are areas where technology is being
used to provide more efficient information services for the maintenance
of employment and living standards in a complex, modern society.
In addition to the direct use of spatial information there is
also major investment throughout Europe in research and training,
and a trend towards Europeanization in scientific disciplines
that use spatial data (Geology, Hydrology, Soil Science, Meteorology,
Climatology).
3. THE EXTERNAL FORCES AFFECTING GI IN EUROPE
As well as the internal forces driving the need for greater harmonisation
in spatial data in Europe, global market forces are forcing Europeans
to compete internationally with North America and other leading
trading blocks, e.g. Asia and Pacific Rim, and this also includes
aspects of geographical information. Most computer hardware and
software used in handling spatial data is produced in other parts
of the world, namely the United States and the Far East. Most
of the readily available digital data sets at world or regional
level are also available from the United States, though much of
the extension of GI skills to developing countries results from
European aid and training.
Europeans are major participants in international science programmes
that use spatially referenced data such as the International Geophysical
Biophysical Programme (IGBP), the World Health Organisation (WHO),
the World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP), and many others. Many international businesses
operating globally are European in origin or have strong European
connections.
Because of the rapid technological advances in IT hardware and
software (ever greater power and capability at steadily decreasing
cost), any lead that non-EU trading blocks have in hardware and
software is rapidly becoming less important for GI users compared
to the European strengths in GI skills and innovation, advances
in GI modelling, etc. Where the hardware/software platform is
produced becomes far less important every year in relation to
the value of the GI itself, of its accessibility to all potential
users in both traditional and novel fields of research, commerce
and government. Information is the key - GI data is the raw product
- modelling, data interoperability and accessibility are of paramount
importance for all GI users.
The dependence on external (non-EU) suppliers of GI materials
on the one hand, and the reliance of others on European support
and skills on the other means that Europeans cannot be inward
looking when developing spatial data infrastructures. It is essential
to adopt a global strategy, to speak a global language if you
are going to participate properly, and I would argue strongly
that Europe as a political entity should adopt a leading position
in the development of organisations that are capable of enhancing
the use of GI at the global level to solve global problems.
4. FACTORS DIFFERENT IN MOST EUROPEAN STATES COMPARED TO THE
US.
In spite of many believing that the harmonising of GIS at the
European, or even the global level is a natural good, it is important
to realise that there are many factors, some rooted in history,
some in culture, some in politics, that affect the ease with which
technical solutions can be devised and implemented. These involve
a wide range of issues from simple inertia to the adoption of
different policies on data availability and pricing, questions
of copyright and legal issues which differ between European states,
not to mention conceptual and discipline-related differences in
the actual content of the spatial data that are related to culture
and language and history (Burrough and Masser 1997). The pre-1989
transatlantic focus in trade and culture continues, providing
Europe and North America with a shared technology base of hardware
and software tools for GI. North America is perceived as the largest
world source of GI skills (GIS WORLD 1996).
Due to different levels of economic development and training facilities
there is still a wide variation in levels of skills and awareness
both within and between countries in Europe, partly because of
the different status of academic subjects like geography in schools
and universities. There are technical differences between countries
such as the use of different base levels and coordinate systems,
but generally, these are easier to fix than are cultural or political
divisions. Surmounting such divisions requires strong political
leadership in regard to GI. Many aspects inherent in using GI
wisely, effectively and efficiently require a political leadership
that is missing today in many EU Member States (where there is
still often no national "GI champion"). The situation
is similar but complicated at EU level, though certain parts of
the European Commission are now looking more closely at ways to
help advance GI in Europe more effectively.
5. THE RESISTANCE TO GSDI IN EUROPE
Most resistance to a European or a global approach to SDI stems
from a range of relatively local issues rather than any coherent
opposition philosophy. Issues causing resistance include:
National mandates for NMAs and other agencies which rely on/use GI, limiting their activities to the national boundaries.
A lack of funds to work outside the national borders
A lack of interest or awareness, jingoism and nimbyism and fear of exploitation
Political issues and subsidiarity
Too little inter-disciplinary contact
Lack of a clear lead from appropriate EU-DGs and other EU organisations
Uncertainty or difficulties with copyrighting and other legal issues.
