Nature GIS Survey - Questionnaire
Part II
Nature GIS Survey Questionnaire
50
Chapter 6
Accessing user needs, data and functional requirements The objectives of the Nature-GIS project as described in Part I are to improve access to harmonised information for the implementation of the EU nature protection and bio-diversity policy area; raise awareness regarding the use of geographic information and geographic information systems in the field of nature protection and support public access to data and information. To achieve these aims, Nature-GIS initiated a questionnaire which was sent to various stakeholders involved in protected areas management. The objectives of the survey were to: • understand the level of experience regarding geographic information for protected areas management (formats used, metadata management, data storage format, methodologies used, monitoring and updating requirements. . . ); • identify user and producer needs and priorities for geographic information with respect to their country or type of organisation; • identify the equipment (hardware and software) used and the technical needs as well as to understand their level of awareness towards the IT tools and their use/application, and to identify the use of the World Wide Web; • understand the constraints on the use of geographic information (updating of datasets, technical, and organisational constraints. . . ); To cover a broad spectrum of information users and providers, a typology of stakeholders was devised to include people from academia, government, commercial and other non-governmental organisations (figure 6.1). Overall, 320 questionnaires were correctly filled in. The questionnaire was divided up into three parts relating to: • User needs: defining the user and organisation, their resources and resource requirements, and their information needs; • Data requirements: understanding the types of data and information an organisation holds and how they currently manage it;
52
Accessing user needs, data and functional requirements
Figure 6.1: Nature-GIS typology of stakeholders identified for the questionnaire.
6.1 Methodology for the survey analysis
• Functional requirements: understanding and defining what stakeholders want to be able to do with geographic data and information (for example, in a Geographic Information System (GIS) environment). This list was produced by extensive consultation with the project partners, the European Topic Centre for Nature Conservation (ETCNC) in Paris, the European Environment Agency and its EIONET network, the Cambridge-Based United Nations WCMC (World Conservation Monitoring Centre), and other key European-based stakeholders. A contact was made with stakeholders both personally and by advertising the questionnaire in mailing lists. The stakeholders were allowed to fill the questionnaire on-line although Nature-GIS partners were also able to interview stakeholders using a paper-version of the questionnaire, which was eventually filled in on-line by partners. The results for each section of the questionnaire have been analysed and separate reports have been written explaining the findings in detail1 . The results have also been used to identify some typical user scenarios as well as help design a protected areas metadata profile and data model (see section 8) which will be used to propose a standardised method of cataloguing and storing geographic data. In order to produce a single coherent survey, each section of the questionnaire was then harmonised through intensive group discussion, a pilot survey, revisions, and consultation with other project partners.
6.1
Methodology for the survey analysis
Because the sample of questionnaires was not an exhaustive representation of the population of European stakeholders (in a statistical sense), it was not possible to make probabilistic inferences of our results beyond our chosen sample. This means that as result of the analysis it was not possible to perform most standard parametric tests, conduct assessments of statistical confidence of results and interpolate them to the broader population of stakeholders. However, because the addressees of the survey were carefully selected to represent some of the most important stakeholders within each of the countries surveyed we believe that even though the sample of stakeholders is far from complete it may nonetheless be considered sufficiently meaningful for an initial view and analysis of the European GI user community. For this reason the patterns revealed are very useful as a broad indication of stakeholder needs. Most analysis consisted of comparison of percentages of stakeholder choices, for example, between the infrastructures used or needed, hardware, and software or data categories. Regarding the analysis of user needs (see section 6.2) we sought to test if differences observed between types of stakeholders were significant. Because of limitations in the data the significance cannot be interpolated outside the sample. For this reason the non-parametric statistic Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used. With regards to the analysis of the responses for the Data Requirements section (see section 6.3) the nature of the questions and the sample size necessitated a simple approach to the analysis. The results of this section were entered 1 The detailed reports from the questionnaire are available on the Nature-GIS web site, http://www.gisig.it/Nature-GIS/
53
54
Accessing user needs, data and functional requirements
into a spreadsheet for numerical handling and visualisation of the data. Data for the responses to individual questions were summarised and then plotted in the form of bar charts, showing the percentage response for each category of each question. This facilitated visual comparison of the responses for each category. The percentage values were subsequently used as the basis for interpretation and reporting. For the analysis of the Functional Requirements section (see section 6.4) the statistical analysis focused on “Key Questions” and on “Key Stakeholders”, in particular those who are in charge of managing the protected areas. Detailed analysis of the questionnaire results was done section by section but also question by question. The analysis was also conducted through : • the selection of key questions/answer showing common uses and needs or differences between categories of stakeholders (by type of organisation, level of (technical) experience, scale of work, countries . . . ); • cross referencing of specific questions between the different parts of the questionnaire to verify (or not) particular results, to reveal trends and contradictions, and to reinforce results in particular on practical needs; • analysis of the written comments in the questionnaire that should reveal some interesting points with regard to National Contexts. This has revealed expected scenarios as well as some new ones and has allowed us to prepare a definition for, and the targeting of, potential NatureGIS services. Last but not least, the partners have also been attentive to the few contradictions between answers and questions.
6.2
User needs assessment
The main purpose of the User Needs Assessment section of the questionnaire was to identify stakeholders involved in protected areas management in Europe (individuals and organisations) and to gather information about their organisational structure, resources (including computer hardware and software), and the types of data and information that they already have and use, as well as their future requirements. This helped to reveal the different types of work that stakeholders are involved in, the different types of geographic data and information that they use and require, as well as how they currently use it. Such contextual data is important in helping to determine how a network like Nature-GIS can successfully support a wide range of different users.
6.2.1
Description of stakeholders
The questionnaire results provide an indication of the types of people involved in protected areas management in Europe, as well as their needs. In general, the majority of respondents work for governmental organisations (55.5%) and have technical jobs. A significant number also work in academia (25.9%) and have jobs in research and education. Other types of organisations include commercial (8.3%), non-governmental (7.3%) and others (3%). As might be expected, nature conservation and environmental protection are the main areas of interest,
6.2 User needs assessment
Figure 6.2: The respondents were asked about the two main areas of expertise of their organisation. The chart gives an overall picture of the hierarchy of expertise by combining all first and second choices together. although research and education also rank highly. The primary area of expertise within organisations is research and administration, with technical support and education following closely. Interestingly, planning is not well represented, although this may well be because stakeholders working in local management and planning did not respond to the questionnaire (fig. 6.2). On the other hand this may mean that GIS are not sufficiently used in planning activities as opposed to management and research areas. This could imply a limited presence of planning experts within the GIS user community. Many stakeholders already use a wide range of information for protected areas management, including land use, habitats, species and genes. Unsurprisingly, stakeholders who collect and use certain types of data and information also have a perceived need for more information in the same categories, but appeared not to have a similar need for information that they were not already collecting and using. This might be because of the remit of their organisation (i.e. only certain categories of information are needed for their work), or because they are unaware of other information categories or have been unable to access them in the past. To this end part of the aim of Nature-GIS is to make datasets more easily accessible and therefore increase user awareness of what is available to them.
