 |
| Search all USDA |
 |
|---|
|
Internet-based GIS
D. Potential Barriers, Solutions, Cost Savings and Pitfalls to Expanded Use of WebGIS Section D.1 | Section D.2 | Section D.3 | Section D.4 For WebGIS to be successful and accepted in the agency, it has to perform well. This means that Web-based applications must run at a similar speed to desktop applications, and that reliability (the ability to access the site or application, and the capability of the site or application to remain running) must be as good as desktop applications. If Web-based applications do not work as well, then agency personnel and the public are not as likely to use them. A current example of this is the uploading of forest data to district databases. If the connection for uploading and downloading data is slow, then the transfer of data often does not happen, which breaks the data-sharing chain, and effectively outdates the master database. In the agency, applications are usually written for district personnel and applied at the local level. For the most part, district personnel do not want to spend a lot of time with an application, because the more time they use working with software is less time doing operational fieldwork. Therefore, the WebGIS applications that they use must be as fast and reliable as the equivalent desktop versions. There is also concern that if applications are run from a central location, the district personnel will lose the ability to run applications that are customized to their local area. D.1.2 Accessibility and Security Related to performance is accessibility. As noted in the Performance section, above, part of accessibility is the ability of the application to remain running, so that it is available when needed. However, accessibility also means the ability to access an application without being blocked by security measures. As Harder (1998) notes in Serving Maps on the Internet , "The value of GIS applications to solve problems is proportional to their accessibility." If applications are not available, they are not useful. Accessibility, to one extent or another, was an issue for nearly all respondents. No one interviewed downplayed security, but the current access and security protocols make it hard to send and receive data. Of course, some access issues stem from institutional concerns of maintaining a secure network while providing information to and receiving information from the public. These security concerns are not unfounded. For example, the aforementioned BLM ePlanning site was recently hacked. As a result of this security breach, new security protocols were put into place that are causing sporadic access to this WebGIS for external clients. Other access problems stem from the often remote location of Forest Service offices, and the sometimes equally remote location of the people who enjoy them. Some Forests that are at the "end of the line," figuratively speaking with respect to the Internet, have slow connection speeds, no connection, or their connection is sporadic and unreliable. Because " the value of GIS applications to solve problems is proportional to their accessibility," as stated earlier, the value of WebGIS is proportionally low for users with this level of Internet connectivity. Long-term access to WebGIS sites may also become a barrier, and long-term maintance of a WebGIS by the agency has yet to be tried. This would be important for any long-term project that utilizes WebGIS, like the NW Forest Plan long-term monitoring, which should last 10 years. It was generally recognized by the interviewees that the agency is slow to keep up with changes in technology, but it is yet to be seen if this will inhibit their ability to maintain access to WebGIS sites. This may become more of a concern if the downward trend in funding and staffing continues. Along with providing long-term access is the burden and challenge of keeping the site up-to-date with current information and links. Therefore, another barrier might be the commitment of keeping data and information updated and active over a long period of time. In addition to the technological aspects of access, there are also some perceived drawbacks to public access that may also impede the sharing of data. Some believe that it is unwise to distribute data to the public with no control over how it is being used. However, regardless of this viewpoint, if data can be obtained through the FOIA process, then the Forest Service has no choice but to provide the data. In fact, if the data can be obtained through the FOIA process, time and money could be saved by having it available on the Internet without the public having to request it, and without a Forest Service staff having to field and fill the request manually. D.1.3 Standardization, Protocols and Quality Assurance Some of the most significant barriers to effectively implementing WebGIS have to do with defining business practices for the development of Web-based applications, utilizing science in those applications, and providing the appropriate quality assurance, quality control and statisical evaluation of the data acquired and utilized. There has never been an articulated enterprise strategy, or a comprehensive approach to implementing these aspects of WebGIS, so projects have been developed ad hoc. However, the methodology to resolve these barriers is an objective in the EGIS Phase II Web-GIS implementation plan. The agency recognizes that it has a long way to go before it has consistant data that have been developed using standard protocols, and are consistent across large