1 / 8

National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) State-Level GIS Strategic Planning Common Patterns In Brief:

National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) State-Level GIS Strategic Planning Common Patterns In Brief:. A Summary of patterns, issues, perspectives, and opportunities pulled from completed plans…. Common Patterns in Statewide GIS Strategic Plans.

leoma
Download Presentation

National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) State-Level GIS Strategic Planning Common Patterns In Brief:

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) State-Level GIS Strategic PlanningCommon PatternsIn Brief: A Summary of patterns, issues, perspectives, and opportunities pulled from completed plans…

  2. Common Patterns in Statewide GIS Strategic Plans • 43 CAP grants awarded since 2006 (this includes 8 for 2009) • 18 completed Strategic Plans posted • 13 completed Business Plans posted • All plans posted at: http://www.fgdc.gov/policyandplanning/50states/tableofplans • Tremendous variety among plans • In-house production vs. professional consultant • Use of FGDC/NSGIC provided templates, or not • Depth and breadth (e.g. 12 – 75 pages) • Planning context • Think strategically; Look “outside the box” • Address a problem • Lack of a GIS Office (WY, NH) • Post-Katrina after action (LA) • Improve coordination, generally • State government vs. statewide “GIS community” • Broad perspective vs. single issue focus • SD’s plan is just about cadastral data

  3. The Value of the Strategic PlansUnderstanding States BetterDifferent Perspectives on NSDI • Contributors vs. consumers of data • States invest in statewide spatial data infrastructures for state benefits • Sharing with the Feds is secondary

  4. The Value of the Strategic PlansUnderstanding States BetterIssues the state’s face • States have internal coordination challenges • Federal government is one of many partners • County and local governments are critical • Intra-governmental coordination between agencies can be a challenge • State “coordination office” might not be the biggest or most important GIS shop in the state • Important, large states like FL and CA have no central GIS coordination office (same applies in smaller states like NH or WY) • GIS happens at the departmental level: DOT, DNR, DEP, DPH • Microcosm of some of the federal coordination challenges • How coordinated are US-DOT and DOI and DOD? • Opportunity to learn from approaches that the states are trying

  5. The Value of the Strategic PlansUnderstanding States BetterIssues the state’s face: Barriers to NSDI • GIS equity issues at the state level • Several states describe a situation of GIS “haves” and “have nots” • How do we get nationwide parcels until everyone is a “have”? • 5,000 person counties in KS • 500 person towns in MA • Application of Freedom of Information laws for GIS data • Very inconsistent application of existing statutes • Controversial local issue • You don’t want to anger or alienate your stakeholders • How can we assemble statewide layers, much less nationwide layers when counties and local governments may not willingly share data? • Or, when they charge exorbitant sums to obtain data? • Emerging case law is critical • CT Supreme Court decision; Pending litigation against Santa Clara County, CA

  6. The Value of the Strategic PlansUnderstanding States BetterHow states are making GIS relevant • It’s not about GIS technology, it’s about what GIS does • Decision makers are not as excited about technology as we are • Issues of the day: economic development, public safety, environment • Improving the health and well being of citizens • Florida’s Vision Statement: “To improve the quality of life in Florida by optimizing the use of geographic information through communication, coordination, and collaboration.” • From Wisconsin’s Executive Summary: Emergency response. Wireless 911. Pandemic planning. Voter registration. Sex offender tracking. Each of these presents serious challenges for our society, and the public expects and deserves these and numerous related issues to be addressed efficiently and effectively. The coordinated use of geographic information and technologies, including geographic information systems (GIS), is the most effective way to meet these challenges.

  7. The Value of the Strategic PlansUnderstanding States BetterOpportunities for co-investment • Some state plans talk about “framework data” generally • Those that talk about specific layers indicate state priorities • State priorities for framework data layers • Parcels: seamless, statewide, to standard • NY, CT, MA, NH, KS, SD • High resolution elevation data: supporting 2 foot contours (or better) • Kansas’ highest priority led to a detailed Business Plan • Major overlap of state and federal interests

  8. Agenda: Next Item • 1:00 PM: Introduction • Introductory Remarks by Ivan DeLoatch, FGDC • Quick “Around-the-Room” Introductions • 1:15 PM: Presentations • Fifty States Initiative Overview (10 minutes) • State Mini-Case Studies: CA & NY (15 minutes) • Findings From the State’s GIS Strategic & Business Plans (15 minutes) • Quick Q & A (15 minutes) • 2:10 PM: Networking Break • 2:25 PM: Facilitated Discussion • Questions to Federal Stakeholders • Discussion • 3:30 PM: Summarize • Verification of Takeaway Points • Fine-tuning • 4:00 PM: Adjourn

More Related