6.2.2
Information requirements
User needs were also assessed with regard to information technology (hardware and software) that stakeholders use and require for protected areas management. Nature-GIS aims to increase awareness of the use of GI and GIS for protected areas management, and it is therefore important to understand if stakeholders have the resources needed to use GI and GIS. A large percentage of stakeholders
55
56
Accessing user needs, data and functional requirements
Table 6.1: Summary of the main tasks performed using GIS and future intentions of use. The results suggest that there is shift from using GIS as a descriptive analytical tool towards a GIS as predictive tool with greater impact on public service management Main GIS Use Map Production Data Analysis Planning/Management Visualisation Data Storage Decision Making Monitoring Modelling Educational Public Services Registration
% 14.8 12.5 11.8 11.1 11.0 9.4 9.0 6.4 5.5 4.2 3.9
Future GIS Use Modelling Monitoring Public Services Data Analysis Planning/Management Educational Data Storage Decision Making Registration Visualisation Map Production
% 19.1 15.3 11.5 10.2 8.9 8.3 7.6 7.6 4.5 3.2 2.5
do use GIS, and slightly fewer use digital image processing software for the analysis of remotely sensed imagery. At present, GIS is mainly used to create and display maps. However, many users expressed an interest in using GIS for modelling applications in the future as illustrated in table 6.1 and similarly the need for further GIS training was expressed. Another important aspect of the Nature-GIS project is the development of a demonstration web-based, distributed geographic information system to enable data search, access, on-line retrieval and sharing between users. Stakeholders were therefore asked if they already use or intend to use Internet mapping tools such as web mapping servers (see section 12.2.1 for details). Although current use is limited, there is an increasing interest in using this software technology in the future. This highlights the importance of Nature-GIS providing guidelines for storing data for protected areas (data model), cataloguing data (metadata) and delivering data on the Internet through standardised interfaces (for example Open Geospatial Consortium web map and web feature servers see sections 12.2.1 and 12.2.2). Digital image processing systems can now often handle both raster and vector geographic data. Although covered by the questions, stakeholders are probably far less familiar with digital image processing than geographic information systems both in terms of their knowledge of the subject, its functionality and the operation and use of the software. Likewise, some GIS software now includes digital image processing.
6.2.3
User scenarios
Finally, the user needs section of the questionnaire suggested some typical user scenarios which provide a meaningful frame to understand the context of GIS use and of the stakeholders in nature protection. In investigating Nature-GIS scenarios, we considered the GIS users and other stakeholders who somehow influence or are affected by GIS, as well as their related “workflows”, i.e. the
6.2 User needs assessment
interaction and information exchange among users and more generally among all the contributing stakeholders. In such a process, and in order to identify different Nature-GIS scenarios, it was necessary to gather different user requirements as well as to analyse the different contexts-of-use and workflows. A screening of these elements allowed in fact to identify those which are best suited for the analysis of user cases in the Nature-GIS domain. To characterise a scenario the following elements have been identified: • the application area context; • the people (stakeholders) involved in the GIS process; • the end-users together with their skill and expertise; • the environment where the activity is carried out; • the objective and the tasks; • the interaction context. The Nature-GIS reference context and workflow in which the various stakeholders are operating as part of a mosaic can be visualised according to a simplified scheme as depicted in figure 6.3. The survey has confirmed that different types of stakeholders play a role in nature conservation at different levels, i.e. at European, national, regional or at natural park level. Different scenarios can then be envisaged, and some typical Nature-GIS scenarios resulting from the survey analysis are described below.
57
58
Accessing user needs, data and functional requirements
Figure 6.3: Scheme of workflow.
6.2 User needs assessment
Scenario no. 1: Regional Parks GIS Application area • management (use of geographic information by planners and officers); • promotion (access to geographic information by citizens). Stakeholders 1. professional users (officers) of different levels, mutually exchanging information; 2. final users (citizens, tourist) looking for browsing tourism information. Objective To embed geographic information in a seamless flow that gathers information from all available sources and exploits it for planning, management and promotion. The main tasks are: 1. creating plans and managing the park; 2. “funny” tasks: to exploit at the best the park and enjoy its “offer of nature”. Workflow Various levels of planning and management are present in Regional Parks, where a local actor (the Park management and staff) has to produce and manage geographic information that is complementary to other geographic information produced at different level. That implies a continuous exchange of data and information (be it maps or other geographic information) that from the producer who has originated it must be delivered to other bodies both as reference for other information to be produced and for check and validation/approval of plans). It is a bi-directional flow.
59
60
Accessing user needs, data and functional requirements
Scenario no. 2: Large infrastructure planning project in trans-national high environmental value zone GIS Application area • planning (short/medium term), in relation with a large project with great economical stakes. Trans-national information exchanges for a global view of the relationship between the project and environmental stakes in general, and protected areas in particular. • information and transparency: informing the citizen about possible environmental impact of the project. Stakeholders 1. direct actors of the project (decision makers, technical organizers, etc.): mainly high level officers or decision makers requiring a global (transnational) view of the project and of the environmental stakes. Possibly used by operational technical staff for trans-national geographic data exchange; 2. environmental local actors (park officers, Natura 2000 local operators, etc.) and local decision makers: to favour negotiation on good basis with the direct actors of the project, and improve management decisions to face the possible environmental impact of the project. Also to better coordinate these decisions between the different protected areas, including between trans-national protected areas; 3. the local and other citizens who will benefit by the project: to obtain information about the possible global environmental impact of the project and the different measures that have been taken to minimize this impact. The aim is to make the project well accepted. Objective The main objective is to gather on the same node geographical information, coming from different data bases, produced by services from two or more different countries, having different data models and projected in different projection systems. Then the aim is to create one unique view of the whole trans-national area concerned by the project, where protected areas and other environmentally sensitive areas appear together with new installations and infrastructures. This view should allow the different stakeholders to make a global and qualitative assessment of the possible environmental impact of the project. Other reference geographic data are also displayed to assess possible indirect environmental impacts: for example, the existing road network will provide information of the possible environmental impact of traffic increase.
6.2 User needs assessment
Workflow The main workflow is trans-national (i.e. between the two countries concerned by a project) but at a regional level (it should be called a transregional flow, since the two regions are in different countries). Of course, data exchange between European or national level and regional level was previously necessary, and concern notably reference data, protected areas geographic information, etc. Another important aspect of the workflow is the interaction between the project actors and local environmental managers in general and protected area managers in particular. This interaction consists in data exchange but also in a discussion/negotiation process, possibly assisted by interoperable GIS. Finally, the information flow between the project and the citizen, but also between local decision makers and the citizen is a key flow of this scenario.
Scenario no. 3: Management or direction of protected areas at national level GIS Application area • GI management—this is done in general management and direction (i.e. either in direct management of protected areas by national bodies or in national direction of regional and local management) and implies the use of geographic information by national officers who exchange information with the other levels of administration; • GI dissemination—this is done when disseminating information to final users looking for information on protected areas. Stakeholders • officers at national level i) for the general planning and management of protected areas, ii) for reporting to the European Union and iii) for exchange with the other levels of administration; • producers and consumers of GI for exploitation of the environmental and tourism assets of protected areas Objective 1. to create and provide proper structured information on localisation, characterisation and governing rules for different kinds of protected areas at national level. Population and maintenance of the associated databases (especially description of the protected area and the reason of protection); 2. to shape the information in such a way to make it available and interesting for the territorial “final users” (citizens, tourists).
61
62
Accessing user needs, data and functional requirements
Workflow It should be a bi-directional flow of information so that anybody creates the information for which is in charge and receives it back enriched by other components. There is also a workflow directed to the external world.
