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 11
2
Background
DEFINING A SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE
A spatial data infrastructure (SDI) is a framework of spatial data, metadata,
tools, and a user community that are interactively connected so that spatial data
can be used in an efficient and flexible way (Nebert, 2004). Spatial data and meta-
data are distributed, accessed, and exploited with software tools and services over
computer networks. To achieve a well functioning SDI, it is necessary to define
standards and to have good coordination between all actors; because an SDI is
large (in size, cost, and number of interactors) and is usually government-related.
An example of an existing SDI is the U.S. National Spatial Data Infrastruc-
ture (NSDI). Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community
(INSPIRE) is a European Commission initiative to build a European SDI beyond
national boundaries, and the UN Spatial Data Infrastructure plans to create the
same type of SDI for over 30 UN funds, programs, specialized agencies, and
member countries (United Nations, 2008). INSPIRE sets out a framework and
timetable that obliges public-sector organizations to publish key spatial datasets
in ways that not only support the discovery of the data but provide access to them
through visualization and downloading services. This chapter examines how an
SDI can facilitate the collaboration of engineers, scientists, policy-makers, and
community groups working across disciplines, on temporal and spatial scales,
and in different types of geologic surfaces and subsurfaces.
Science agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) are tasked
with providing reliable scientific information to support scientists, researchers,
policy-makers, and the general public in making informed decisions on Earth sci-
ence and natural resource issues facing the nation. As society demands action and
11
OCR for page 12
12 ADVANCING STRATEGIC SCIENCE: A SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE ROADMAP
responsiveness to growing environmental issues, new process-based solutions
grounded in scientific research are needed to generate the knowledge necessary
to inform practical decisions. Addressing those challenges requires the synthesis
of data and model projections that may routinely span length scales (from micro
to global) and time scales (from a few tens of milliseconds to millennia). An SDI
for Earth system science makes use of tools for data creation, curation, analysis,
and archiving and leverages the Web as a platform for collection, analysis, report-
ing, and publication.
Understanding large-scale human-stressed environments over long time peri-
ods requires observing multiple variables on regional scales. This includes moni-
toring and measuring how the characteristics and functioning of environmental
systems change and determining the cause and extent of such change. The result-
ing knowledge can lead to improved predictive models that inform decisions
about more effective adaptive management policies and practices. Developing
these predictive models requires not only establishing new environmental sensor
networks, but also integrating data from existing sources and available sensors
to provide high-resolution and integrated data. It requires a cyberinfrastructure
capable of collecting, managing, and using integrated geospatial datasets. Hav-
ing a robust data infrastructure would facilitate research investigations aimed at
improving understanding of interacting environmental system processes.
The tools needed to conduct science and inform policy-making are changing.
Meeting many of the challenges faced by the USGS Science Strategy (USGS,
2007) requires information from the basic sciences, but they also require new
scientific approaches that focus on integrating physical, biogeochemical, engi-
neering, and human processes. This cultural and organizational shift becomes
more challenging as science becomes more computational and data-intensive.
In this new research environment, scientific data are captured by instruments or
generated by simulations and then processed by software into models that can
be examined by scientists, policy-makers, and the public using the Web. As the
Earth becomes increasingly instrumented with interconnected, low-cost, high-
bandwidth sensors that are linked through the Web, scientists will be in a better
position to sense the environment and predict possible environmental outcomes.
CURRENT STATUS OF THE USGS SDI: THE NATIONAL MAP
The USGS has multiple disciplinary data infrastructures, but recent efforts
to develop a science SDI at the USGS have been conducted largely under the
umbrella of The National Map (TNM). TNM is a collaborative effort with the
USGS and federal, state, tribal, and local partners to create "a database of con-
tinuously maintained base geographic information for the United States and its
territories that will serve as the Nation's topographic map for the 21st century"
(USGS, 2001). TNM provides a common set of base information for use by
public and private stakeholders. The 2007 National Research Council report
OCR for page 13
BACKGROUND 13
A Research Agenda for Geographic Information Science at the United States
Geological Survey recommended that the focus of the USGS Center of Excel-
lence for Geographic Information Science be on TNM, with key extensions into
information access and dissemination, integration of data from multiple sources,
and data models and knowledge organization systems (NRC, 2007).
In creating and implementing TNM, the USGS is targeting improvements
in data characteristics, such as currency, seamlessness, consistent classification
and formatting, variable resolution, completeness, variable positional accuracy,
spatial reference systems, standardized content, metadata, and temporal dimen-
sions (USGS, 2001; Cramer and DeMulder, 2009). The data themes in TNM are
orthoimagery, elevation, hydrography, geographic names, land cover, transporta-
tion, structures, boundaries of government units (such as states and counties),
and publicly owned lands (such as national forests and state parks). These data
themes were chosen to fulfill a gap and for use for the USGS topographic maps,
therefore there are plans to retain data characteristics that are more useful to users
of the USGS topographic maps, such as consistent feature identification and clas-
sification (NRC, 2007).
The USGS offers several methods for accessing data in TNM. For users seek-
ing to view a data map, a map viewer is available (see http://viewer.nationalmap.
gov/viewer) and provides basic Geographic Information System-type (GIS) query
and analysis tools. Users can also retrieve national coverage data through interac-
tive and preprocessed methods that can be accessed online, via the map viewer,
or physical media. For users that create their own map viewer and that need
access to tools and inventoried services, the USGS offers program applications
and an online catalog of metadata entries that can be discovered and "harvested"
into the Geospatial One-Stop portal. The USGS also has service-level agreements
with agencies to provide more advanced Web-based access to national databases.
Perhaps the most fundamental change in TNM approach is the transition
from reliance on internal USGS resources for collecting new data to reliance on
partners for providing new data (NRC, 2007). These USGS partnerships involve
a value-based exchange: In exchange for partners' data, the USGS provides
funding, expertise, data, data models, data-collection software tools, information
technology, Web and other data-management services, access to contracts, and
access to related management and quality-assurance processes.
