Questions? Call 800-624-6242
|
|
|
|
|
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Page 111
APPENDIX B
Data Sets Survey
RESPONSES TO THE COMMITTEE'S SURVEY
To gather input from the polar science community, the committee developed a questionnaire1 on the strengths and weaknesses in the current data system (the questionnaire follows at the end of this appendix). Scientists were asked to characterize their research in terms of scientific and regional foci. This was followed by a list of polar geophysical data sets from NASA and non-NASA sources that respondents could mark if they used them in their research. The final four questions dealt with satisfaction issues.
The committee received 109 responses from a variety of university, governmental, and private industry institutions. Foreign respondents numbered 22. The number of scientists who identified their research focus as exclusively Arctic was 48, exclusively Antarctic 20, and global 41. The latter category generally denoted those with both Arctic and Antarctic interests (there were few responses from those who study more temperate regions).
Although the survey provided six categories of research focus, a large number of respondents chose “other.” Many of these would have marked
|
|
|
|
|
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 111
Page 111
APPENDIX B
Data Sets Survey
RESPONSES TO THE COMMITTEE'S SURVEY
To gather input from the polar science community, the committee developed a questionnaire1 on the strengths and weaknesses in the current data system (the questionnaire follows at the end of this appendix). Scientists were asked to characterize their research in terms of scientific and regional foci. This was followed by a list of polar geophysical data sets from NASA and non-NASA sources that respondents could mark if they used them in their research. The final four questions dealt with satisfaction issues.
The committee received 109 responses from a variety of university, governmental, and private industry institutions. Foreign respondents numbered 22. The number of scientists who identified their research focus as exclusively Arctic was 48, exclusively Antarctic 20, and global 41. The latter category generally denoted those with both Arctic and Antarctic interests (there were few responses from those who study more temperate regions).
Although the survey provided six categories of research focus, a large number of respondents chose “other.” Many of these would have marked
1 Although the survey provided useful information, it should not be considered a statistically rigorous study. Its availability was widely announced, but participants were self-selected. The information was used in a general way to help the committee form its conclusions and recommendations.
OCR for page 112
Page 112
more than one research category, if that option had been allowed. Others were in categories that were not listed (e.g., hydrology). The committee's response was to create several new research focus categories that better reflect the disciplines of most respondents who marked “other.” Multiple choices were also allowed. The resulting breakdown of research foci in
Table B-1.
“Sea ice or ocean” researchers were the most frequent respondents, more than double the next category. “Ice sheets or sea level” researchers were the second most frequent respondents. These category names are somewhat misleading, however, since very few oceanographers responded to this survey. This begs the question, “Where do high latitude oceanographers seek support?” The answer is in a variety of global and other programs. This may serve to enhance cross-latitude oceanography at NASA, but it also limits cross-disciplinary research in the polar community. An example of this situation is the lack of coherent surface-temperature data sets that include open water and other surfaces (i.e., ice, snow, land).
Table B-2 shows the breakdown of “types of research data sets used” by the survey respondents, broken down by whether they use only NASA data sets or some combination of data supplied by NASA and others. These two lists are fairly similar, perhaps showing that NASA is generally
TABLE B-1 Areas of Primary Research Focus as Indicated by Survey Respondents
Research Focus
Number of Respondents
Sea ice/ocean
41
Ice sheets/sea level
20
Terrestrial—physics, hydrology, and land-atmosphere linkages
13
Terrestrial—biology and biogeochemistry
9
Terrestrial—physical and biology
4
Other
6
Atmospheric circulation, planetary boundary layers, climate, and upper air studies
3
Clouds/radiation
3
Sea ice/oceans, atmospheric circulation etc.
3
Sea ice/oceans and terrestrial—biology
2
Glaciers
2
Snow cover
2
Sea ice/oceans and terrestrial—physics
1
TOTAL
109
OCR for page 113
Page 113
TABLE B-2 Types of Data Most Commonly Used by Survey Respondents
NASA and Non-NASA
NASA Only
Types of Data
Number of Respondents
Types of Data
Number of Respondents
Atmospheric
185
Sea Ice
81
Sea Ice
131
Atmospheric
51
Radiance and Backscatter
82
Radiance and Backscatter
37
Imagery (Visible and IR)
78
Imagery (Visible and IR)
24
Ice Sheet
63
Vegetation
15
Snow Cover
56
Ocean
16
Ocean
48
Ice Sheet
14
Vegetation
38
Snow Cover
13
Glaciers
21
Glacier
11
Hydrology
18
Hydrology
7
responding equitably to data needs by discipline, although there are some specific gaps and deficiencies to be discussed elsewhere in this report. Also note that the frequency of research foci (
Table B-1) is not in general the same as the frequency of data sets used (
Table B-2). For example, one of the most frequently used type of data is atmospheric, although relatively few respondents identified themselves as meteorologists. This shows how some types of data sets can easily cross disciplines. It may also identify the potential underuse of data, for example, by global-scale atmospheric scientist).