Scenario no. 4: Handle Complaints on protected areas GIS Application area Management (use of geographic information by planners and officers) Stakeholders Services of the European Commission and in particular the Directorate General of Environment. Objective To provide high quality (distributed) geographic data for example, administrative boundaries, road network, urban settlements, land cover, DTM, industrial sites, Natura 2000 boundaries, Life Project location etc. to facilitate the handling of complaints. The main tasks include: 1. localise new or existing complaints related to protected areas; 2. check if a new complaint relates already to an existing complaint; 3. check for nearby Natura 2000 areas; 4. assemble report (map, list of related complaints, information on the complaint, list of involved protected areas) as input for the decision makers. Workflow Directorate General of Environment (DG ENV) receives formal complaints related to any part of the EU territory (about 800 complaints handled in 1999). These requests may come from citizens (as complains or petitions), or from questions raised in the European Parliament. An incoming request is registered and once registered it is a statutory requirement to process it. The request is then allocated to an appropriate DG ENV desk officer. The desk officer determines the geographic location to which the complaint refers, and will cross-reference in order to identify whether any Natura 2000 sites and/or LIFE projects are present in the same location. In affirmative case, the desk officer needs to retrieve all available information including geographic information about the areas concerned and evaluate the relevance of the complaint. Furthermore, the availability of information about sites and projects that are operational in the surrounding area may be of key importance to correctly handle the complaint in question.
6.3 Data requirements
Example Development of an area, famous for its bird species and natural habitats as a tourist centre. To be able to develop tourism in the region, the local authorities wanted to build new road infrastructures besides the already existing ones. An extract of a complaint towards the Commission follows: “. . . the touristic development which threatens to degrade finally the mountain region of the area X. More precisely it concerns a road construction aiming at connecting the municipality of A and the municipality of B cutting into pieces the mountain chain and a landscape of an extraordinary beauty that ˙ until now remained intact . . . Already today, a road network is in place in the area.” As can be seen from this extract, the complaint refers specifically to spatial data, including topography (altitude and slope), road infrastructure, planning, zoning, place names, etc. Information available at EU scale is useful to situate the problem, but not detailed enough to verify the correctness of the elements as stated in the complaint. Desk officers need to be able to map this information in a more flexible way: mountain and altitude data, local roads,under construction or planned roads, vegetation and landscape data, but also tourist sites (in the form of points of interest ), administrative data such as regions and municipalities. The data need to be visualised and queried, while it should be possible to edit or add data. The latter could be done by integrating data coming from the Member State or by interpreting documents (indication of a new local road). Also, from this example it becomes clear that data at scales from 1/250.000 to 1/100.000 should be collected, at least for the areas concerned.
6.3
Data requirements
The data requirements section of the questionnaire was developed to gather information about the types of data that stakeholder organisations actually collect, use and need for protected areas management (as opposed to categories of information discussed in user perceived needs). It also asked questions about data management, including cataloguing (metadata) and storage (data models). This information was required in order to help develop the data policy guidelines and to specify a data model standard and metadata profile for protected areas data. Additionally, this section collected information about stakeholders data holdings (the types of data that they hold and in what format) to help build a data catalogue and to also help specify the types of features that should be included in the data model. Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDIs) were a further important consideration as they define how spatial data can be more effectively shared and used. NatureGIS is a demonstration project for the INSPIRE (Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe) initiative, and it is therefore useful if stakeholders already follow either a regional, national or international spatial data framework in the construction, storage and maintenance of their data. A few results from the questionnaire are worthy of note with respect to the data requirements and policy:
63
64
Accessing user needs, data and functional requirements
Figure 6.4: Survey results on data access. • much of the data about protected areas are collected and stored in a digital format and is also spatial in nature. Data are generally stored in well known formats (for example, ESRI Shapefiles for vector data and GeoTiff for raster data); • a large percentage of respondents stated that they managed their data, but it is not clear from the questionnaire how this is done; • access to data is often restricted to some people and organisations (see fig. 6.4). However, where access is available it is usually free or for cost recovery; • data is generally provided to users on CD, hardcopy or email (fig. 6.5). Data download or viewing via the Internet is less common; • data is not, on the whole, catalogued, and recognised metadata standards are not well used. The survey results show that where metadata are used, the Dublin Core standard is most popular, followed by the US FGDC, the European CEN/TC287 and lastly the ISO 19115. Other country specific standards are also mentioned. As a result of the above the aim of Nature-GIS to promote a data model, a metadata profile and to demonstrate Internet access to geographic data is vital.
6.3.1
Data model
The information collected about the types of datasets that stakeholders already hold and use provided the basis to help develop a feature list of the data themes that should be specified within the Nature-GIS protected areas database. In addition to the questionnaire results and for completeness, the feature list was also developed by taking into account similar data models for example from the
6.3 Data requirements
Figure 6.5: Survey result of the format, medium or method by which data is delivered to the user. bio-diversity and marine environment thematic areas. This was done largely in order to avoid duplication of work or re-inventing the wheel. The themes are grouped together under the following headings: • Base Map Themes - reference layers that provide a foundation for other layers and that are frequently needed by a large number of users; These may include orthorectified imagery and digital elevation maps. • Governmental/Service and Administrative Districts/Areas - Layers that represent boundaries of governmental jurisdictions (at different levels), areas designated for administration by agencies or organisations, political districts associated with elections. Examples of these include statistical districts, local administrative districts etc. • Utility and Infrastructure - Layers that deal with man-made facilities, including utilities (transmission lines, telecommunications, water supply), transport (roads, railways, airports), buildings; • Emergency Planning and Management - Layers that are necessary for hazard management and emergency planning and response; • Natural Resources and Physical Landscape - Layers that delineate and characterise land, air, water, and biological features and areas. These include land use, land cover maps, hydrological data, coastlines, watersheds, habitats, species, etc. • Property-Related - Data representing land ownership and rights; • Tourism/Leisure/Socioeconomic - Data themes dealing with tourism and leisure facilities.
65
66
Accessing user needs, data and functional requirements
6.3.2
Metadata profile
Metadata is structured information and documentation, which makes data understandable and shareable for users over time. As can be seen from the questionnaire results, 34% of respondents to the questionnaire were found to store metadata. Only a relatively small number of the respondents (25%) had any knowledge of metadata standards, as revealed by their awareness of the main standards currently in use (ISO19115; Dublin Core, FGDC, CEN TC287, and some national metadata standards). Where the term metadata was acknowledged by the respondent then it was found that 56% of stakeholders stored their metadata in a simple way using database software. Data is at the heart of any GIS application. Therefore, a detailed knowledge about the data sources, the method of collection, capture, scale and sampling strategy, is fundamental to any application, especially if the data are to be used in any analysis, modelling or simulation studies. Metadata provide a structured way to document such information. The use of metadata to describe and catalogue spatial datasets for protected areas appears to be quite weak. This demonstrates that a strong effort is required towards this direction since metadata is vitally important both for data producers and users: A metadata service enables data producers to document and market their data sets and data users to identify data sets that are relevant to their needs, and assess their fitness for purpose. The INSPIRE initiative recommends the use of ISO 19115 standard for metadata [9]. Accordingly, the Nature-GIS project is proposing a profile (or subset) of ISO 19115 for protected areas metadata (see chapter 9 for details). Other profiles exist, including one developed by the European Environment Agency (EEA)2 .