geographic areas. The current data sets are a patchwork of consistency and coverage, which drives the Forest Service to implement solutions in a piecemeal fashion. As a result, WebGIS technology does not get the attention it would if this barrier did not exist. Public input is seen as an important element to the future success of WebGIS in the Forest Service. However, implementation of data standards, data development protocols and QA are barriers to public inclusion. This is because the systems have not been developed, or have not been implemented, to control public data input and guarantee that it complies with established Forest Service GIS data protocols, standards, and levels of quality. Although advancements in technology have made WebGIS possible, technology advancements are also a barrier to its wider implementation. Furthermore, recent changes and moves within Information Technology offices and staff (e.g., personnel moves to Albuquerque and other locations) makes implementation of new technology that much more difficult. The rapid changes in technology are a concern to the Forest Service. Many are concerned that geospatial technology used to implement WebGIS in 2 to 3 years will be radically different than it is today. They are concerned that the effort and expense to build certain applications today, like a system to store all data for WebGIS applications, might be wasted because the system might have to be rebuilt in 2 to 3 years. This is why the Forest Service does prototypes with limited data, so that they can continue to keep abreast of the technology and so that they can demonstrate the capabilities of the technology to managers and leadership without wasting time and money. When their major software vendor, ESRI, recommends that they should not implement ArcGIS Server, technology that would add GIS editing capabilities over the Web until they have a good foundation in ArcIMS, the Forest Service is hesitant to implement the new technology as it is felt they do not have a complete foundation in ArcIMS. So, as others are developing editing capabilities over the Web, the Forest Service is falling further behind. Over the last 20 years, advances in technology have enabled the use of many very large geospatial data sets. A "large" data set 20 years ago meant a few megabytes, but today, processing data sets of several gigabytes is not uncommon. Consequently, Forest Service resource management efforts produce huge data sets, like elevation models, land cover, and sedimentation (Kearns et al. 2003), in addition to multi-scale spatial and temporal data. Using these huge data sets over the Internet can result in the need for extensive on-line storage and access capabilities. The numbers of these files and the speed at which they can be edited and distributed also necessitates the implementation of a Forest Service-wide content management system with version control. Access to the technology has also been a barrier. Historically, the GSTC was the only Forest Service group that could develop WebGIS sites. This is because the GSTC was finally allowed access to the technology after a long struggle with IRM. Because this technology also requires personnel specialization, access to the specialized technical people needed for developing WebGIS was also limited to the GSTC and not available at the local level. In addition, GSTC's development services needed to be paid with limited budgets, and the process to update the site with new data, once it was developed, was cumbersome and slow due to limited resources. The lag time between when new data was sent to the GSTC and when it was posted on Web was unacceptable to some. This was the case with the Region 4 ArcIMS pilot project, wherein the clients ended up not using it because data updates through the GSTC were too slow. Although the technology and the experience of the GSTC staff in implementing and updating WebGIS sites has helped to reduce or eliminate this problem, some staff perceive the update process as being too difficult and time consuming through the GSTC, so they may not initiate a WebGIS project. Since WebGIS technology is fairly new, its utility and benefits are not well understood by either Forest Service staff, high-level management, or the public. If Forest Service management does not understand the technology or the utility of this type of information, it will be hard to get financial support, and WebGIS will have a much harder time being universally accepted. One example of this was described by an interviewee, wherein they were trying for years to get the funding to update and manage a roads database, but with no success. Then, a WebGIS pilot was developed using the roads data set. Forest Service management were given a preview of the site and they quickly saw the utility of the technology. They also quickly saw how out-of-date and inaccurate the roads layer was, and immediately appropriated the funds to update the layer before it was distributed via the WebGIS. Many staff at the local level were not aware that WebGIS is being used. Apparently, there has not been enough outreach and communication on what WebGIS can do or how it has already been implemented. Before it is used in a mainstream way, more Forest Service management and staff need to know its potential, and when it should be used instead of, or in addition to, what they are using now. An aversion to high technology by some agency staff should be considered as a barrier to the use of WebGIS. Therefore, the agency should pay particular attention to educating these individuals