Given good will, a strong directive from the European Commission,
backed by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament,
and the patience of politicians, government officials and professionals,
there seems no reason why most of these should not be overcome
in time, at least to some degree. No doubt there will always be
areas where it is sensible for a nation state to retain secrecy
about the activities occurring on certain parts of its soil.
Table 1. Major trans-border regions in Europe.
| Region | Countries | |
| 1 | The Baltic Sea | Countries with land within the Baltic Sea catchment include Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Ukraine, Belarus, Germany, Poland. |
| 2 | The Rhine | Germany, Switzerland, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands |
| 3 | The Meuse | France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg |
| 4 | The Ruhr complex | Germany, Netherlands, Belgium |
| 5 | Mediterranean Coastal strip | Italy, France, Spain |
| 6 | The Alps | France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Italy, (Slovenia). |
| 7 | The North Sea | United Kingdom, Norway, Denmark, France, Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany, Sweden. |
| 8 | The Nordkap region | Norway, Sweden, Finland, Russia |
| 9 | The northeast Atlantic | Portugal, Spain, France, Ireland, United Kingdom, |
| 10 | Paris-Brussels region | France, Belgium. |
| 11 | Southern Scandinavia | Denmark, Sweden, (Germany, Norway). |
| 12 | The Pyrenees | France, Spain. |
| 13 | Southern alpine industry | France, Switzerland, Italy (Lyon - Geneva - Milan). |
6. LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM ATTEMPTS AT DISCIPLINE-SPECIFIC
GSDI.
Europeans actively participate in many international organizations
responsible for collecting and analysing spatial data. Some groups
already have their own version of a GSDI: examples are the Petroleum
industry, the International Geophysical Biophysical Programme
(IGBP), the US Military, the UNEP-GRID programme, the World Meteorology
Organization (WMO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Of
these, some collect their own data while others rely on data from
national agencies. Experience shows that collecting your own data
gives more satisfactory global sharing of good data than depending
on others, as in the social sciences where data collection may
be constrained by imposed boundaries and inappropriate spatial
units (Burrough and Masser 1997).
A brief evaluation of two international programmes, namely the
IGBP and the WHO reveals some of the problems of setting up GSDI
in the framework of different disciplines.
6.1 The International Geophysical-Biosphere Programme (IGBP)
of the International Council of Scientific Unions - (ICSU)
has seven established Core Projects dealing with the Biosphere,
the Hydrological Cycle, Global Change, Terrestrial Ecosystems,
Global Atmospheric Problems, Ocean Fluxes, Land-Ocean Interactions
in the Coastal Zone, Past Global Changes and Land Use/Cover Change.
All involve the collection, management and interpretation of data,
much of it concerning spatial and temporal physical, chemical
or biological phenomena, which are used for quantitative models
of the short-term and long term processes affecting the Earth's
Geosphere and Biosphere, including those essential for human life
and activity. Much data are satellite images, but many other standard
kinds of digital data such as geographical coordinates, elevation,
soil data, hydrological data, ground meteorological data, land
use and land cover are used. No single Core Project has specific
responsibility for data acquisition, data compatibility and information
exchange so IGBP has set up a Data and Information System (IGBP-DIS)
and a Task Force on Global Analysis, Interpretation and Modelling
(GAIM). IGBP-DIS is responsible for liaison between Core Projects
and data producing agencies and international data centres while
GAIM's role is to promote the development, application and application
of global models of biochemistry and physical climate. The rationale
for IGBP-DIS is built on several generic issues of data acquisition
and management that are relevant to GSDI, namely
the increasingly integrated nature of global science, requiring efficient exchange of many kinds of data, which in turn require efficient data exchange mechanisms, meta data and quality control
the current lack of, or incompleteness of many important data sets at Regional, continental and world scales.
the huge volumes of data and their complexity create special problems of manipulation and analysis
the need to archive large amounts of data to detect significant global changes
the need for consistent and complementary data management policies
that surpass national boundaries and take issues of data pricing,
copyright and ownership into account.
The IGBP programmes are set up and run by international teams
of scientists whose main aim is to understand physical change
at the global level. They use readily available data when possible,
but collect their own data in their own ways for many kinds of
research. Their emphasis is largely on data collection and modelling
leading to improved understanding of the physical environment.
Extensions of this work to social problems are in their infancy.