6.3.3
Recommendations
From the results of this section of the questionnaire, it was possible to define the most important components of a data policy for protected areas and NatureGIS. In effect, this is a list of data requirements that are needed and should be used by stakeholders working with spatial data sets. The requirements of the data policy are as follows: • Data producers should follow International standards and specifications and take account of the recommendations and criteria set out in the INSPIRE initiative; • Data should meet certain other standards that include: – Common Data Definitions: providing standard terms for data that is collected e.g. for habitats, where different countries may use different naming conventions; – Data Formats: common data formats e.g. ESRI Shapefile, should be used where possible to facilitate data exchange; – Geographic Data Exchange Standards: standards may be used to facilitate data sharing between organisations (although most data 2 Available
at http://dublincore.org/groups/environ/
6.4 Functional requirements
formats can now be used directly or imported into GIS software). The Geography Markup Language (GML), used to describe geographic objects in XML (eXtensible Markup Language), should be embraced and used where possible; – Data Model: data models provide the structure for geographic databases. To facilitate easier data access and data sharing, geographic data related to protected areas should be stored in a standardised way; – Change Management Procedures: procedures should be used to standardise the way in which changes to data sets are made, documented and reported; – Quality Assurance: there should be a statement of the quality of a dataset that describes it’s fitness for use; – Data Access: for data to be useful to outside organisations, it should be made accessible. Possible barriers to this include costs, data dissemination methods, confidentiality, copyright, licensing and metadata; – Costs: where possible, data should be made available at a reasonable cost or even for free; – Data dissemination: where possible, data must be disseminated for free or at reasonable cost, in standard formats that can be easily used, with license agreements that cover the use of the data and documentation covering data quality and assurance; – Confidentiality: some data may be confidential and individual data providers should determine confidentiality statements for their own datasets; – Copyright: copyrighted datasets must be accompanied by a license agreement that states any limitations to its use. The user of such data must be aware of the copyright and sign the license agreement; – Licensing: data licenses are a way of reducing the concerns that a data provider may have regarding what the data may be used for, as well as reassuring the user of its quality. Licenses should, where possible, be provided with datasets; – Metadata: metadata are vital in helping to provide access to geographic datasets and assess their fitness to purpose, by providing a tool that documents data and makes them searchable (through metadata catalogues). Metadata need to conform to standards to make them compatible.
6.4
Functional requirements
This final section of the questionnaire looks at the functional requirements of protected areas stakeholders, that is, what functions they use most in a geographic information system, and also to verify the needs in using or providing geographic information on the web and what may be the functional requirements of a Nature-GIS web based platform. Therefore this part of the questionnaire
67
68
Accessing user needs, data and functional requirements
provides useful input for the functionality of the prototype portal that is designed and implemented within the context of the project. It is very important when designing an information system to let the user specify the types of functions that they require, so that a system is developed that is useful to them based upon their requirements, and not those that the system developer perceives to be useful. However, it is also important to inform the potential user about the types of functions that can be built into the system that might be useful to them, but that they may not be aware of. This issue is reflected in the questionnaire where respondents were given a list of functions that could be made available and asked to specify which ones they would most like. Furthermore, functions were described as those that a user searching for data and using data would require, and also those that a data publisher would require to make their data accessible on the Internet and through the protected areas network. From the questionnaire results it is evident that most users of GIS are familiar with the standard GIS functions available in desktop GIS software. These include: • overlaying themes; • searching by coordinates; • using measurement tools; • creating and editing legends; • geo-processing (dissolving boundaries and clipping themes); • selecting features; • grid functions; • topology; • editing; From the questionnaire analysis it is apparent that geographic information on-line services should include facilities that allow accessing and processing of data at a requested scale, projection, data format, geographic area etc. They should also provide discovery services, data access, geo-processing services (coordinate transformations, border matching etc.), supporting services, (helpHotline, basic information, translations capabilities, . . . ). The basic functionality based on the current requirements can be broken down into four main groups in order of importance: 1. Discovery and access functions. Geographic information search discovery and access tools, managed through common rules metadata and interoperability. • provision of a data catalogue (indexes and keywords); • multi-criteria search (based on location, scale, vector or raster maps, data provider name); • gazetteer search;
6.4 Functional requirements
• preview search results. 2. Interrogate-Manipulate functions, for geographic data mapping and analysis. These functions should include: • • • • • • •
view layers; pan and zoom functions; map overview; interrogate and identify objects (polygons, lines or points); overlay functions for thematic analysis; statistical functions (derive statistics); modelling and monitoring capabilities.
3. Producing and saving outputs. Expected outputs are cartographic with quality prints medium range scale maps. • • • • • • • • •
creating legends; rendering; saving and restoring; reporting (converting to .pdf); downloading of maps or layers; adding scale bars and north arrows; styling (colours and symbols); annotation and editing capabilities; other formatting.
4. Exchanging data and networking • • • • • • •
6.4.1
messaging and mailing lists; discussion groups; news and opportunities (training, software, data); information tracking; glossary, lexicon and dictionary; helpdesk services; library.
Recommendations for a Nature-GIS portal
Based on the analysis of the functional requirements it is evident that NatureGIS should provide a powerful web based environment (the Nature-GIS Portal) and should allow users to easily search, discover and access metadata, data and data products, download/upload items including metadata records. It should provide the Protected areas Community with registration services, mapping services and in the future with statistical and modelling applications under a common reference system. Technologies used should comply with International standards and specifications and also with the recommendations from the INSPIRE initiative. The following table summarises the main functionalities that are recommended to be implemented within the Nature-GIS portal:
69
70
Accessing user needs, data and functional requirements
Functionality Language System Access
Data Search
Catalogue service
Data Access
Data Storage Tasks
Outputs Basic functionalities
Additional functionalities
6.5
Comment Unique language: English; otherwise National language. Web access controlled by registration with login/password or with double choice (free/registration) with different data sets provided for each choice. Preferred data search are through thematic indexes, geographic area and keywords. Browse data catalogue by categories and with multi-criteria search. A catalogue service or directory containing metadata is necessary to facilitate the discovery, navigation and the extraction of data and layers from decentralised servers. The Nature-GIS portal should also provide the community with access to reference datasets which are not only on a single central database. Possibility to locally download of data. Maps of protected areas, sites management, specific naturalistic information. Connection to server, overlay data and create maps with legend, navigate and interrogate layers, save status of work, produce outputs. Maps at intermediate scale (1:10.000-50.000, best choice 1:25.000) in high quality print. Overlay, search by coordinates, measurement tools, legend editor, geo-processing, spatial analysis (geolocation, DEM, buffering, overlay, interpolation, volume calculation, geo-coding). Gazetteer, overview maps, add cartographic elements; also edit features, 3D view.
Summary and conclusions
Many different individuals and organisations are involved in the management of protected areas. These ‘stakeholders’ all potentially have different needs, data and information requirements and uses for GIS, depending upon the aspect of protected areas management that they are involved in. The aim of the NatureGIS questionnaire was to find out what these requirements are, and use the results to help develop a Nature-GIS network and build a demonstration online GIS for protected areas data. The ‘User Needs’ section of the questionnaire has demonstrated that there is a large user community involved in protected areas work in the EU and Europe at large, with common goals of nature protection, conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. All of these countries are implementing international and national legislation for protected areas in different ways, and many are doing so with the help of GI and GIS. Some stakeholders have better resources than others (in terms of facilities, hardware, software, personnel) and there are different levels of expertise between stakeholders in different sectors of protected areas
6.5 Summary and conclusions
management. There is therefore a requirement for a thematic network such as Nature-GIS where ideas can be shared and support mechanisms instigated. Protected areas managers need GI to help them make day-to-day decisions and to implement legislation. To facilitate cooperation between stakeholders involved in protected areas management at regional, national and international levels, geographic data needs to be made more accessible and usable. The ‘Data Requirements’ section of the questionnaire has been used to develop a data policy that suggests the ways in which data should be collected, stored, managed and catalogued to enable greater data sharing. Specifically, these requirements are addressed in the protected areas Data Model and Metadata profile. Finally, stakeholders need to be able to physically access and use GI in different ways. The ‘Functional Requirements’ section of the questionnaire gathered information about how stakeholders currently use GI within a GIS and the results have been used to specify a list of functions that should be built into the Nature-GIS demonstration on-line geographic information services. Essentially this is an Internet geographic information portal providing access to a network of distributed databases. Data providers are able to connect their own databases to the network. Users are able to search a metadata catalogue for datasets meeting their search criteria, view that data, integrate it with other data sets or map services, and create maps for reports.
