Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Economic models for the development of Spatial Data Infrastructures. Bastiaan van Loenen [email protected]. Forum 2004 29 June 2004. OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, section Geo-information and Land Development. Overview. Introduction - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
Vermelding onderdeel organisatie
1
Economic models for the development of Spatial Data Infrastructures
Forum 200429 June 2004
Bastiaan van [email protected]
OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, section Geo-information and Land Development
2
Overview
• Introduction• Economic models• Best practices• Conclusion
3
Why SDI?
• providing easy, public access to integrated land-related information in support of informed decision making (New Brunswick)
• creating a national network linking databases and users and enhancing the accessibility, communications and use of geographic information (FGDC)
• to ensure that spatial data users will be able to acquire consistent datasets to meet their requirements (Australia)
4
Spatial data are special
• Expensive to create: • high expertise and • advanced equipment needed• data does not ‘come’ to the gatherer
• Many use spatial data but few are aware of their value
• Spatial data commercially the most interesting
5
Source: Rajabifard, et al, 1999
Different levels of Detail required forDifferent SDI levels
Less detailed data
Global level
Regional level
National level
State level
Local level
GSDI
RSDI
NSDI
SSDI
LSDI
More detailed data
6
Economic models
• Open access model• Cost recovery model• Public private partnerships
7
Open Access Model
• Minimum of use restrictions• Maximum price of marginal costs of distribution
8
Open Access Model
DataProductPublic fundsVATIncome/Company taxPrice
Governmentusers
End-users
ProfessionalUsers
End-users
Treasury
Governmentagency
9
Open Access
Successful if sufficient awareness for the value of geographic information exists at the decision making levels and is sustainable
Difficult to cooperate with private sector
10
Cost Recovery Model
• Use restrictions imposed• No limit on price
11
Cost Recovery Model
DataProductPublic fundsVATIncome/Company taxPrice
Governmentusers
End-users
ProfessionalUsers
End-users
Treasury
Governmentagency
12
Cost Recovery
Probably useful if awareness for the value of geographic information is lacking at the decision making levels
Allows for cooperation with private sector
13
Public Private Cooperation: MetroGIS
• Many public organisations needed road centreline data (school districts, counties, cities, water districts, etc.) but did not have it
• One private company had (parts of the) dataset and was willing to share the dataset with the MetroGIS community
14
Public Private Cooperation
The Deal:• One time $300,000 investment• Dataset for a total price of $50,000 per year for
a 5 year period available for all MetroGIS participants (>300)
• MetroGIS participants provide updates of their road datasets, and/ or road plans to private company
• No redistribution is allowed
15
Public Private Cooperation
The Benefits:• Public organisations now use the data that
meets their needs against low cost• Private company has the most up to date road
data against low cost• Private company has guaranteed income
stream for 5 year period
16
Public Private Partnership: Dutch Large Scale Base Map
Common data needs for large scale topographic data• Local government• Utilities• Water boards• Kadaster
17
Public Private Partnership
• The Large scale base map of the Netherlands:• uniform dataset 1:500, 1,000 or 2,000 • core topography:
• buildings• roads• bridges• waterways• utility facilities• street names
18
Public Private Partnership
• Total cost: > € 200,000,000• Yearly maintenance: € 27,000,000• Investment: € 27,000,000
• Price for non-participants: % of costs• Restrictive use conditions
• Without PPP (and cost recovery model) no GBKN!
19
The case of three counties
County A: excellent GIS data, open access model County B: excellent GIS data, cost recovery model County C: paper data, not yet decided on the policy
Real estate agent covering County A,B, and C but only with GIS data for County A
Manufacturing company seeks a new location in County A, B, or C
20
The case of three counties
Result: Manufacturing company moves to County A
Benefits: - County generates more tax (value added, income, property, and/or company) - Manufacturing company finds quickly new location - Real estate agent is more efficient in location searches
21
Conclusions
• Public private partnerships may be beneficial in meeting both public and private needs
• If awareness for SDI is sufficient and sustainable the open access model probably outweighs the cost recovery model
• No blue print for best access policy
22
Further information
Spatial data infrastructure and policy development in Europe and the United Stateshttp://www.library.tudelft.nl/dup/leaflets/2467.html
Database with SDI literaturehttp://www.otb.tudelft.nl/NGII/
Vermelding onderdeel organisatie
23
Economic models for the development of Spatial Data Infrastructures
Thank you for your attention
Forum 200429 June 2004
Bastiaan van [email protected]
OTB Research Institute for Housing, Urban and Mobility Studies, section Geo-information and Land Development