GI issues are not regarded as limiting so long as data are readily
available and exchangeable. There is an expectation that data
paid for by public research should be freely available on international
networks and that commercial prices for data should not apply.
>From a purely European perspective, we should note that there
are an increasing number of situations where groups of European
member states need to work together on environmental problems
that straddle their borders. Examples are the environmental management
of the Baltic Sea (Langaas 1997), issues of water quality and
quantity in the catchment of the River Rhine (Kwadijk and Sprokkereef
1997) and land degradation problems in Mediterranean areas (Cammeraat
and Prinsen 1997). From these authors' reports it is clear that
only when a study is set up jointly and uniformly over several
countries (e.g. land degradation in Mediterranean areas) is the
setting up and use of standard methodology and data sharing possible.
When building joint databases from existing data in several countries
many problems must be overcome ranging from geodesic registration
and measurement, to methods of description and laboratory analyses,
to issues of data availability, copyright and pricing. In the
recent GI-Policy study, international users of environmental data
feared that future pricing policies might make their work impossible,
though commercial data suppliers and national mapping agencies
that are forced to recover costs took an opposite stance (Burrough
et al. 1997). Clearly, there is much to do to ease the
integration of spatial environmental data in Europe.
6.2 The World Health Organisation (WHO) is concerned with
monitoring data on people, not physical processes. They are interested
in the spatial and temporal incidence of disease (epidemiology)
and the quality of human health in different parts of the world.
Though this is of supreme importance, much WHO research is poorly
funded. Socioeconomic data are generally less well defined than
data collected in the physical sciences. There is also a lack
of awareness of spatial variation and its implications for data
analyses and conclusions. Data are usually collected with respect
to artificially crisp delineations of space such as state boundaries,
census districts or postcodes that may have little relevance for
the processes of disease incidence and propagation. Many data
may be inadequate for many purposes and may be collected differently
in different countries, making comparisons difficult.
The WHO notes that:
There is a lack of comprehensive and comparable data needed to monitor environmental conditions and their effects on health.
To achieve comparable environmental health information systems within the Region (i.e. Europe), strategies with clearly defined objectives should be adopted for comprehensive environmental health monitoring, taking into account all routes of exposure. They should be adapted to local needs but, for data to be comparable and to facilitate regional analysis, a harmonised approach must be taken to sampling, analytical and statistical procedures, quality assurance and reporting.
To facilitate the monitoring of changes in health status due to environmental factors, core environmental health indicators should be developed and applied throughout the European Region.
For environmental health information systems to be of practical
use in decision- making, better data are needed on exposure-response
relationships. This requires further epidemiological research.
Clearly, the WHO has problems with data, data aggregation and
standards. They are dependent on national sources and national
methods of spatial aggregation and classification. There is a
lack of exchange standards and a paucity of metadata. Most data
are collated from external sources so there is little control
over data quality and resolution.
In contrast to the WHO, there are very successful commercial agencies
that make serious profits from geographical data that are collected
by national and international agencies outside their control,
using spatial units that are not of their choice. Geodemographics
(Webber 1997) is the art of combining marketing data from store
cards, air miles actions and mail order firms with readily available
spatially registered data from censuses, local authorities and
post code districts. These commercial agencies provide retailers
with spatially precise, useful data on market potential and penetration.
The classification systems of socio-economic groups used have
been shown to be reasonably homogeneous over many different countries,
so in this area some de facto GSDI has been achieved, though
possibly not of a kind that most geodesists or cartographers would
accept.
7. TECHNOLOGICAL AND THEORETICAL ADVANCES IN SPATIAL DATA ANALYSIS.
Generally speaking, the technological developments in GI for the
last 25 years have led to the development of a data rich but theoretically
poor resource. Most effort has been spent on producing the digital
equivalent of the paper map as a repository of information about
objects and their attributes in a flat, Cartesian space. International
(mostly US-European) research is ongoing on how to refine this,
essentially reductionist paradigm, how to store and retrieve large
volumes of data, how to describe it properly (metadata), how to
exchange it between different hardware and software systems (interoperability),
how to best accommodate the temporal aspect of GI and how to best
present GI to users, including in real-time, 3D simulations. Accessibility
is growing through the Internet and related technical services
for information exchange. These issues are beginning to be addressed
by recent publications in the GI field (e.g. Burrough and Frank
1996, Burrough and McDonnell 1997, Chrisman 1996). There is a
major need for advanced R&D into spatial/temporal modelling
tools which are "GI aware" or "GI enabled"
in order to transform GI into useful knowledge about trends and
changes of the earth. Setting up a standard GIS is easy, collecting
and maintaining data is costly, yet getting something useful out
of the total system often depends upon creating models of the
real world, based on the GI, which is extremely difficulty to
do, or to do well. Failure at the modelling level in certain application
areas such as environment and socio-economic studies may negate
the entire investment in the GI and GIS.
