Reconceptualizing the role of the user of spatial data infrastructure

Abstract

Spatial data infrastructures, which are Internet-based mechanisms for the coordinated production, discovery, and use of geospatial information in the digital environment, have diffused worldwide in the last two decades. Currently, there are about one hundred spatial data infrastructures at the national level and many other at supra-and sub-national levels. These contemporary spatial data infrastructures operate with two main assumptions: formal organizations are the producers and suppliers of geospatial information; users are the passive recipients of information. The recent phenomenon of volunteered geographic information departs from these assumptions. In this paper, we argue that reconceptualizing the user of a spatial data infrastructure can accommodate this new phenomenon. Such a reconceptualization creates a middle ground between spatial data infrastructure and volunteered geographic information, which has important implications for future research.

Can Volunteered Geographic Information Be a Participant in eEnvironment and SDI?

“…It is necessary that the VGI community can demonstrate that issues such as data quality (see Mooney and Corcoran [15]), scale and harmonization problems (Figure 2), etc can be detected effectively and efficiently. We agree with Budhathoki et al [1] that is "unlikely that VGI will completely replace SDIs". However, we believe that there is adequate scope and motivation for VGI to become a key stakeholder (both as spatial data producer and consumer) in SDIs.…”

“…One of the key questions in relation to GIS is how VGI will interact with this community? As Budhathoki et al [1] (and Mooney and Corcoran [15]) remark "VGI is unlikely to satisfy the vast majority of institutional and professional GI producers whose requirements in terms of data quality, timeliness, and completeness are very strict". Can a suitable middleground between professional GI producers and VGI can be found?…”

“…There has been a transition in the role of users from just mere "data consumers to active participants and providers" [2]. Budhathoki et al [1] argue that SDI and VGI are not separate entities but are complementary phenomena. Budhathoki et al believe that these phenomena can be brought within a "single framework where the role of the user of SDI is re conceptualized to produser (producer and consumer of spatial data [2]) and VGI is included in the SDI-related processes.…”

“…Over et al [17] develop prototype 3-D models using German OSM data. The "extensive produser (producer and consumer of spatial data [2]) base" in VGI referred to by Budhathoki et al [1] is a now large enough to be considered by SDI-related initiatives and eEnvironment. Some authors outline the problems in SDI development which are actually positives in VGI.…”

“…This is an area where VGI is very strong through the collaborative nature and ethos of the community based upon an inherent understanding and willingness to share data. Budhathoki et al [1] argue that VGI has harnessed a "large number of participants, without being coordinated by any formal organization, and without the lure of monetary or personal gain". Thellufsen et al [19] conclude that currently too many organizations, with spatial data useful for SDIs, are data "silo-minded" precisely at a time when they ought to be outreaching and co-operative.…”