TNM resides in a large environment that includes electronic mapping prod-
ucts and services provided by the government, academe, and private industry.
In the USGS, there are multiple datasets (see Box 2.1) that could eventually be
fed into a larger USGS SDI. In the private sector, the emergence of commercial
products, such as Google Earth and Microsoft Bing Maps, has captured the inter-
est of the public and professional users. To remain relevant, the 2007 NRC report
A Research Agenda for Geographic Information Science at the United States
Geological Survey states that the TNM "must be a trusted [emphasis added]
geospatial information source for all of these constituencies," and that "the mea-
OCR for page 14
14 ADVANCING STRATEGIC SCIENCE: A SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE ROADMAP
Box 2.1
Examples of USGS Spatial Datasets
The following are examples of the various types of spatial datasets main-
tained by the USGS. It should be noted that this is not a comprehensive list
of datasets required to support the USGS Science Strategy, although many
of the datasets listed are useful to several USGS Science Strategies.
National Land-Cover Dataset -- A 21-class land-cover classification
scheme that includes urban, agricultural, rangeland, forest, surface-water,
wetlands, barren-lands, tundra, and perennial ice and snow classes.
National Orthoimagery Dataset -- Data that combine the visual at-
tributes of an aerial photograph with the spatial accuracy and reliability of a
planimetric map.
National Elevation Dataset -- 10-meter and 30-meter digital elevation
models and some higher of resolution derived from light detection and rang-
ing (LIDAR) and Interferometric synthetic aperture radar (IFSAR).
National Transportation Dataset -- Data on roads, ports, railroads, and
other features associated with the transport of people or commerce.
National Boundaries Dataset -- Data on major civil areas, including
states, counties, federal, and Native American lands, and incorporated
places, such as cities and towns.
National Structures Dataset -- Data on selected structures, including
locations and characteristics (such as physical form, function, name, location)
of man-made structures.
Geographic Names Information System -- Federally recognized names
of physical and cultural geographic features (excluding roads and highways)
in the United States and their locations by state, county, USGS topographic
map, and geographic coordinates.
The National Hydrography Dataset -- Data on surface waters of the
United States, such as lakes, ponds, streams, rivers, canals, and oceans.
Watershed Boundary Dataset -- Data on hydrologic units that establish
a baseline drainage boundary framework, accounting for all land and surface
areas in the United States.
sure of success for TNM will be the extent to which the diverse users embrace
and depend on the product" (p. 36, NRC, 2007). However, as previously stated
in another previous NRC report Weaving a National Map: A Review of the U.S.
Geological Survey Concept of the National Map, it is impossible to be all things
to all users at the outset (NRC, 2003). TNM can best serve its users by first focus-
OCR for page 15
BACKGROUND 15
Box 2.2
Additional Attributes for The National Map
The 2007 National Research Council report A Research Agenda for Geo-
graphic Information Science at the United States Geological Survey provides
a vision for the next generation of The National Map (TNM). In addition to
including the existing features, TNM would consist of the following additional
attributes:
·an authoritative geographic knowledge base of topographic features
based on a geographic feature ontology,
·a comprehensive database of official geographic feature names, and
local, regional, and historic variants in TNM gazetteer,
·an enhanced spatial-temporal integration framework for organizing and
synchronizing with other USGS data collections,
·a geographic semantic reference system,
·multiple levels of spatial detail,
·feature histories (for spatial locations, attributes, and names),
·user-supported local validation,
·flexible product generation (for example, responding to fact queries,
process-model data packages, maps on demand, and traditional topographic
maps), and
·smart adjustment of maps or other visual display settings for different
devices.
ing on high-impact research areas and by identifying what differentiates TNM in
the crowded geospatial-product field.
As indicated by the 2007 National Research Council study, a successful
TNM requires a high level of quality, accuracy, national coverage, standardiza -
tion, and continuous updates (see Box 2.2 for additional attributes of TNM).
As the largest ongoing effort to develop a science SDI, TNM will likely play
a key role in underpinning the future USGS SDI and the committee in no way
envisions the TNM and the SDI to be mutually exclusive. TNM has the potential
to be the go-to resource for the USGS and other federal, state, and local agencies
across the nation. This report provides a roadmap to guide the USGS as it decides
whether to expand, adapt, or subsume TNM in service of the agency-wide SDI
(see Chapter 5).
THE USGS SCIENCE STRATEGY
The 2007 report Facing Tomorrow's Challenges--U.S. Geological Survey
Science in the Decade 20072017 (USGS, 2007) outlines a strategic scientific
approach for the USGS SDI. It is a watershed report by the USGS that guides its
direction in its Science Strategy. The USGS Science Strategy breaks away from
the conventional approach of organizing strategically by discipline and instead
OCR for page 16
16 ADVANCING STRATEGIC SCIENCE: A SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE ROADMAP
focuses on key future science-based challenges. A private-sector analogy would
be a company organizing around markets and customers rather than according to
products and technologies. The focus on the users of an organization's products
and services can be highly motivational and empowering for its employees. The
USGS science-based challenges are categorized into six strategic areas: ecosys-
tems, energy and minerals, climate and land-use change, environmental health,
water, and natural hazards. The USGS Science Strategy report identifies the sci-
ence needs that the USGS SDI will have to address, and the committee concurs
with the recommendations provided in that report for addressing the needs.
Throughout the USGS Science Strategy report, references are made to the
need for geospatial data and, by extension, the need for an effective SDI. An
effective SDI will be essential to the success in each of the six science directions.
Many of the characteristics of an SDI are already outlined in the USGS Science
Strategy report, such as providing a framework for interactively connecting data
users, open standards, and the ability to integrate data from environmental sensor
networks and land imaging with spatial modeling capabilities (USGS, 2007). This
committee's report attempts to further outline an SDI roadmap that cuts across
the six strategic science directions to show the need for and value of spatial data,
and to discuss how a well-designed SDI can benefit each strategy.