8. PERCEIVED DANGERS OF ESDI/GSDI.
If GSDI is imposed from without (i.e. outside Europe) Europeans
will be presented with a fait accompli that may have serious
economic and cultural disadvantages. Although American writings
on GSDI pay attention to the social, political and cultural benefits
of a GSDI, the view is necessarily from a North American perspective.
>From a European point of view there are issues that merit more
discussion, including the following:
Dependency the need to rely on organisations in other countries
for the provision of data and services, as evidenced by the WHO
experience. At a world level there is a concern that in spite
of openess and the World Wide Web, US domination of hardware,
software and data allows them to act in their own convenience
and strategies, as with the accuracy of GPS signals that is controlled
by the US military.
Exploitation. So long as GSDI results in improved services
through land registration, reliable utilities, and a clean environment,
no one will worry. But technology is only an enabler - you can
use it for good or bad. In democratic lands there should be sufficient
checks and balances - but often there are not. Not all GI-enabled
actions will be available to everyone because not everyone has
the money or the skills to carry out the tasks of bringing data
together and analysing them. Specialists can enhance their economic
or strategic positions through the use of GI - we are currently
seeing how publicly available spatial data, linked to economic
and social data can be used to enhance the activities of marketeers,
commodity traders and paramilitary organisations. Experience in
recent years has demonstrated how those outside the law can use
technology for organised crime.
Technological prowess is also effective at enhancing differences
in economic standing and therefore tensions between different
political groups. One possible effect of GSDI might be to aggravate
the current dependency of the less developed world on the more
technically advanced nations. There is also the potential to enhance
the differences between individuals having or not having access
to the technology.
Lack of continuity and discipline. The hallmark of a modern,
responsible state is continuity in its basic organization, including
the provision of statutory information for its citizens. The problem
with many developing countries is that for one or another reason
they do not have this continuity or stability in public organisation
that is essential for the proper use of information systems for
the public good. An increasing threat to many modern states is
the drive away from the provision of services paid for by government
for the public good to services contracted out to individuals
or small private organisations. There are needs for checks and
standards.
There are needs to encourage self-discipline in the use of electronic
information, including GI. Police can use GIS to determine the
best places to grow cannabis and therefore increase their chances
of an arrest, and so can ordinary people, because the information
about how cannabis grows is based on basic ecology. The giving
of recipes for bombs or providing tips on terrorism etc. on the
Internet are examples of a lack of self-discipline that are potentially
seriously damaging.
In the context of technological inequality there has been a call
(Lummaux 1996) for a international organisation to oversee and
facilitate the harmonisation of continental standards, taking
account not only of the leading players in North America and Europe
but also the developing world. The focus of such activities would
not necessarily be on the techniques of GI but on the effective
distribution of practical knowledge for resource planning, healthcare
and sustainable development.
Dilution of cultural values. The concepts embodied in GIS
reflect the thinking of certain classes of technically oriented
people in relatively few parts of the world. The power of the
ideas is evident from the speed at which these ideas are assimilated
(e.g. my own book - Burrough 1986- has been translated into Japanese,
Chinese and Thai, and there is an ARC-INFO in every country).
Instead of enhancing cultural richness, however, bringing in a
system that has been developed largely within the cultural boundaries
of an alien mindset often means that the recipients treat the
imported system as the only reality and apply it indiscriminately
(Hall 1977). The consequent danger is a world in which the view
of reality is that of the CAD-CAM computer simulation, with concrete
streets and massive tower blocks, and a fast food outlet on every
corner. This is a vision of a bland dystopia where nothing is
bad, because it has been optimised, but nothing is good, nothing
excels - everything is efficient, dull and predictable. A world
in which there are no challenges to fire the young. I hope I speak
for Europe when I say that such a world is not what we wish to
create. But we must be aware that through a multitude of small
decisions, each aimed at standardising, optimising and reducing
differences between disciplines and cultures the dull, lowest
common denominator might be what we end up with. Surely that is
not the aim of the GSDI?