71
Nature GIS Survey Questionnaire
50
Chapter 6
Accessing user needs, data and functional requirements The objectives of the Nature-GIS project as described in Part I are to improve access to harmonised information for the implementation of the EU nature protection and bio-diversity policy area; raise awareness regarding the use of geographic information and geographic information systems in the field of nature protection and support public access to data and information. To achieve these aims, Nature-GIS initiated a questionnaire which was sent to various stakeholders involved in protected areas management. The objectives of the survey were to: • understand the level of experience regarding geographic information for protected areas management (formats used, metadata management, data storage format, methodologies used, monitoring and updating requirements. . . ); • identify user and producer needs and priorities for geographic information with respect to their country or type of organisation; • identify the equipment (hardware and software) used and the technical needs as well as to understand their level of awareness towards the IT tools and their use/application, and to identify the use of the World Wide Web; • understand the constraints on the use of geographic information (updating of datasets, technical, and organisational constraints. . . ); To cover a broad spectrum of information users and providers, a typology of stakeholders was devised to include people from academia, government, commercial and other non-governmental organisations (figure 6.1). Overall, 320 questionnaires were correctly filled in. The questionnaire was divided up into three parts relating to: • User needs: defining the user and organisation, their resources and resource requirements, and their information needs; • Data requirements: understanding the types of data and information an organisation holds and how they currently manage it;
52
Accessing user needs, data and functional requirements
Figure 6.1: Nature-GIS typology of stakeholders identified for the questionnaire.
6.1 Methodology for the survey analysis
• Functional requirements: understanding and defining what stakeholders want to be able to do with geographic data and information (for example, in a Geographic Information System (GIS) environment). This list was produced by extensive consultation with the project partners, the European Topic Centre for Nature Conservation (ETCNC) in Paris, the European Environment Agency and its EIONET network, the Cambridge-Based United Nations WCMC (World Conservation Monitoring Centre), and other key European-based stakeholders. A contact was made with stakeholders both personally and by advertising the questionnaire in mailing lists. The stakeholders were allowed to fill the questionnaire on-line although Nature-GIS partners were also able to interview stakeholders using a paper-version of the questionnaire, which was eventually filled in on-line by partners. The results for each section of the questionnaire have been analysed and separate reports have been written explaining the findings in detail1 . The results have also been used to identify some typical user scenarios as well as help design a protected areas metadata profile and data model (see section 8) which will be used to propose a standardised method of cataloguing and storing geographic data. In order to produce a single coherent survey, each section of the questionnaire was then harmonised through intensive group discussion, a pilot survey, revisions, and consultation with other project partners.
6.1
Methodology for the survey analysis
Because the sample of questionnaires was not an exhaustive representation of the population of European stakeholders (in a statistical sense), it was not possible to make probabilistic inferences of our results beyond our chosen sample. This means that as result of the analysis it was not possible to perform most standard parametric tests, conduct assessments of statistical confidence of results and interpolate them to the broader population of stakeholders. However, because the addressees of the survey were carefully selected to represent some of the most important stakeholders within each of the countries surveyed we believe that even though the sample of stakeholders is far from complete it may nonetheless be considered sufficiently meaningful for an initial view and analysis of the European GI user community. For this reason the patterns revealed are very useful as a broad indication of stakeholder needs. Most analysis consisted of comparison of percentages of stakeholder choices, for example, between the infrastructures used or needed, hardware, and software or data categories. Regarding the analysis of user needs (see section 6.2) we sought to test if differences observed between types of stakeholders were significant. Because of limitations in the data the significance cannot be interpolated outside the sample. For this reason the non-parametric statistic Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used. With regards to the analysis of the responses for the Data Requirements section (see section 6.3) the nature of the questions and the sample size necessitated a simple approach to the analysis. The results of this section were entered 1 The detailed reports from the questionnaire are available on the Nature-GIS web site, http://www.gisig.it/Nature-GIS/
53
54
Accessing user needs, data and functional requirements
into a spreadsheet for numerical handling and visualisation of the data. Data for the responses to individual questions were summarised and then plotted in the form of bar charts, showing the percentage response for each category of each question. This facilitated visual comparison of the responses for each category. The percentage values were subsequently used as the basis for interpretation and reporting. For the analysis of the Functional Requirements section (see section 6.4) the statistical analysis focused on “Key Questions” and on “Key Stakeholders”, in particular those who are in charge of managing the protected areas. Detailed analysis of the questionnaire results was done section by section but also question by question. The analysis was also conducted through : • the selection of key questions/answer showing common uses and needs or differences between categories of stakeholders (by type of organisation, level of (technical) experience, scale of work, countries . . . ); • cross referencing of specific questions between the different parts of the questionnaire to verify (or not) particular results, to reveal trends and contradictions, and to reinforce results in particular on practical needs; • analysis of the written comments in the questionnaire that should reveal some interesting points with regard to National Contexts. This has revealed expected scenarios as well as some new ones and has allowed us to prepare a definition for, and the targeting of, potential NatureGIS services. Last but not least, the partners have also been attentive to the few contradictions between answers and questions.
6.2
User needs assessment
The main purpose of the User Needs Assessment section of the questionnaire was to identify stakeholders involved in protected areas management in Europe (individuals and organisations) and to gather information about their organisational structure, resources (including computer hardware and software), and the types of data and information that they already have and use, as well as their future requirements. This helped to reveal the different types of work that stakeholders are involved in, the different types of geographic data and information that they use and require, as well as how they currently use it. Such contextual data is important in helping to determine how a network like Nature-GIS can successfully support a wide range of different users.
6.2.1
Description of stakeholders
The questionnaire results provide an indication of the types of people involved in protected areas management in Europe, as well as their needs. In general, the majority of respondents work for governmental organisations (55.5%) and have technical jobs. A significant number also work in academia (25.9%) and have jobs in research and education. Other types of organisations include commercial (8.3%), non-governmental (7.3%) and others (3%). As might be expected, nature conservation and environmental protection are the main areas of interest,
6.2 User needs assessment
Figure 6.2: The respondents were asked about the two main areas of expertise of their organisation. The chart gives an overall picture of the hierarchy of expertise by combining all first and second choices together. although research and education also rank highly. The primary area of expertise within organisations is research and administration, with technical support and education following closely. Interestingly, planning is not well represented, although this may well be because stakeholders working in local management and planning did not respond to the questionnaire (fig. 6.2). On the other hand this may mean that GIS are not sufficiently used in planning activities as opposed to management and research areas. This could imply a limited presence of planning experts within the GIS user community. Many stakeholders already use a wide range of information for protected areas management, including land use, habitats, species and genes. Unsurprisingly, stakeholders who collect and use certain types of data and information also have a perceived need for more information in the same categories, but appeared not to have a similar need for information that they were not already collecting and using. This might be because of the remit of their organisation (i.e. only certain categories of information are needed for their work), or because they are unaware of other information categories or have been unable to access them in the past. To this end part of the aim of Nature-GIS is to make datasets more easily accessible and therefore increase user awareness of what is available to them.