Ecosystems
A key element of the USGS Science Strategy is "Understanding Ecosystems
and Predicting Ecosystem Change" (USGS, 2007). The plan recognizes that eco-
systems are multi-scalar in space and time, and that information-analysis tools
are needed that can accommodate analysis of ecosystems on multiple scales and
incorporate modeling tools. Analysis of ecosystems is thematically considered
in various ways, from a geographic point of view as a unit of study and in the
context of ecosystem services that are related to the structure and function of
ecosystems on diverse space and time scales. A fundamental framework is needed
for the Survey to measure, map, understand, monitor, predict, and engage in rel-
evant issues, and a geospatial framework for the analysis of ecosystems will be
important to advance the Science Strategy. The geospatial framework can be used
to integrate various sets of information for informing ecosystem models and for
analysis of interactions between biophysical and societal effects on ecosystems.
The Science Strategy calls for a coordinated effort to produce a scientifically
rigorous map of national ecosystems on scales that have meaning for land manag-
ers and for understanding interactions between, biophysical, anthropogenic, and
biological processes that can be used in the prediction of ecosystem change. The
USGS and organizations such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) have already developed
versions of ecosystem maps and these can provide a foundation for developing
a suite of ecosystem layers within the SDI. A geospatial platform will directly
OCR for page 17
BACKGROUND 17
aid in the study of effects of land-use changes on ecosystem dynamics and in the
prediction of ecosystem change that may affect ecosystem services.
Energy and Minerals
Science and information on energy and mineral resources underpin private
and public decisions that determine resource availability, costs, and conditions
for producers and consumers. Scientific research and information collection and
dissemination benefit society through four federal roles in energy and mineral
resources: (1) unbiased national source of science and information, (2) basic
research, (3) advisory functions, and (4) international compilation. The emer-
gence of a global economy affects the demand for all resources, and the use of
natural resources is occurring on a scale that may modify terrestrial, marine, and
atmospheric environments. The use of and competition for natural resources on a
global scale and the natural threats to these resources have the potential to harm
the nation's ability to sustain its economy, national security, quality of life, and
natural environment.
Under the USGS Science Strategy, the energy and minerals direction is
sufficiently broad to deal with resource availability and related land, water, and
environmental concerns. Linking the USGS energy and minerals mission area
to the USGS ecosystems, water, and climate and land-use change mission areas
provides a scientific foundation for resource security, environmental health, eco -
nomic vitality, and resource management.
The major challenge with respect to energy and minerals is to provide a sci-
entific foundation for resource security, environmental health, economic vitality,
and stewardship of the nation's lands. This challenge is complicated by the fact
that the appropriate response will need to address evolving U.S. domestic and
global priorities and a broad, diverse user base. Responding to national priori-
ties and global trends requires a strategy that builds on existing USGS strengths
and partnerships and that advances unprecedented innovations that will be made
possible only if they are effective in integrating USGS digital data resources,
data viewing, and hypothesis testing. An important challenge is to create user
interfaces that do more than view single datasets, instead providing overlaid
comparative datasets and map features that support analysis that can lead to new
scientific interpretations.
The National Geologic Map Database (NGMDB)1 effectively locates USGS
publications that pertain to energy and minerals, including those on geology
(bedrock and surficial), geophysics (magnetic, gravity, and radiometric), and
resources (metals, nonmetals, petroleum, and coal). However, the value of this
search capability could be enhanced with search capabilities that span a broad
sequence of steps involved in scientific investigation and data integration. Inte-
1http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/ngmdb/ngm_compsearch_map.html.
OCR for page 18
18 ADVANCING STRATEGIC SCIENCE: A SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE ROADMAP
grating the NGMDB with an SDI offers much potential, but much work remains
to develop and implement the new infrastructure before it can take on additional
capabilities to serve as a much needed multidisciplinary 3-D GIS database.
Climate and Land-Use Change
With regard to climate variability and change, the USGS brings to bear an
impressive array of capabilities for research, monitoring, modeling, and assess-
ment on various relevant topics, including land and ecosystem dynamics, hydro-
climatology, coastal processes, and biogeochemical cycles. The USGS climate
and land-use change strategy underscores the key role that the USGS can play in
helping the nation to "understand and prepare for climate change and its effects"
(USGS, 2007). It identifies three critical subjects for focused efforts: monitoring,
research, and assessment.
Monitoring activities build on the USGS's long and distinguished record
of environmental observations in key arenas, such as land-use and land-cover
change, species distribution, hydrology, glaciology, and geochemistry. Proposed
strategic initiatives include development of a national phenology (plant and
animal cycles) network, a baseline soils database, and a collection of altitudinal
transects to study population dynamics and adaptation of life cycles in vulnerable
environments across the United States. In the research arena, the USGS brings to
bear strong capabilities in analysis and modeling of the terrestrial carbon cycle,
climateland useecosystem interactions, hydrologic effects of climate variability
and change, and climatic effects on ecosystem health. Monitoring and research
together form a key basis for assessment, which encompasses the development
of simulation models and predictive tools that can support understanding and
decision-making about climate changes and their effects on spatial and temporal
scales. The USGS climate strategy recognizes the imperative to integrate multi-
disciplinary research in developing complex models and assessing feedbacks and
linkages between land, water, biological, ecological, and human systems.
The strategic actions related to climate variability and change proposed by
the USGS depend on the development and use of geospatial data and models,
which would benefit from an enhanced SDI. For example, modernizing existing
USGS observing networks and developing new capabilities integrated with those
operated by other federal agencies will require the implementation of state-of-
the-art geospatial technologies, interoperability standards, and data-management
processes and procedures. The ability to identify, evaluate, assess, and pre-
dict environmental and natural resource responses to climate change would be
enhanced by ready access to harmonized geospatial data (i.e. the combination of
common data components) from different disciplines and observational networks
that combine historical and baseline data with current observations and by model
simulations and forecasts. Analysis and reporting of climate trends and effects--
and effective support of decision-making--require the ability to aggregate and
OCR for page 19
BACKGROUND 19
disaggregate data on different spatial scales and to provide geospatial visualiza-
tions geared to the needs of decision-makers and other users.
