SHINE S elected H eritage I nventory for N atural E ngland - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

shine s elected h eritage i nventory for n atural e ngland n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
SHINE S elected H eritage I nventory for N atural E ngland PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
SHINE S elected H eritage I nventory for N atural E ngland

play fullscreen
1 / 28
Download Presentation
SHINE S elected H eritage I nventory for N atural E ngland
Download Presentation

SHINE S elected H eritage I nventory for N atural E ngland

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. SHINESelected Heritage Inventory for Natural England Selected National Heritage Dataset Enhancement Project

  2. Recap - SNHD • SNHD – Selected National Heritage Dataset • Created in late 2004 in time for launch of ES • Data came primarily from the NMR • Ten HERs contributed data • Selection criteria for sites: • a list of Monument Types • must be substantive, verifiable and of known character • must be closely mapped • should be able to benefit from an ES option • Intended to populate ES maps with HE features

  3. Recap - ES • Environmental Stewardship launched in 2005 • Divided into two tiers: Entry Level and Higher Level Stewardship (ELS and HLS) • ELS is open to all land owners – farmers chose from a suite of environmentally beneficial land management options • Five HE options exist • Uptake of these options is almost entirely dependent upon data provision • Approx. £3billion will be spent on ES by 2013

  4. How is your data used? • SNHD has been loaded onto NE’s IT system • Populates the Environmental Information Map received by ELS applicants from NE • A short description of each site is included in an accompanying document • Farmers pick the option they would like to use on a feature • Cross-compliance regulations provide a baseline level of protection, regardless of whether an option has been used

  5. What are the problems? • Data coverage is very patchy • Only 10 HERs have had the opportunity to properly input into this dataset • Polygons are variable in quality and accuracy • Selection criteria may not represent our priorities

  6. Why do we need to improve it? • ‘Hands-off’ scheme, but this doesn’t mean that it won’t deliver for HE • Unlike HLS, uptake of options for ELS is driven by the data provided on application maps rather than consultation with HERs • ELS represents the majority of spend for ES • By May 2007, the SNHD was generating £2.2million pa on management of HE features • We MUST be able to justify value for money

  7. What’s in it for you? • SHINE presents an opportunity: • to replace the current dataset • to help secure funding for the management of important archaeological sites • to feed into a process that is delivering real benefits on the ground in your area • to ensure that where public funds are spent, it represents value for money • to help ensure that ELS delivers as much as it can, rather than relying on the limited funds of HLS

  8. How did this project get started? • Natural England has funded the first two stages of a three stage project to create SHINE • Project put out to tender; exeGesIS successful • Stage 1 : assessment of the SNHD, assessment of what HERs might be able to deliver, presentation of options • Stage 2 : creation of a detailed methodology and recommended workflow that we hope will enable HERs to more easily participate • Stage 3 : data capture, delivery of SHINE

  9. Analysis of old SNHD Methodology • Compared SNHD data with submitted data and current HER data from eight pilot HERs. • Data created using different methodologies. • Inconsistencies in data structure and content. • Records from NMR not present in HER data. • Inconsistent, haphazard post processing. • Problems with final data supply to Natural England. • Conclusions • ELS dataset cannot be created as queried subset of monuments. • No reliable selection method (monument type lists, evidence etc) • Monument polygons rarely appropriate for ELS. • Post-submission processing of the data should be minimised.

  10. Towards a new methodology… Questionnaire (48/51 replies): HER Systems

  11. Questionnaire Results Resources available for new SNHD

  12. Questionnaire Results Definition of sites to include for ELS

  13. Questionnaire Results Central support

  14. Questionnaire Conclusions • HERs are positive about producing and maintaining a fit-for-purpose dataset for ELS.BUT... • HERs are concerned over quality/currency of existing data. • HERs have been concerned about lack of feedback and perceived lack of outcomes from previous initiatives. • Uncertainty whether HERs can commit sufficient resources to create dataset.SO… • HERs want clear methodology, support and guidance. • HERs need sensible timescales.

  15. New SHINE methodology • Simple clearly-defined dataset. • Dataset created and maintained as a new GIS layer. • No prescriptive methodology (eligible monument type list etc) • Recommended workflows provided, but can be tailored (or ignored!). Start-up pack provided. • Dataset supplied to SHINE coordinator at predetermined intervals. • Data merged and cleaned by coordinator using automated toolkit for submission to Natural England. • Clear mechanisms for progress review and feedback.