6.2.2
Information requirements
User needs were also assessed with regard to information technology (hardware and software) that stakeholders use and require for protected areas management. Nature-GIS aims to increase awareness of the use of GI and GIS for protected areas management, and it is therefore important to understand if stakeholders have the resources needed to use GI and GIS. A large percentage of stakeholders
55
56
Accessing user needs, data and functional requirements
Table 6.1: Summary of the main tasks performed using GIS and future intentions of use. The results suggest that there is shift from using GIS as a descriptive analytical tool towards a GIS as predictive tool with greater impact on public service management Main GIS Use Map Production Data Analysis Planning/Management Visualisation Data Storage Decision Making Monitoring Modelling Educational Public Services Registration
% 14.8 12.5 11.8 11.1 11.0 9.4 9.0 6.4 5.5 4.2 3.9
Future GIS Use Modelling Monitoring Public Services Data Analysis Planning/Management Educational Data Storage Decision Making Registration Visualisation Map Production
% 19.1 15.3 11.5 10.2 8.9 8.3 7.6 7.6 4.5 3.2 2.5
do use GIS, and slightly fewer use digital image processing software for the analysis of remotely sensed imagery. At present, GIS is mainly used to create and display maps. However, many users expressed an interest in using GIS for modelling applications in the future as illustrated in table 6.1 and similarly the need for further GIS training was expressed. Another important aspect of the Nature-GIS project is the development of a demonstration web-based, distributed geographic information system to enable data search, access, on-line retrieval and sharing between users. Stakeholders were therefore asked if they already use or intend to use Internet mapping tools such as web mapping servers (see section 12.2.1 for details). Although current use is limited, there is an increasing interest in using this software technology in the future. This highlights the importance of Nature-GIS providing guidelines for storing data for protected areas (data model), cataloguing data (metadata) and delivering data on the Internet through standardised interfaces (for example Open Geospatial Consortium web map and web feature servers see sections 12.2.1 and 12.2.2). Digital image processing systems can now often handle both raster and vector geographic data. Although covered by the questions, stakeholders are probably far less familiar with digital image processing than geographic information systems both in terms of their knowledge of the subject, its functionality and the operation and use of the software. Likewise, some GIS software now includes digital image processing.
6.2.3
User scenarios
Finally, the user needs section of the questionnaire suggested some typical user scenarios which provide a meaningful frame to understand the context of GIS use and of the stakeholders in nature protection. In investigating Nature-GIS scenarios, we considered the GIS users and other stakeholders who somehow influence or are affected by GIS, as well as their related “workflows”, i.e. the
6.2 User needs assessment
interaction and information exchange among users and more generally among all the contributing stakeholders. In such a process, and in order to identify different Nature-GIS scenarios, it was necessary to gather different user requirements as well as to analyse the different contexts-of-use and workflows. A screening of these elements allowed in fact to identify those which are best suited for the analysis of user cases in the Nature-GIS domain. To characterise a scenario the following elements have been identified: • the application area context; • the people (stakeholders) involved in the GIS process; • the end-users together with their skill and expertise; • the environment where the activity is carried out; • the objective and the tasks; • the interaction context. The Nature-GIS reference context and workflow in which the various stakeholders are operating as part of a mosaic can be visualised according to a simplified scheme as depicted in figure 6.3. The survey has confirmed that different types of stakeholders play a role in nature conservation at different levels, i.e. at European, national, regional or at natural park level. Different scenarios can then be envisaged, and some typical Nature-GIS scenarios resulting from the survey analysis are described below.
57
58
Accessing user needs, data and functional requirements
Figure 6.3: Scheme of workflow.
6.2 User needs assessment
Scenario no. 1: Regional Parks GIS Application area • management (use of geographic information by planners and officers); • promotion (access to geographic information by citizens). Stakeholders 1. professional users (officers) of different levels, mutually exchanging information; 2. final users (citizens, tourist) looking for browsing tourism information. Objective To embed geographic information in a seamless flow that gathers information from all available sources and exploits it for planning, management and promotion. The main tasks are: 1. creating plans and managing the park; 2. “funny” tasks: to exploit at the best the park and enjoy its “offer of nature”. Workflow Various levels of planning and management are present in Regional Parks, where a local actor (the Park management and staff) has to produce and manage geographic information that is complementary to other geographic information produced at different level. That implies a continuous exchange of data and information (be it maps or other geographic information) that from the producer who has originated it must be delivered to other bodies both as reference for other information to be produced and for check and validation/approval of plans). It is a bi-directional flow.
59
60
Accessing user needs, data and functional requirements
Scenario no. 2: Large infrastructure planning project in trans-national high environmental value zone GIS Application area • planning (short/medium term), in relation with a large project with great economical stakes. Trans-national information exchanges for a global view of the relationship between the project and environmental stakes in general, and protected areas in particular. • information and transparency: informing the citizen about possible environmental impact of the project. Stakeholders 1. direct actors of the project (decision makers, technical organizers, etc.): mainly high level officers or decision makers requiring a global (transnational) view of the project and of the environmental stakes. Possibly used by operational technical staff for trans-national geographic data exchange; 2. environmental local actors (park officers, Natura 2000 local operators, etc.) and local decision makers: to favour negotiation on good basis with the direct actors of the project, and improve management decisions to face the possible environmental impact of the project. Also to better coordinate these decisions between the different protected areas, including between trans-national protected areas; 3. the local and other citizens who will benefit by the project: to obtain information about the possible global environmental impact of the project and the different measures that have been taken to minimize this impact. The aim is to make the project well accepted. Objective The main objective is to gather on the same node geographical information, coming from different data bases, produced by services from two or more different countries, having different data models and projected in different projection systems. Then the aim is to create one unique view of the whole trans-national area concerned by the project, where protected areas and other environmentally sensitive areas appear together with new installations and infrastructures. This view should allow the different stakeholders to make a global and qualitative assessment of the possible environmental impact of the project. Other reference geographic data are also displayed to assess possible indirect environmental impacts: for example, the existing road network will provide information of the possible environmental impact of traffic increase.
6.2 User needs assessment
Workflow The main workflow is trans-national (i.e. between the two countries concerned by a project) but at a regional level (it should be called a transregional flow, since the two regions are in different countries). Of course, data exchange between European or national level and regional level was previously necessary, and concern notably reference data, protected areas geographic information, etc. Another important aspect of the workflow is the interaction between the project actors and local environmental managers in general and protected area managers in particular. This interaction consists in data exchange but also in a discussion/negotiation process, possibly assisted by interoperable GIS. Finally, the information flow between the project and the citizen, but also between local decision makers and the citizen is a key flow of this scenario.
Scenario no. 3: Management or direction of protected areas at national level GIS Application area • GI management—this is done in general management and direction (i.e. either in direct management of protected areas by national bodies or in national direction of regional and local management) and implies the use of geographic information by national officers who exchange information with the other levels of administration; • GI dissemination—this is done when disseminating information to final users looking for information on protected areas. Stakeholders • officers at national level i) for the general planning and management of protected areas, ii) for reporting to the European Union and iii) for exchange with the other levels of administration; • producers and consumers of GI for exploitation of the environmental and tourism assets of protected areas Objective 1. to create and provide proper structured information on localisation, characterisation and governing rules for different kinds of protected areas at national level. Population and maintenance of the associated databases (especially description of the protected area and the reason of protection); 2. to shape the information in such a way to make it available and interesting for the territorial “final users” (citizens, tourists).
61
62
Accessing user needs, data and functional requirements
Workflow It should be a bi-directional flow of information so that anybody creates the information for which is in charge and receives it back enriched by other components. There is also a workflow directed to the external world.