In the face of climate variability and change, the USGS Science Strategy
appropriately recognizes the important role of the USGS in working with the
Bureau of Reclamation, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Manage-
ment, and other agencies of the Department of the Interior to directly manage
about one-fifth of the U.S. land resources. Land-related data and models are
needed to demonstrate the impact of climate change on land areas. Integration
and interoperability of land-related data and models would directly benefit land
and resource managers and contribute to the overall adaptation and resilience of
the United States to future climate change.
Similarly, close cooperation with other federal agencies, such as the Depart-
ment of Energy and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, is needed in areas
such as carbon capture and storage and soil management. The USGS also needs
to coordinate with the international scientific community, as in the case of its
research and observational efforts related to biogeochemical cycles, paleoclimate,
and cryospheric processes and the USGS's contribution to the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change process. All those efforts would benefit from the ability
to build on and connect the USGS SDI to the broader NSDI and the emerging
global SDI.
Environmental Health
The USGS Science Strategy includes the goal of understanding the role of
environment and wildlife in human health. Most USGS efforts in this arena have
been on health problems caused by environmental contamination and emerging
infectious diseases, and research has focused on public health threats that result
from the relationship between people and the physical, chemical, and natural
environments. The USGS specializes in research in vector-borne and zoonotic
diseases, water contamination, airborne contaminants, bioaccumulative contami-
nants in the food chain, and environmental threats to public health. It does not,
however, focus on health effects that result from the built environment, although
the aforementioned research certainly involves these parts of the environment in
addition to the natural environment.
The USGS efforts in environmental health can best be described as investi-
gator-driven science, so research is dispersed throughout the agency. For the most
part, this research is excellent and is published in top scientific journals, such as
work on Lyme disease (Ginsberg et al., 1998, 2005) and methylmercury in ocean
fish (Sunderland et al., 2007, 2009). One of the benefits of USGS's research on
human health is project longevity which often allows longitudinal health studies,
compared with university-based health research studies that are typically 2-5
years for the project duration.
Even though high-quality research on the role of environment and wildlife
OCR for page 20
20 ADVANCING STRATEGIC SCIENCE: A SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE ROADMAP
in human health is being conducted at the USGS, the decentralized structure cre-
ates substantial challenges. Funding for individual studies does not come through
sources directly targeted to human health, so consistent funding has been a chal-
lenge for USGS researchers. A well-functioning SDI could assist USGS health
researchers in this struggle by centralizing data access and pairing data with
other relevant datasets. The lack of a centrally organized health research agenda
makes it difficult to establish systems for efficiently supporting the sharing of
spatial data within the USGS, and it is even more difficult to share with other
federal agencies or researchers outside the federal government. Investigators do
not have much incentive to make their datasets available, let alone discoverable
(see discussion later in this chapter on "Incentives for Scientists").
Organizing USGS research efforts around the Science Strategy on the role
of environment and wildlife in human health will help to alleviate some of those
challenges. In the last few years, the USGS has organized meetings to bring the
research community together on human health issues as they are related to the
environment and wildlife. The USGS convened meetings titled "Natural Science
and Public Health: Prescription for a Better Environment" (USGS, 2003) and
"The Second National Conference on USGS Health-Related Research" (Buxton
et al., 2007); each had more than 60 paper presentations on the aforementioned
USGS health-research topics that underscored the importance of spatial data.
The purposes of the conferences were to enhance communication among federal
agencies; to identify common science interests for leveraging science research,
results, and resources; and to establish joint science investigations and coopera-
tive partnerships to increase the use of USGS information by the public health
community. The goals of expanding access to existing data and strengthening
partnerships and collaborations are consistent with the principles underlying the
USGS Science Strategy.
The USGS Science Strategy also includes a partial listing of USGS environ-
mental healthrelated databases that could be incorporated into a science SDI.
The USGS Science Strategy report specifically calls for developing an "online
data atlas of potential environmental health threats" to improve the ability of the
United States to respond quickly to health threats and for developing a national
"environmental health information system" that integrates basic USGS scientific
data with GIS decision-support tools (USGS, 2007). Administrative structures,
incentives, and funding are some challenges that make it difficult to make the
aforementioned goals a reality.
Water
A goal of the USGS Science Strategy is to develop a National Water Census
that includes quantifying, forecasting, and securing freshwater for America's
future. Equal emphasis is given to water quantity and water quality as related to
water availability and to meeting both human and ecological needs in the context
OCR for page 21
BACKGROUND 21
of land-use change, climate change, and changing demands for water resources.
Previous USGS studies and monitoring programs focused on human needs; the
added dimension of quantifying ecological needs is new. The USGS is uniquely
qualified to develop a National Water Census because of its unique capabilities
with its diverse scientific staff and technicians (diverse geographically and in
expertise) and its state-of-the-art groundwater models. The goal of the National
Water Census is to inform the public on: (1) the status of and trends in freshwater
resources, (2) water use for human, environmental, and wildlife needs, (3) rela-
tionship of freshwater availability to storage and transport in natural and engi-
neered systems, water use, and related transfer, (4) identification of uncommon
water sources, and (5) forecasts of effects of changes in land use and land cover,
natural and engineered infrastructure, water use, and climate on water availability,
including water quality, and aquatic ecosystem health (USGS, 2007).