  16. SHINE Data Standard • Polygon Attribute Structure • SHINEUID, a nationally unique identifier for each polygon. 2-letter code for each HER + integer, e.g. DE457. • Name, a descriptive name including the principle characteristics (type, period and form) of the manageable site in non-technical terms. • Form, the predominant form, constrained to ‘Structure’, ‘Earthwork’, ‘Cropmark’ or ‘Sub surface deposit’ (EH thesaurus definitions). • Signif, the significance of the site, constrained to High/Medium/Low (definitions to be confirmed). • WebURL, optional URL to online record for main monument. • LastEdit, the date and time of last data edit (ISO 8601 format). All fields are mandatory except WebURL

  17. Only one polygon per SHINEUID Polygons must not overlap û û Polygons must not be smaller than 400 square meters (0.04 hectares) in area Polygons created as a buffer around a point (such as a barrow) must not be less than 15 meters in radius û û SHINE Polygon Standards

  18. Polygons must have a minimum internal dimension of no less than 10 meters Polygons must have no ‘spikes’ û û û û Polygons must not have self-intersections û û SHINE Polygon Standards

  19. Polygons must not contain any holes The minimum gap between polygons must be no less than 20 meters, where polygons are less than 20 meters apart they should be merged into a single polygon û û Polygons must be captured against a base mapping at a scale of 1:10000 or larger, or against suitable high resolution, accurately geo-referenced aerial photography ü û SHINE Polygon Standards

  20. û Polygons created through heads-up digitizing should be captured at a scale of no smaller than 1:5000 Where a polygon contains or abuts a SM polygon the additional SHINE polygon area must meet all of the other polygon standards û Where a polygon contains or intersects a SM polygon the SM polygon should NOT be ‘clipped’ from SHINE polygon. All records must have a single closed polygon û û SHINE Polygon Standards

  21. SHINE criteria • 2004 definition felt to be workable, with minor enhancement. In summary, a SHINE polygon must include a monument or monuments that … • Are substantive (surviving physical remains) • Are verifiable (reliably observed & observable) • Have known character (confidently classified with thesaurus terms) • Can be closelymapped (with a polygon meeting above standards) • Would benefit from ELS management

  22. Suggested workflow • Add a new “SHINE candidate status” to monument records, with possible values: “Yes”, “Probable”, “Possible”, “Unlikely”, “No”. • Automatically populate this with “Probable”, “Possible” or “Unlikely”, based on existing data (including monument types, evidence, SNHDv2, MPP, survival/significance data as available). • “Manually” review “Probable” monuments, by parish or map sheet. Where monument (or group of monuments) meets SHINE criteria, create a SHINE polygon. • Uncertain records must be omitted! • Submit data to SHINE coordinator. • Where time/resources permit, review “Possible” records as well. • Maintain SHINE data – add/update polygons when new information becomes available. • Re-supply at agreed intervals.

  23. SHINE resource estimates

  24. SHINE coordinator toolkit A simple set of tools for use by the SHINE facilitator. • Imports and checks new dataset from HER. • Reports on any problems found: • Can fix polygons that are too small, but other problems cause polygon to be dropped. • Opportunity for provider to review and fix problems and re-supply. • Merges cleaned HER dataset into national SHINE dataset. • Updates metadata tables automatically. • Exports SPIRE-compliant data and metadata to Natural England.

  25. Stage 3 – Data Capture • We aim to have the first version of SHINE ready to upload by March 2009 • Thereafter, we hope to be able to upload to NE IT systems every six months • We are optimistic that HEEP will fund a 1 year facilitator post • We hope work will begin in the first HERs by September 2008

  26. Stage 3 – Data Capture • We hope that the facilitator post will: • Enable start-up visits to be made to all HERs • Enable a number of follow-up visits to HERs, where needed • Help to support the data capture process • Manage the collation and amalgamation of data from HERs into SHINE • Manage the upload and update of SHINE to NE’s IT system

  27. Reminder – What’s in it for me? • Initial outlay of time and effort is a significant issue for HERs • Resources such as the workflow will help manage and prioritise the work, which can be spread out over months • Facilitator post will help to advise and liaise with HERs, as well as manage the delivery of SHINE • SHINE will help to enhance the core HER dataset, and could be used for any number of additional uses

  28. Reminder – What’s in it for me? £ £ £ £ £ £ • There’s a BIG funding stream out there – if we can deliver this dataset we can tap into that money, ensuring good management of archaeological sites year after year