Unfortunately, there seems to be no single, strong, properly resourced
"voice" with the political mandate to speak for Europe
at European level. This situation must be redressed in the immediate
future, or we face the prospect of continued disharmonisation
in the collection and use of GI across Europe and a reduction
of the impact of Europeans in world affairs. Let us now examine
some recent developments in GIS interoperability that may have
far reaching effects on the ability of Europeans to manage their
own GI in a way that is best for them.
9 THE OPEN GIS CONSORTIUM
The Open GIS Foundation (OGF) was set up in the United States
in 1992 to address the problems and expense encountered by GI
users in government and industry who want to share and distribute
spatial data, but for technical or organisation reasons are prevented
from doing so by having databases that cannot easily be linked
together. This purely technical problem of a lack of interoperability
was caused by GI software vendors having protected, largely secret,
internal data structures in the belief that market share could
best be ensured by locking the customer into the single system
that they, for other reasons, may have chosen.
The OGF, now the Open GIS Consortium (OGC), a non-profit making,
but commercial organisation, introduced the idea of OGIS - Open
Geodata Interoperability Specification (Hecht 1994, Schell 1995)
to attack the technical problems of exchanging data between different
spatial databases. In a very short time the OGC has persuaded
GI software vendors and others that the ability to share and transmit
spatial data in ways unhindered by proprietary data standards
will provide a better commercial future for the GI industry than
the previous closed approach. The goal of the OGC's Open GIS Project
is to provide a comprehensive suite of open interface specifications
that enable software developers to write interoperating components
that provide transparent access to geodata and geoprocessing resources
over networks (McKee and Kuhn 1997). The arguments for this approach
have nothing to do with national or international ideals, except
in so far that in the United States, the Federal Government takes
the line that data collected by the State should be freely available
to its citizens, and they would like to do that with as few extra
costs as possible. Instead, as proclaimed in the recent Open GIS
advertising supplement in the September 1997 issues of GIS World
and GIS Europe, the main reasons for GI interoperability (and
hence for GSDI) are purely commercial.
There's only one way to make sure we're on the true path to efficient solutions that generate the greatest wealth: put commercial interests in charge of developing the necessary technology, and let them adopt corresponding standards through a consensus process.
Cliff Kottman, Vice President, Technology Development,
Open GIS Consortium, Inc.
The degree to which the OGC are persuading GI organisations around the world of the validity of their message can be seen from the impressive current list of 103 corporations, government institutes and academic institutions that have become members of the OGC. More interesting than the list is the breakdown in categories:
It should be noted that while US Government member organisations
may be few in number, those involved are extremely important (eg
USGS), but the 'European Government' organisations are actually
two national bodies, namely RAVI from the Netherlands and the
Finnish Geodetic Institute: no truly European organisations (eg
the Centre for Earth Observation, the European Environment Agency
nor Eurostat) are yet members. This may have something to do with
the fees, and the fact that OGC is an American, and not a European
business venture. The same reason, but inversely so because university
membership dues are low, may explain the large number of European
University members. European Companies include Laserscan, SmallWorld
and Siemens Nixdorf.
Even more interesting is to note those North American Business
members of OGC that are extremely active in Europe:
These companies supply most of the GI software, hardware and database
technology used in Europe. They employ thousands of Europeans
and clearly have a large stake in what happens here.
The possible consequences of OGC for European Spatial Data Initiatives.
Before OGIS, the path to interoperability in ESDI was seen to
be organised in a top-down fashion. National GI organisations
as members of EUROGI are indirectly in touch with the EU Directorates
General and the European Commission. Therefore, once agreement
on ESDI has been reached at the top political level, the decisions
on standards, mandates and agreements would be passed down through
EUROGI to the national GI organisations who would then disseminate
the message to their governmental and commercial members. This
conventional model does not include the European and other GI
software vendors, in spite of efforts of EUROGI some years ago
to obtain unanimity and support from European vendors. Then little
concrete support was forthcoming, in spite of sympathetic reaction
to suggestions about interoperability being sound sense.