The National Water Census will need to pull together several disparate data
sources at multiple scales. The StreamStats application will provide water avail-
ability information on precipitation, runoff, baseflow, and trends. The USGS
National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program will be used to assess the
role of water quality in water availability. The detailed field studies throughout
the nation conducted as part of the NAWQA Program will provide spatial data
on natural and anthropogenic contaminants in aquifers. Relationships to geol-
ogy and land use will be used to assess sources and mobilization mechanisms
of contaminants. The intensification of the hydrologic cycle will likely result in
longer-term droughts and more intense floods (USGCRP, 2009), which could fur-
ther burden already stressed water systems. Quantifying the role of groundwater
in water availability will require spatial and temporal information on recharge,
groundwater yields, changes in storage, saltwater intrusion, trends in groundwa-
ter indexes, groundwater demand, and groundwatersurface water interactions.
The National Water Census will rely primarily on the Regional Groundwater
Availability Studies for much of that information. Data on water withdrawals
will be obtained from the National Water Use Information program. Satellite
data on evapotranspiration could also be used to estimate water demand in irri-
gated regions. Information on the geohydrologic framework of aquifers will be
obtained from the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program.
Because water is inherently multidisciplinary, a well-designed SDI is essen-
tial for the success of the water census, connecting climate forcing with detailed
measurements and monitoring of surface and subsurface hydrology. Linking
satellite data, including evapotranspiration maps and water storage changes from
the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment with ground-based measurements
of water storage and demand, will be important for ground referencing satellite-
based estimates. Because the water census will rely heavily on datasets produced
by many state programs and will also rely upon water infrastructure data from the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, an open framework SDI, one that allows
individual components to be easily added or replaced, will be helpful for data-
OCR for page 22
22 ADVANCING STRATEGIC SCIENCE: A SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE ROADMAP
sharing. An SDI that allows discovery and provides detailed metadata informa-
tion will be valuable because water is of general interest to the public in addition
to providing essential research data for various studies. Because of the potentially
large number of groups providing data to the census, common standards and tools
will be essential for the success of the National Water Census.
Natural Hazards
The USGS is involved in every part of the disaster cycle from scientific study
to disaster response. It is charged with identifying, understanding, monitoring,
and mapping hazards. It is an active participant in preparation for, response to,
and recovery from disasters that occur when humans and cultural artifacts are
exposed to a hazardous event. USGS scientists study the geophysical phenomena
that lead to volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, landslides, tsunamis, floods, coastal
inundation, droughts, and other natural disasters. The USGS is also responsible
for the International Charter on Space and Major Disasters for the United States
and in the event of a disaster can activate the International Charter to direct assets
to the disaster.
The USGS operates and participates in various monitoring networks, such
as seismic and stream monitoring networks, which are fundamental to hazards-
related work. Data produced by those networks are necessary for both early
warnings and pre- and post-disaster assessments, and they are often the primary
data used in fundamental and applied research. The data are used operationally
for mapping hazard zones, which are used by (1) communities for planning,
(2) responders for identifying emergency routes and the potential severity of an
event, (3) industry for siting facilities and infrastructure, (4) insurance companies
for determining risk, and (5) private individuals for housing and other decisions.
Information generated from the monitoring networks are used directly in the
science and disaster management communities, where they are combined with
additional data, information, and models to advance knowledge and provide valu-
able, usually critical information to those who need it.
The USGS provides geospatial information in response to domestic disasters
and provides assistance whenever possible in response to international disasters
(see Box 2.3). For example, in anticipation of Hurricane Katrina, the Survey was
on site with hard-copy maps, digital data, analytical tools, and computer hard-
ware 3 days before the hurricane made landfall. In its continuing effort to ensure
maximum access to needed data and information, USGS scientists and techni-
cians work with the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) to ensure
that software is prepared to facilitate the integration of NGA data with data from
USGS and other civilian agencies. In the international arena, USGS is the lead
agency for the International Charter to provide remote sensing data to nations
that request them during times of disaster. It was a major asset in response to the
May 12, 2008, earthquake in Sichuan, China, when USGS worked on a team
OCR for page 23
BACKGROUND 23
BOX 2.3
Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response
Prompt Assessment of Global Earthquakes for Response (PAGER) is an
automated system that quickly estimates the number of cities and people world-
wide exposed to severe shaking after significant earthquakes. PAGER began
operation on March 28, 2005.
While PAGER was still in the design and testing phase, a major aftershock
of the 2004 SumatraAndaman earthquake occurred about 300 kilometers to the
southeast of the original quake. Massive devastation took place on the island of
Nias, major damage on the island of Simuelue, and damage on other islands.
A 4-meter tsunami hit parts of the coast of Sumatra. Information from the then
experimental PAGER program was used to identify where the most affected
populations would be. The earthquake occurred at 11:09 p.m., and rescue work-
ers worked through the night to prepare flight plans for rescue helicopters. The
PAGER data were transmitted to the flight planners so that pilots could reach
the most at-risk populations. The rapid and effective transmission of the PAGER
data allowed the launch of an efficient rescue mission, a much more successful
one than would otherwise have been possible. PAGER has since become an
important operational component in the global disaster-response toolbox.
Source: Kelmelis et al., 2006.
Table 2-1 Major USGS Geophysical Monitoring Networks Central to Data
Collection, Hazard Monitoring, and Event Warning
Monitoring Network Hazard Type
Advanced National Seismic System Earthquake
National Volcano Early Warning System Volcano
Stream gage (stable-core network) Flood and drought
Marsh Surface Elevation Table Network Sea-level rise
Light detection and ranging (LIDAR) Land-cover change and coastal inundation
to broker access to government and commercial satellite data to assist with the
response and recovery effort and worked with Chinese scientists to develop a new
understanding of the fault zones and other geologic conditions in the earthquake
area. Those types of situations require information that combines geographic data
with a variety of geophysical data.