Scenario no. 4: Handle Complaints on protected areas GIS Application area Management (use of geographic information by planners and officers) Stakeholders Services of the European Commission and in particular the Directorate General of Environment. Objective To provide high quality (distributed) geographic data for example, administrative boundaries, road network, urban settlements, land cover, DTM, industrial sites, Natura 2000 boundaries, Life Project location etc. to facilitate the handling of complaints. The main tasks include: 1. localise new or existing complaints related to protected areas; 2. check if a new complaint relates already to an existing complaint; 3. check for nearby Natura 2000 areas; 4. assemble report (map, list of related complaints, information on the complaint, list of involved protected areas) as input for the decision makers. Workflow Directorate General of Environment (DG ENV) receives formal complaints related to any part of the EU territory (about 800 complaints handled in 1999). These requests may come from citizens (as complains or petitions), or from questions raised in the European Parliament. An incoming request is registered and once registered it is a statutory requirement to process it. The request is then allocated to an appropriate DG ENV desk officer. The desk officer determines the geographic location to which the complaint refers, and will cross-reference in order to identify whether any Natura 2000 sites and/or LIFE projects are present in the same location. In affirmative case, the desk officer needs to retrieve all available information including geographic information about the areas concerned and evaluate the relevance of the complaint. Furthermore, the availability of information about sites and projects that are operational in the surrounding area may be of key importance to correctly handle the complaint in question.
6.3 Data requirements
Example Development of an area, famous for its bird species and natural habitats as a tourist centre. To be able to develop tourism in the region, the local authorities wanted to build new road infrastructures besides the already existing ones. An extract of a complaint towards the Commission follows: “. . . the touristic development which threatens to degrade finally the mountain region of the area X. More precisely it concerns a road construction aiming at connecting the municipality of A and the municipality of B cutting into pieces the mountain chain and a landscape of an extraordinary beauty that ˙ until now remained intact . . . Already today, a road network is in place in the area.” As can be seen from this extract, the complaint refers specifically to spatial data, including topography (altitude and slope), road infrastructure, planning, zoning, place names, etc. Information available at EU scale is useful to situate the problem, but not detailed enough to verify the correctness of the elements as stated in the complaint. Desk officers need to be able to map this information in a more flexible way: mountain and altitude data, local roads,under construction or planned roads, vegetation and landscape data, but also tourist sites (in the form of points of interest ), administrative data such as regions and municipalities. The data need to be visualised and queried, while it should be possible to edit or add data. The latter could be done by integrating data coming from the Member State or by interpreting documents (indication of a new local road). Also, from this example it becomes clear that data at scales from 1/250.000 to 1/100.000 should be collected, at least for the areas concerned.
6.3
Data requirements
The data requirements section of the questionnaire was developed to gather information about the types of data that stakeholder organisations actually collect, use and need for protected areas management (as opposed to categories of information discussed in user perceived needs). It also asked questions about data management, including cataloguing (metadata) and storage (data models). This information was required in order to help develop the data policy guidelines and to specify a data model standard and metadata profile for protected areas data. Additionally, this section collected information about stakeholders data holdings (the types of data that they hold and in what format) to help build a data catalogue and to also help specify the types of features that should be included in the data model. Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDIs) were a further important consideration as they define how spatial data can be more effectively shared and used. NatureGIS is a demonstration project for the INSPIRE (Infrastructure for Spatial Information in Europe) initiative, and it is therefore useful if stakeholders already follow either a regional, national or international spatial data framework in the construction, storage and maintenance of their data. A few results from the questionnaire are worthy of note with respect to the data requirements and policy:
63
64
Accessing user needs, data and functional requirements
Figure 6.4: Survey results on data access. • much of the data about protected areas are collected and stored in a digital format and is also spatial in nature. Data are generally stored in well known formats (for example, ESRI Shapefiles for vector data and GeoTiff for raster data); • a large percentage of respondents stated that they managed their data, but it is not clear from the questionnaire how this is done; • access to data is often restricted to some people and organisations (see fig. 6.4). However, where access is available it is usually free or for cost recovery; • data is generally provided to users on CD, hardcopy or email (fig. 6.5). Data download or viewing via the Internet is less common; • data is not, on the whole, catalogued, and recognised metadata standards are not well used. The survey results show that where metadata are used, the Dublin Core standard is most popular, followed by the US FGDC, the European CEN/TC287 and lastly the ISO 19115. Other country specific standards are also mentioned. As a result of the above the aim of Nature-GIS to promote a data model, a metadata profile and to demonstrate Internet access to geographic data is vital.
6.3.1
Data model
The information collected about the types of datasets that stakeholders already hold and use provided the basis to help develop a feature list of the data themes that should be specified within the Nature-GIS protected areas database. In addition to the questionnaire results and for completeness, the feature list was also developed by taking into account similar data models for example from the
6.3 Data requirements
Figure 6.5: Survey result of the format, medium or method by which data is delivered to the user. bio-diversity and marine environment thematic areas. This was done largely in order to avoid duplication of work or re-inventing the wheel. The themes are grouped together under the following headings: • Base Map Themes - reference layers that provide a foundation for other layers and that are frequently needed by a large number of users; These may include orthorectified imagery and digital elevation maps. • Governmental/Service and Administrative Districts/Areas - Layers that represent boundaries of governmental jurisdictions (at different levels), areas designated for administration by agencies or organisations, political districts associated with elections. Examples of these include statistical districts, local administrative districts etc. • Utility and Infrastructure - Layers that deal with man-made facilities, including utilities (transmission lines, telecommunications, water supply), transport (roads, railways, airports), buildings; • Emergency Planning and Management - Layers that are necessary for hazard management and emergency planning and response; • Natural Resources and Physical Landscape - Layers that delineate and characterise land, air, water, and biological features and areas. These include land use, land cover maps, hydrological data, coastlines, watersheds, habitats, species, etc. • Property-Related - Data representing land ownership and rights; • Tourism/Leisure/Socioeconomic - Data themes dealing with tourism and leisure facilities.
65
66
Accessing user needs, data and functional requirements
6.3.2
Metadata profile
Metadata is structured information and documentation, which makes data understandable and shareable for users over time. As can be seen from the questionnaire results, 34% of respondents to the questionnaire were found to store metadata. Only a relatively small number of the respondents (25%) had any knowledge of metadata standards, as revealed by their awareness of the main standards currently in use (ISO19115; Dublin Core, FGDC, CEN TC287, and some national metadata standards). Where the term metadata was acknowledged by the respondent then it was found that 56% of stakeholders stored their metadata in a simple way using database software. Data is at the heart of any GIS application. Therefore, a detailed knowledge about the data sources, the method of collection, capture, scale and sampling strategy, is fundamental to any application, especially if the data are to be used in any analysis, modelling or simulation studies. Metadata provide a structured way to document such information. The use of metadata to describe and catalogue spatial datasets for protected areas appears to be quite weak. This demonstrates that a strong effort is required towards this direction since metadata is vitally important both for data producers and users: A metadata service enables data producers to document and market their data sets and data users to identify data sets that are relevant to their needs, and assess their fitness for purpose. The INSPIRE initiative recommends the use of ISO 19115 standard for metadata [9]. Accordingly, the Nature-GIS project is proposing a profile (or subset) of ISO 19115 for protected areas metadata (see chapter 9 for details). Other profiles exist, including one developed by the European Environment Agency (EEA)2 .