The OGC model is essentially 'bottom up', and based on commercial
interests. Because Europeans buy the products of the largely US
GI vendors, any interoperability standards and procedures agreed
by US commerce will very likely become the modus vivendi
for Europeans, whatever the EU or national governments may wish.
This means that the power of the international market place will
have a very strong effect on the aims and success of the initiatives
listed in the many versions of the GI-2000 document. This course
of events suggests to me therefore, that interoperability is not
going to be an area where European Union funding will be provided
for ESDI - if US business is going to provide a workable solution
for little investment on Europe's part (even if the solution is
not what Europe would really want), then why invest large amounts
of money? Surely, one could argue, we will get something we can
use without having to be proactive.
The great danger with sitting back and waiting for someone else's
solution to your problem is that their cure might be worse than
your ailment. Therefore, while realising that a European alternative
to US-lead interoperability is unrealistic, it is absolutely
essential that Europeans are involved in all aspects of the
interoperability process, from NSDI to ESDI to GSDI. Referring
back to Sections 7 and 8 above, we see that interoperability is
not just a question of technical data exchange, but the development
of a common language, including semantics and grammar. Simple
technical solutions may interfere with, or impose certain cultural
values and customs. GI is a data-rich but theoretically poor resource
- new systems will have to be more intelligent and new paradigms
for spatial data processing may require new approaches to interoperability.
EUROGI is currently taking part in OGC discussions on behalf of
its members, but much more needs to be done. In particular, EUROGI
needs much more active support from its member organisations and
their government and commercial members and sponsors to ensure
that Europe gets the solutions Europe needs.
To conclude:
10. CONCLUSIONS: WHAT CAN WE USEFULLY ACHIEVE WITH GSDI IN
EUROPE?
This paper has demonstrated that there are important world developments
operating towards harmonization and unity in geographic information.,
and that many European institutions and individuals are playing
key roles in the international discussions and moves towards implementation.
The perceived benefits for Europe are seen in financial, political,
socio-economic, commercial and technical terms. The perceived
dangers have more to do with Europe being forced to operate as
a client rather than as a partner in GSDI and these dangers could
be most readily circumvented by Europe having a single organisation
that had the mandate, the competence and the trust to operate
on behalf of the large number of interested parties who at present
all too often must operate individually. I believe that it would
be of great benefit to us all if the EU would provide that mandate
and the funds to back it up.
In the absence of that single, mandated voice, let us not attempt
to achieve too much too quickly, but go for practical, useful
actions that will demonstrably remove inefficiencies and improve
value and quality in the provision and use of GI.
Let us set up a dialogue in a common language to explore the benefits
and disbenefits of sharing spatial data among countries and commercial
organisations.
Let us consider the GSDI as a language of communication, with
a foundation in the culture of all the world's peoples, not just
those who happen to live in particular areas.
Let us jointly lobby the EU Institutions, i.e. the European Parliament,
the European Commission and the Council of Ministers, to take
the necessary lead in the legal and political issues involved
and to encourage them to stimulate the proper development of a
successful ESDI/GSDI that is in the interest of all people in
Europe.
Let us ensure that our academic, research and training institutions
can produce GI specialists, GI products and GI users of world
class, through proper funding and a coordinated focus on the needs
of the GI community.
Let us play an important, leading role in the GSDI process - its
definition, organisation and implementation - because only by
being a member of the club can we seriously have an impact on
decisions.
Finally, let us take steps to mitigate against the serious misuse
of GI for fraud, for taking unfair advantage or for the invasion
of personal privacy.
Acknowledgements: I wish to thank Roger Longhorn, Martin
Littlejohn, Christian Chenez, Michael Brand and Ian Masser for
their constructive comments to earlier drafts of this paper. The
opinions expressed are my own, however.
10. REFERENCES.
Andriessen, Frans H.J.J. (1996), Speech delivered on the occasion of the Opening of the 28th International Geographic Union Congress, The Hague, 4 August, 1996.
Burrough, P.A. (1986), Principles of Geographical Information Systems for Land Resources Assessment, Oxford University Press.
Burrough, P.A. (1996), A European View on the Global Spatial Data Infrastructure. Paper No. 6 in: Proceedings of a Conference on the Emerging Global spatial Data Infrastructure, organised under the Patronage of Dr Martin Bangemann, Member of the European Commission, Bonn, 4-6 September 1996.
