and monitoring, (e.g., streamwater quality and fish passage) rather than having these data collection responsibilities remain the sole responsibility of state and federal natural resource agencies. At the same time, state departments of transportation are delegating other data responsibilities to the private sector. Still, many data collection and data and technology use issues are local in nature. In remarks made at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, D.C., on March 9, 2001, Katherine Wallman, chief statistician of the Office of Management and Budget, identified the following challenges in using federal data for local decision making:

1. Obtaining reliable data:

Gathering data that provide reliable information for small (local) areas is extremely expensive. Success requires adequate funding, respondent cooperation with largely voluntary federal requests for data, and education about confidentiality policies to allay public concerns about privacy.

2. Lack of appreciation for the sources of data:

There is a lack of awareness of data sources. Statistical agencies have a low public profile. Private sector partnerships with federal data producers and resultant value-added products further obscure the initial federal sources of data.

3. Organization of the federal statistical system:

Historically, the development of the federal statistical system in a decentralized fashion has resulted in rich but somewhat inaccessible sources of data. During the past decade, there has been considerable effort to increase the accessibility of federal data, but further interagency coordination and cooperation are essential.

4. Understanding the data:

Data that are collected by various agencies, for different purposes, may be confusing to users. Although electronic dissemination has made differences in concepts, constructs, and definitions more obvious to users, informed use of data requires user understanding of data sources, reasons for collection, and data comparability. Initiatives to improve documentation are under way, but more attention is required on this front.

In addition to data, people need access to analytical and decision-making tools. Raw data are rarely useful on their own. Tools are required to summarize data and to determine relationships between inputs and outcomes. The case study, presented in Box 5.1, describes such an effort in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. The I-35W Corridor Coalition’s goals were regional community development, quality growth and diversification, and collaborative planning.

Front Matter (R1-R16)

Executive Summary (1-10)

Introduction (11-21)

1 Concept of Livability and Indicators (22-53)

2 The Importance of Place and Connectedness (54-75)

3 Measurement and Analysis of Livability (76-101)

4 The Decision-Support Process (102-129)

5 Data and Analysis Tools (130-150)

Appendix A Federal Data Provision (151-166)

Appendix B Workshop Agenda and Participants (167-170)

Appendix C Identifying Data for Place-Based Decision Making (171-174)

Acronyms (175-176)

Index (177-184)

Color Plates (185-191)