As one of its major future investments, the USGS Science Strategy describes
the modernizing of major geophysical monitoring networks (see Table 2-1). It
also discusses the importance of USGS's taking advantage of new and emerging
technologies for network communication, characterizing and assessing hazards,
providing forecasts based on understanding of physical processes, and develop-
OCR for page 24
24 ADVANCING STRATEGIC SCIENCE: A SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE ROADMAP
ing partnerships that will advance the state of the art of decision support systems
and intelligent access to data. An important responsibility for the emerging SDI
will be to support those advances while ensuring the continuation of traditional
natural-hazard and disaster-management functions until the advances are online.
THE CHALLENGE OF An SDI FOR SCIENCE AND
DECISION-MAKING
Creating a functioning SDI presents numerous technical challenges. As pre-
viously stated, SDIs are inherently complex because they are large and have
multiple administrative and technical components--such as software and hard-
ware, standards definition and adoption, and institutional agreements--on a wide
variety of scales. The task of integrating and visualizing data generated on differ-
ent spatial scales remains one of the grand technical challenges in spatial science
(Goodchild, 2008). Adding the dimension of time to spatial datasets to enable
spatialtemporal correlations remains a painstaking process because spatial data
collected decades apart use different standards and equipment. Organizational
challenges include training and developing partnerships across different disci-
plines in and outside the Survey. This section discusses the technical and organi-
zational challenges in the context of a USGS SDI.
Scale
The challenges faced by the nation and identified in the USGS Science
Strategy call for support of geospatial information on multiple spatial scales in a
timely manner to address widely varied issues: national hazards and risks, human
health, climate variability, ecosystem dynamics, water quality and quantity, and
energy and mineral resources. Advances in geospatial computing and information
technology are beginning to provide tools that can integrate information across
multiple scales of space and time (such as www.geo.data.gov). The framework to
work across multiple scales must provide consistency from one level to another
and provide the ability to "telescope" down or up in scale depending on the need
of the analysis. That is far from trivial and requires planning and coordination to
work across two or more spatial datasets.
The ability to provide geospatial support across multiple spatial, elevational,
and temporal scales (4-D analysis) will give researchers, decision-makers, and
managers the ability to assess hazards and risks as they occur, to evaluate eco-
system and hydrologic changes across scales useful to wildlife managers and
resource managers dealing with regional drought conditions, to track health risks
due to mobile animal populations or more stationary water quality changes that
result from mining effects, and to respond to storm surges. A robust and inte-
grated SDI will provide a basis for those kinds of analyses to be conducted in a
timely manner that is appropriate for researchers, decision-makers, and managers.
OCR for page 25
BACKGROUND 25
SpatialTemporal Correlation
A major challenge for the USGS will be to garner spatialtemporal correla-
tions for understanding and predicting ecosystem changes over space and time
and to use such interdisciplinary information to inform decision-making. As
documented in the USGS Science Strategy (USGS, 2007), existing databases
and related maps in USGS programs are not functionally integrated, and this
severely limits the use of science and spatialtemporal correlations for making
informed decisions. Until scientific geospatial analysis protocols are established
in the USGS and requisite application software tools are widely implemented,
decision-making based on spatialtemporal correlations will remain tentative or
will at best be successful on a limited scale.
Gaining scientific understanding, mapping, monitoring, modeling, and advis-
ing the Department of the Interior by using a systems approach to temporal and
spatial change are central issues. A geospatial framework requires the integration
of various sets of information for informing ecosystem models and for analyz-
ing interactions between biophysical, anthropogenic, and biological processes
to projecting ecosystem change. A scientific foundation is critical for effectively
managing the use of energy and mineral resources, the environment, and lands.
The geospatial platform will be an essential tool for gauging the effects of
land-use changes on ecosystem dynamics, for monitoring the effects of climate
change, and for predicting ecosystem change over time. Nation-wide datasets
with consistent definitions are required to meet the challenges in spatialtemporal
correlation. Topographic map coverage in raster, elevation, and land cover con-
stitutes a starting point. Key datasets to add include multi-temporal (time-series)
data for hydrography and data on invasive species for ecosystems analysis. Until
geospatial science is fully integrated into all the USGS strategic directions, it will
be difficult to address broader questions related to sustainability and how Earth's
surface will evolve in the Anthropocene--a new geologic period in which human
influence dominates the Earth system (NRC, 2009).
High-resolution systematic data need to be made available in a large, seamless
archive to support activities that detect changes over space and time. Emergency
responders rely on a variety of spatialtemporal correlations for information,
including hazards information based on detailed time-series analysis (such as
coastline changes with severe storms). Also needed is rapid access to real-time
and archived geospatially referenced data, including access to satellite imagery
over time, airborne and ground-based light detection and ranging (LIDAR) land-
surface images, airborne imagery photos, and forward-looking infrared (FLIR)
thermal imaging camera data.
OCR for page 26
26 ADVANCING STRATEGIC SCIENCE: A SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE ROADMAP
Historical and Baseline Data
Another function of a well-designed SDI will be to provide a coherent
framework for collecting, organizing, accessing, and analyzing vast amounts of
historical USGS data that are vital for understanding baseline conditions and for
modeling and projecting future environmental behavior. Long-time series data
are essential inputs into efforts to improve prediction of earthquakes, volcanoes,
floods, and other hazards; to understand and predict climate variability and
change; and to manage land, water, and ecological resources. Unique data col-
lections, such as the Landsat and Corona data archives at the USGS EROS Data
Center, provide invaluable information about land-cover and land-use changes
over the last 50 years. Historical data are often essential for calibrating new
instruments and monitoring activities and for developing reference or baseline
datasets used to assess the effects of future trends or policy changes.
Historical data have often been stored in separate, disconnected databases
and datasets and have often been collected and stored with different methods,
standards, and tools. That has led to spatial and temporal discontinuities in data,
unnecessary barriers to data integration, reduced data quality, and duplication
of effort. Another important challenge is the large amount of historical data and
documentation that has not yet been digitized and may be at risk of deterioration
because it remains on physical media (such as paper, film, and microfiche).