Burrough, P.A. and Frank, A.U., (1996), Geographic Objects with Indeterminate Boundaries. Taylor and Francis, London.
Burrough, P.A. and McDonnell, R.A. (1997), Principles of Geographical Information Systems. Oxford University Press, Oxford (in press).
Burrough, P.A. and Masser, I (1997), European Geographic Information Infrastructures: Opportunities and Pitfalls. Taylor and Francis, London (in press).
Burrough, P.A., Craglia, M., Masser, I., and Rhind, D. 1997. Decision-makers perspectives on European Geographic Information Policy Issues. Transactions in GIS (in press).
Cameraat, E. and Prinsen, H., (1997), The Medalus Georeferenced Database: an application used for Land Degradation research in the European Mediterranean. In: Burrough, P.A. and Masser, I. (eds) ), European Geographic Information Infrastructures: Opportunities and Pitfalls. Taylor and Francis, London (in press).
Chenez, C.C. 1996. Proceedings of a Conference on the Emerging Global spatial Data Infrastructure, organised under the Patronage of Dr Martin Bangemann, Member of the European Commission, Bonn, 4-6 September 1996.
Chrisman, N. (1996), Exploring Geographic Information Systems, Wiley, New York.
David, B., van der Herrewegen, M., and Salgé, F., (1996), Conceptual Models for the Quality of Geographic Information. In: Burrough, P.A. and Frank, A.U. (eds) Geographic Objects with Indeterminate Boundaries. Taylor and Francis, London, 193-206.
DGXIIIe, (1997a) GI-2000: Towards a European Policy Framework for Geographic Information. DGXIIIe, Luxembourg..
DGXIIIe, (1997b) World Wide Web sites; http://www2.echo.lu/gi/en/gi-meta.html
Hall, E.T., (1977). Beyond Culture. Anchor Books, Doubleday,
New York.
Hecht, L.G. (1994). Open GIS Foundation fosters industry synchronization. GIS World June 1994.
IGBP (1994). Global Change Report No. 30. IGBP Global Modelling and Data Activities 1994- 1998. International Council of Scientific Unions (ICSU), Stockholm 1994.
Kwadijk, J. and Sprokkereef, E., (1997), Development of a GIS for Hydrological Modelling of the River Rhine, in: Burrough, P.A. and Masser, I. (eds) ), European Geographic Information Infrastructures: Opportunities and Pitfalls. Taylor and Francis, London (in press).
Langaas, S., (1997), Transboundary European GIS Databases: a review of the Baltic Sea Region Experiences, In: Burrough, P.A. and Masser, I. (eds) ), European Geographic Information Infrastructures: Opportunities and Pitfalls. Taylor and Francis, London (in press).
Lummaux, J-C., 1996. Une autre vision du GSDI. AFIGEO paper, Paris.
McKee, L. and Kuhn, W. (1997). The OpenGIS Consortium's Purpose and Technical Approach. In: Fritsch/Hobbie (eds). Proceedings 46th Photogrammetric Week, Stuttgart, September 1997, pp 237-242.
Salgé, F., (1997), From an understanding of the European Activity to the reality of a European Dataset, In: Burrough, P.A. and Masser, I. (eds) ), European Geographic Information Infrastructures: Opportunities and Pitfalls. Taylor and Francis, London (in press).
Schell, D. (1995). Open GIS. Editorial. Geo Info Systems, May 1995.
Webber, R. (1997), Developments in Cross Border Standards for Geodemographic Segmentation. In: Burrough, P.A. and Masser, I. (eds) ), European Geographic Information Infrastructures: Opportunities and Pitfalls. Taylor and Francis, London (in press).
WHO (1995). Concern for Europe's Tomorrow: Health and the Environment in the WHO European Region. WHO European Centre for Environment and Health, Wissenschaftliche Verlagesellschaft mbH Stuttgart 1995, Section 19.6, pp 522-523.
______________________________________________________________________________
Peter A. Burrough
Netherlands Centre for Geoecology, Faculty of Geographical Sciences, Utrecht University,
Post box 80115, 3508 TC, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Tel: ++31 302532766/2749/2044 email: P.Burrough@frw.ruu.nl