6.3.3
Recommendations
From the results of this section of the questionnaire, it was possible to define the most important components of a data policy for protected areas and NatureGIS. In effect, this is a list of data requirements that are needed and should be used by stakeholders working with spatial data sets. The requirements of the data policy are as follows: • Data producers should follow International standards and specifications and take account of the recommendations and criteria set out in the INSPIRE initiative; • Data should meet certain other standards that include: – Common Data Definitions: providing standard terms for data that is collected e.g. for habitats, where different countries may use different naming conventions; – Data Formats: common data formats e.g. ESRI Shapefile, should be used where possible to facilitate data exchange; – Geographic Data Exchange Standards: standards may be used to facilitate data sharing between organisations (although most data 2 Available
at http://dublincore.org/groups/environ/
6.4 Functional requirements
formats can now be used directly or imported into GIS software). The Geography Markup Language (GML), used to describe geographic objects in XML (eXtensible Markup Language), should be embraced and used where possible; – Data Model: data models provide the structure for geographic databases. To facilitate easier data access and data sharing, geographic data related to protected areas should be stored in a standardised way; – Change Management Procedures: procedures should be used to standardise the way in which changes to data sets are made, documented and reported; – Quality Assurance: there should be a statement of the quality of a dataset that describes it’s fitness for use; – Data Access: for data to be useful to outside organisations, it should be made accessible. Possible barriers to this include costs, data dissemination methods, confidentiality, copyright, licensing and metadata; – Costs: where possible, data should be made available at a reasonable cost or even for free; – Data dissemination: where possible, data must be disseminated for free or at reasonable cost, in standard formats that can be easily used, with license agreements that cover the use of the data and documentation covering data quality and assurance; – Confidentiality: some data may be confidential and individual data providers should determine confidentiality statements for their own datasets; – Copyright: copyrighted datasets must be accompanied by a license agreement that states any limitations to its use. The user of such data must be aware of the copyright and sign the license agreement; – Licensing: data licenses are a way of reducing the concerns that a data provider may have regarding what the data may be used for, as well as reassuring the user of its quality. Licenses should, where possible, be provided with datasets; – Metadata: metadata are vital in helping to provide access to geographic datasets and assess their fitness to purpose, by providing a tool that documents data and makes them searchable (through metadata catalogues). Metadata need to conform to standards to make them compatible.
6.4
Functional requirements
This final section of the questionnaire looks at the functional requirements of protected areas stakeholders, that is, what functions they use most in a geographic information system, and also to verify the needs in using or providing geographic information on the web and what may be the functional requirements of a Nature-GIS web based platform. Therefore this part of the questionnaire
67
68
Accessing user needs, data and functional requirements
provides useful input for the functionality of the prototype portal that is designed and implemented within the context of the project. It is very important when designing an information system to let the user specify the types of functions that they require, so that a system is developed that is useful to them based upon their requirements, and not those that the system developer perceives to be useful. However, it is also important to inform the potential user about the types of functions that can be built into the system that might be useful to them, but that they may not be aware of. This issue is reflected in the questionnaire where respondents were given a list of functions that could be made available and asked to specify which ones they would most like. Furthermore, functions were described as those that a user searching for data and using data would require, and also those that a data publisher would require to make their data accessible on the Internet and through the protected areas network. From the questionnaire results it is evident that most users of GIS are familiar with the standard GIS functions available in desktop GIS software. These include: • overlaying themes; • searching by coordinates; • using measurement tools; • creating and editing legends; • geo-processing (dissolving boundaries and clipping themes); • selecting features; • grid functions; • topology; • editing; From the questionnaire analysis it is apparent that geographic information on-line services should include facilities that allow accessing and processing of data at a requested scale, projection, data format, geographic area etc. They should also provide discovery services, data access, geo-processing services (coordinate transformations, border matching etc.), supporting services, (helpHotline, basic information, translations capabilities, . . . ). The basic functionality based on the current requirements can be broken down into four main groups in order of importance: 1. Discovery and access functions. Geographic information search discovery and access tools, managed through common rules metadata and interoperability. • provision of a data catalogue (indexes and keywords); • multi-criteria search (based on location, scale, vector or raster maps, data provider name); • gazetteer search;
6.4 Functional requirements
• preview search results. 2. Interrogate-Manipulate functions, for geographic data mapping and analysis. These functions should include: • • • • • • •
view layers; pan and zoom functions; map overview; interrogate and identify objects (polygons, lines or points); overlay functions for thematic analysis; statistical functions (derive statistics); modelling and monitoring capabilities.
3. Producing and saving outputs. Expected outputs are cartographic with quality prints medium range scale maps. • • • • • • • • •
creating legends; rendering; saving and restoring; reporting (converting to .pdf); downloading of maps or layers; adding scale bars and north arrows; styling (colours and symbols); annotation and editing capabilities; other formatting.
4. Exchanging data and networking • • • • • • •
6.4.1
messaging and mailing lists; discussion groups; news and opportunities (training, software, data); information tracking; glossary, lexicon and dictionary; helpdesk services; library.
Recommendations for a Nature-GIS portal
Based on the analysis of the functional requirements it is evident that NatureGIS should provide a powerful web based environment (the Nature-GIS Portal) and should allow users to easily search, discover and access metadata, data and data products, download/upload items including metadata records. It should provide the Protected areas Community with registration services, mapping services and in the future with statistical and modelling applications under a common reference system. Technologies used should comply with International standards and specifications and also with the recommendations from the INSPIRE initiative. The following table summarises the main functionalities that are recommended to be implemented within the Nature-GIS portal:
69
70
Accessing user needs, data and functional requirements
Functionality Language System Access
Data Search
Catalogue service
Data Access
Data Storage Tasks
Outputs Basic functionalities
Additional functionalities
6.5
Comment Unique language: English; otherwise National language. Web access controlled by registration with login/password or with double choice (free/registration) with different data sets provided for each choice. Preferred data search are through thematic indexes, geographic area and keywords. Browse data catalogue by categories and with multi-criteria search. A catalogue service or directory containing metadata is necessary to facilitate the discovery, navigation and the extraction of data and layers from decentralised servers. The Nature-GIS portal should also provide the community with access to reference datasets which are not only on a single central database. Possibility to locally download of data. Maps of protected areas, sites management, specific naturalistic information. Connection to server, overlay data and create maps with legend, navigate and interrogate layers, save status of work, produce outputs. Maps at intermediate scale (1:10.000-50.000, best choice 1:25.000) in high quality print. Overlay, search by coordinates, measurement tools, legend editor, geo-processing, spatial analysis (geolocation, DEM, buffering, overlay, interpolation, volume calculation, geo-coding). Gazetteer, overview maps, add cartographic elements; also edit features, 3D view.
Summary and conclusions
Many different individuals and organisations are involved in the management of protected areas. These ‘stakeholders’ all potentially have different needs, data and information requirements and uses for GIS, depending upon the aspect of protected areas management that they are involved in. The aim of the NatureGIS questionnaire was to find out what these requirements are, and use the results to help develop a Nature-GIS network and build a demonstration online GIS for protected areas data. The ‘User Needs’ section of the questionnaire has demonstrated that there is a large user community involved in protected areas work in the EU and Europe at large, with common goals of nature protection, conservation and sustainable use of natural resources. All of these countries are implementing international and national legislation for protected areas in different ways, and many are doing so with the help of GI and GIS. Some stakeholders have better resources than others (in terms of facilities, hardware, software, personnel) and there are different levels of expertise between stakeholders in different sectors of protected areas
6.5 Summary and conclusions
management. There is therefore a requirement for a thematic network such as Nature-GIS where ideas can be shared and support mechanisms instigated. Protected areas managers need GI to help them make day-to-day decisions and to implement legislation. To facilitate cooperation between stakeholders involved in protected areas management at regional, national and international levels, geographic data needs to be made more accessible and usable. The ‘Data Requirements’ section of the questionnaire has been used to develop a data policy that suggests the ways in which data should be collected, stored, managed and catalogued to enable greater data sharing. Specifically, these requirements are addressed in the protected areas Data Model and Metadata profile. Finally, stakeholders need to be able to physically access and use GI in different ways. The ‘Functional Requirements’ section of the questionnaire gathered information about how stakeholders currently use GI within a GIS and the results have been used to specify a list of functions that should be built into the Nature-GIS demonstration on-line geographic information services. Essentially this is an Internet geographic information portal providing access to a network of distributed databases. Data providers are able to connect their own databases to the network. Users are able to search a metadata catalogue for datasets meeting their search criteria, view that data, integrate it with other data sets or map services, and create maps for reports.
71