An SDI would serve as a common foundation for historical and baseline data
that would enable more flexible integration of different data types and facilitate
discovery, access, and use of historical data in conjunction with new observa-
tional and monitoring efforts. It could also facilitate priority-setting among efforts
to rescue datasets at risk by providing a synoptic view of the most important data
gaps and needs across the USGS and partner agencies.
Multidisciplinary and Collaborative Activities
Environmental challenges today arise from complex interactions between
multiple disciplines including human activities, ecosystems, and biophysical
features, such as climate, land-use change, hydrologic dynamics, and distur-
bance regimes. Integration of information and analysis across those activities
is necessary to ascertain emergent properties of environmental changes related
to challenges being met in the USGS Science Strategy. For instance, evaluation
of avian influenza needs to account not only for instances of outbreaks but for
migration of bird populations, wetland locations, and settlement patterns if it is to
accurately predict the emergence and spread of avian influenza. Similarly, issues
related to hazards and risks rely not only on environmental factors but on patterns
of transportation, settlements, waterways, topography, weather, and other factors
that have particular spatial patterns that need to be integrated in assessment of
risks posed by environmental conditions.
OCR for page 27
BACKGROUND 27
A well-known important challenge in moving an SDI forward is the cross-
disciplinary collaborative ethos necessary in the USGS to develop and maintain
an SDI that was previously lacking. In evidence and testimony provided to the
committee, stovepipes and silos were terms used to describe USGS structure and
operation although the recent USGS reorganization is a substantial step toward
removing many of the silos. The USGS has an amalgam of scientific disciplines
and areas of expertise. The data, processes, and cultures in the USGS are also
diverse, and it is governed by agency-specific and domain-specific goals. Part of
that discreteness could be explained by the presence of several factors: legitimate
discipline differences, reluctance of scientists to engage outside their specialties,
the competitive nature of science funding, and a natural tendency toward preci-
sion in one's own field. Implementing an SDI will require effective collabora-
tion among multiple disciplines and will require agreement on issues such as
data standards, sharing, and maintenance. In addition, a well-implemented TNM
would replace the focus from one-off base data acquisition with a comprehensive,
nationally-consistent dataset, just as desired in an SDI. The USGS will also need
to ensure that key datasets are discoverable and accessible over the long term.
Externally, the USGS has an extensive array of stakeholders to engage and
collaborate with, including federal, state, tribal, local, international, academic,
and public entities (see Box 2.4). It will be difficult for the USGS to achieve its
strategic goals alone; it will need to partner with others to achieve them. Surveys
of external users show that they use the spatial data that the USGS makes avail-
able (e.g. orthophotography, elevation, transportation) and would like data that
is currently more difficult to find and access, such as the location of wells and
springs (Sugarbaker et al, 2009).
Program vs. Project
System studies are often anchored by place-based studies in which greater
detail can be extracted on a wide array of processes and components of a system,
such as tower-flux studies, acid-deposition studies, and watershed studies. Those
placed-based studies are often associated in a network of sites so that various
environmental factors can be evaluated to understand how controlling variables
affect, for instance, water quality, plant productivity, or carbon emissions. These
typically one-off studies also can provide process understanding of system inter-
actions when linked to other studies in a region or linked to similar studies in
other locations or conducted at different times. However, the information col-
lected in and shared between USGS programs and individual projects can vary
considerably. For instance, satellites to assess land cover in the United States
provide consistent, almost seamless, coverage of land cover across the nation. But
a number of specialized land-cover databases have been developed by various
groups or projects for special purposes to elucidate processes that feature specific
characteristic or spatial patterns that are not captured by the national efforts.
OCR for page 28
28 ADVANCING STRATEGIC SCIENCE: A SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE ROADMAP
Box 2.4
External Users of USGS Spatial Data
The USGS has a wide variety of stakeholders that use spatial data. The
examples below illustrate the needs of representative user groups.
Climate Modelers -- The effort to downscale climate projections to the
regional level requires models of regional land change that, in turn, require
authoritative data on land use and cover, much of this derived from satellite
imagery. These data are often combined with socio-economic data to project
the impoacvt of policy decisions on land cover changes.
Coastal County Managers -- Coastal managers are currently using
many of the core data layers provided by the USGS, such as elevation and
land use and cover. One of the greatest challenges to coastal managers,
particularly in small and medium sized counties, is the lack of knowledge
about what spatial data are available to them.
Natural Hazards -- The combination of orthoimagery, transportation net-
work, and elevation data provide a powerful tool for mitigating and responding
to natural hazard events. However, these data are only useful together if they
are truly integrated by sharing a common georeference framework and are
updated regularly.
Sources: NACo, 2008; Sugarbaker et al, 2009.
For example, boundaries of seasonally inundated areas or wetland areas may be
established in detail for a specific project, whereas national datasets on the same
phenomena are more generalized.
To resolve the programproject discontinuity, criteria for developing harmo-
nization of program-level data in a national geospatial database would be useful.
The scheme would need to provide a basis for regional cross-comparison analysis
and for future data-product improvements. The information for the harmonization
effort might also include enough information to reconcile data from the program-
level analysis and the national database. This effort in cross-linkage between vari-
ous geospatial products will greatly enhance the transparency of derived products
relative to the base heritage geospatial information sets.
For program- and project-level datasets, the spatial data infrastructure will
need to allow for easy tagging of information in a common data format. Tools
to facilitate the tagging of geospatial and temporal information from program
and project analyses will enhance the integration and synthesis of studies across
programs and agencies. The ability to conduct synthetic analysis across project
and program data will greatly improve USGS's ability to further understand how
OCR for page 29
BACKGROUND 29
critical ecosystem and natural resources dynamics are affected by human and
environmental changes.