Turning to the final four questions, the respondents were generally positive about the current data system. The ASF and especially the NSIDC were complimented on the quality of their service. NSIDC was singled out for its simple, easy-to-use Web site, and for its willingness to provide data by Internet before a final CD was published.
About 25 percent of the respondents had negative comments. These fell into two broad categories: inadequate publication of available data sets and difficulty of access or use of data sets. Those who were simply unaware of existing data sets were more frequently (but not exclusively) new to the field or from more isolated institutional environments; however, even experienced researchers had problems. Some of these problems could be relieved by more extensive linking of data set Web sites. Several responses were from heavy users of the NSDIC and the ASF who did not know that these were DAACs. Perhaps the heavy reliance on acronyms and other NASA jargon can discourage and thus limit usage of data sets.
OCR for page 114
Page 114
In the survey responses, it appeared that a broad spectrum of users (including DAAC employees) experienced data access problems. Even experienced researchers noted some difficulty with the formatting of data. Insufficient documentation of individual data sets was also noted as a problem by some survey respondents, in regards to time and space resolution, data format, and sensor information. Similar concern was expressed about insufficient overview guidance for DAAC holdings, which is standard information that typically should appear on or near the main home page. Recommendations for NASA data set providers to help improve the utility of existing data sets are included in
Chapter 5. Opportunities for improvement lie in the areas of links to other related data sites, outreach to more aggressively publicize activities and holdings, improvements in access through better documentation, and opportunities for community feedback and information exchange, such as via Web bulletin boards.
OCR for page 115
Page 115
QUESTIONNAIRE
Under the auspices of The National Academies' Polar Research Board and at the request of NASA, a committee is reviewing the strategy, scope, and quality of existing polar geophysical data-sets and suggesting ways to improve future products. The committee's charge and a list of its members can be seen here. As part of this effort, the committee is seeking input from scientists who use these types of data-sets, whether those produced by NASA or others with similar purposes. The committee will keep your comments confidential, so we appreciate your frankness in describing the strengths and weaknesses of current data-sets and dissemination strategies.
Name:
Affiliation:
Brief description of your research (1-2 Sentences):
1. Which of the following scales best describes your research:
Arctic
Antarctic
Global
2. Which of the following areas best describes the focus of your research:
Sea Ice/Oceans
Ice Sheets/Sea Level
Clouds/Radiation
Terrestrial—Biology and Biogeochemistry Related
Terrestrial—Physics and Land-Atmosphere Linkages
Other—please specify:
3. What NASA geophysical data-sets and products relevant to polar regions do you use in your research and for what purposes? What other geophysical data-sets (e.g., global, international, or other U.S. sources) do you use and for what purposes? Please mark the following checklist and note the specific products you use in the text boxes provided.
OCR for page 116
Page 116
Sea Ice
Concentration
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Ice Type
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Ice Motion
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Other
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Snow Cover
Areal Average
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Water Equivalent
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Albedo
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Other
NASA
Other
What specific product?
OCR for page 117
Page 117
Ice Sheet
Elevation (Altimeter data)
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Surface Meteorology
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Ice Core Data
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Other
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Glacier Data
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Atmospheric Data
Cloudiness
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Radiative Fluxes
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Surface Temperature
NASA
Other
What specific product?
OCR for page 118
Page 118
Precipitation
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Temperature Profiles
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Moisture Profiles
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Other
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Ocean Data
SST
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Color
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Other
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Hydrology
Streamflow/Runoff
NASA
Other
What specific product?
OCR for page 119
Page 119
Soil Moisture
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Vegetation Data
Vegetation Classification
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Indicies of Biomass
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Indicies of Absorbed Radiation
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Albedo
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Other
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Miscellaneous (other uses)
Microwave Radiances
NASA
Other
What specific product?
Radar Backscatter (SAR or Altimetry)
NASA
Other
What specific product?
OCR for page 120
Page 120
Visible Satellite Imagery
NASA
Other
What specific product?
IR Satellite Imagery
NASA
Other
What specific product?
4. If you are not using NASA data-sets or don't find these useful, please explain why:
5. If you do use NASA data-sets, how do you judge the quality of the data and the ease of access for obtaining the data? Please note any specific problems you've encountered or suggestions for improvements.
6. Is there a data-set you wish was available? If so, please describe briefly and why it would be useful to your work.
7. Do you now or have you in the past used a Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) to obtain data? If yes, please note whether request for and receipt of data was satisfactory or if you have suggestions for improvements. If not, why not?
Representative terms from entire chapter:
survey respondents