Incentives for Scientists
Staff incentives for sharing data are an important component of successful
implementation and management of an SDI. The USGS workforce consists pri-
marily of research scientists--there are nearly 2,000 full-time research-grade sci-
entists. Like their academic counterparts, USGS scientists are evaluated through
an annual research graded evaluation (RGE) process and rewarded on the basis of
their scholarly productivity. Productivity is typically measured by scientific out-
puts such as publication in peer-reviewed journal articles and original research.
Salary increases for and career advancement of scientists typically require prolific
publication and high-impact research. Because research scientists are rewarded
through publication and research, there are few compelling reasons for scientists
to invest time and effort in sharing data unless these include scientific collabora-
tions that directly involve co-authorship of scholarly output. As Nobel laureate
and current US Secretary of Energy Steven Chu has remarked, "We seek solu-
tions. We don't seek--dare I say this--just scientific papers any more" (Del
Vecchio, 2007).
The RGE process does not consider data-sharing as an output category, and
USGS budgets do not sufficiently allocate for resources that are needed to share
data efficiently. As a result, scientists are often reluctant to make their data avail-
able until they have been interpreted and published. A potential solution is to
modify the RGE process in such a way that USGS scientists are evaluated on the
data they shared. Another possible solution for this "publish or perish" problem
could be a requirement that USGS-funded projects have part of their budget
devoted to data-sharing and that proposals include plans for data-sharing. One
example is the funding model in the National Aeronautics and Space Administra-
tion, which requires free and open access to data in an SDI; such an arrangement
would probably result in greater utility of USGS data and improved relevance
of the USGS itself. The USGS will also need to devise career incentives for sci-
entists to provide open access to data and to partner with non-USGS researchers
and organizations. That would require the support of skilled employees whose
responsibility would be to facilitate data-sharing among USGS divisions. An
SDI could be the integration tool for data-sharing inasmuch as most Survey data
are inherently spatial. The diversity of data and of technological and scientific
approaches makes it necessary for scientists to partner and to leverage expertise
and knowledge.
OCR for page 30
30 ADVANCING STRATEGIC SCIENCE: A SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE ROADMAP
References
Buxton, H.T., D.W. Griffin, B.S. and Pierce (Eds.). 2007. Earth Science and Public Health: Proceed -
ings of the Second National Conference on USGS Health-Related Research, Reston, Virginia,
February 27-March 1, 2007: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-
5022, 47p. Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2008/5022/ (last accessed May 17, 2011).
Cramer, B., and M. DeMulder. 2009. The National Map Science Workshop. Lakewood, CO Sept.
2-3, U.S. Geological Survey.
Del Vecchio, R. 2007. "UC Berkeley: Panel looks at control of emissions," San Francisco Chronicle,
March 22, 2007.
Ginsberg, H.S., K.E. Hyland, R. Hu, T.J. Daniels, and R.C. Falco. 1998. Tick population trends and
forest type. Science 281:349-350.
Ginsberg, H.S., P.A. Buckley, M.G. Balmforth, E. Zhioua, S. Mitra, and F.G. Buckley. 2005. Res-
ervoir competence of native North American birds for the Lyme disease spirochete, Borrelia
burgdorferi. Journal of Medical Entomology 42:445-449.
Goodchild, M.D. 2008. Geographic Information Science: The Grand Challenges, in The Handbook
of Geographical Information Science, J. P. Wilson and A. S. Fotheringham eds., Blackwell:
Oxford. p1-22.
Kelmelis, J.A., L. Schwartz, C. Christian, M. Crawford, and D. King. 2006. Geospatial information
response to the Sumatra-Andaman earthquake and tsunami of December 26, 2004. Photogram-
metric Engineering and Remote Sensing 72(8):862-876.
Nebert, D. (ed) 2004. Developing Spatial Data Infrastructures: The SDI Cookbook. Global Spatial
Data Infrastructure, 171p.
NACo (National Association of Counties). 2008. NACo/NOAA-CSC Coastal County Geospatial
Needs Questionnaire Analysis Report. Washington, DC, 18p.
NRC (National Research Council). 2003. Weaving a National Map: Review of the U.S. Geological
Survey Concept of The National Map. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 140p.
NRC. 2004. Future Challenges for the U.S. Geological Survey's Minerals Resources Program. Wash-
ington, DC: The National Academies Press, 154p.
NRC. 2007. A Research Agenda for Geographic Information Science at the United States Geological
Survey. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 156p.
NRC. 2009. Landscapes on the Edge: New Horizons for research in Earth Surface Processes. Wash-
ington, DC: The National Academies Press, 163p.
Sugarbaker, L., K.E. Coray, and B. Poore 2009. The National Map Customer Requirements: Find-
ings from Interviews and Surveys. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 2009-1222, 34p.
Sunderland, E.M., D.P. Krabbenhoft, J.W. Moreau, S.A. Strode, and W.M. Landing. 2009. Mercury
sources, distribution and bioavailability in the North Pacific Ocean--Insights from data and
models: Global Biogeochemical Cycles 23(2):1-14.
Sunderland, E. M., 2007. Mercury exposure from domestic and imported estuarine and marine fish in
the United States seafood market: Environmental Health Perspectives 115(2):235-242.
United Nations. 2008. United Nations Spatial Data Infrastructure Framework: Interim Report January
2009 to December 2010, United Nations: New York, 36p.
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2009. Global Climate Change Impacts in the
United States. Available online at http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/water.pdf
(accessed March 12, 2012).
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2001. The National Map: Topographic Mapping for the 21st
Century. Available online at http://nationalmap.gov/report/national_map_report_final.pdf (last
accessed May 11, 2011).
USGS. 2003. Natural Science and Public Health: Prescription for a Better Environment. Available
online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/of03-097/of03-097.pdf (accessed May 17, 2011).
OCR for page 31
BACKGROUND 31
USGS. 2007. Facing tomorrow's challenges--U.S. Geological Survey science in the decade 2007
2017: U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1309, 70p. Available online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/
circ/2007/1309/pdf/C1309.pdf (accessed May 16, 2011).