in the benefits and use of WebGIS technology. WebGIS sites have to be easy to learn and understand, provide rapid feedback of information, and make their jobs easier. Perhaps if they knew how much more time they could spend in the forest because of WebGIS, they would use it more. Educating management is key to obtaining management backing and support. On a national basis, if Forest Service management was convinced that WebGIS was the best way to implement geospatial technology, funding would be made available and direction would be given. A good example of this was the roadless area review project 5 years ago. The Deputy Chief understood the benefit of this project, and so backed it with his support and funding. With WebGIS, there currently is not a national or regional project where the cost and the effort would justify doing something on that scale. See section C.2.6 for a discussion of possible ideas of how to overcome this barrier. Some interviewees felt that, even if they were given the technology and training to develop WebGIS sites, they do not have the personnel or funding to implement them. Manpower, money, and time are three barriers that came up repeatedly. Reduced staff, money, and time is probably the reason that WebGIS is not more commonly implemented, and is definitely a contributing factore to why advanced capabilities of analyzing (other than visual analysis) and editing data across the Internet have yet to be implemented. D.2 How Barriers to WebGIS can be Overcome To be accepted into the mainstream, WebGIS must perform as well as desktop GIS and be equally as reliable. Through their analysis of the Giant Sequoia National Monument's WebGIS, Evans et al. (2004) noted two elements that are key to establishing high performance online interactive maps. These included:
Through Tetra Tech's experience in developing ArcIMS sites, we have discovered that building the site as a "Lite" viewer program that is customizedto provide only the needed elements is essential to developing a high-performance site. If a fast Web site is desired, it is important to avoid using theOTB ArcIMS software. Also, it is important to make sure that the hardware is up to the task, with a fast, dedicated server that is loaded with at least 2 GB of random access memory (RAM). The appropriate hardware can be configured based upon how much traffic is expected and by how resource intensive the WebGIS applications are expected to be. In addition, the following considerations will help improve WebGIS performance:
The hosting site also needs to be very reliable. There are a number of steps that can be taken to help ensure that the WebGIS site is consistently up and running:
D.2.2 Accessibility and Security This includes exploring the institutional concerns of maintaining a secure network while providing information to and receiving information from the public. Many of the interviewees want the Forest Service to focus less on security and more on accessability. This might be easier said than done, since the Forest Service is a Federal Government agency , and as such, the target of malicious attacks. Some security concerns can be circumvented with a dedicated server for WebGIS that does not have the security precautions that the Forest Service network requires. This lets users interact with the system with more freedom, but the drawback is that it is more easily hacked. The BLM's centralized server was recently hacked, as an example, and they are still intermittently giving access to their Web sites as they struggle with new security precautions. There may be security issues with the data itself; however, most of the data are not sensitive and could easily be shared. Possibly the only data sources that should be handled cautiously are cultural resources, rare/threatened/endangered species, data concerned with national security, and data that could somehow jeopardize personal privacy. Other data sets can be requested through the FOIA process, and could be shared on the Internet so that valuable staff time is not expended gathering, processing and distributing FIOA requests. If data were to become more accessable to the public, then steps must be taken to ensure accountability of the users to maintain privacy. Possibly a Memorandum of Understanding, or similar document, could be used between the Forest Service and the public when distributing data to protect and maintain privacy. Concerns relating to long-term access to WebGIS sites may be resolved by engaging long-standing and stable private enterprises or academic communities during development of the WebGIS. These entities can provide many examples of long-term monitoring and the ability to maintain a life cycle of data over years, plus the hardware, software, and applications required to do so. D.2.3 Standardization, Protocols and Quality Assurance Tools could be built to display the status of mission critical data holdings, which would help to obtain support for working on standard data development. A focus placed on tools that support the development of standard data sets would, in turn, support standard display of data. This will unlock the data for use within WebGIS, which will make the data more useful for everyone. If the public is to help develop databases over the Internet, tools will need to be developed to facilitate public data input, and to guarantee that this input complies with established Forest Service GIS data protocols, standards, and levels of quality. In addition, possibly a data steward, be it human or computer, should be used as a QC step before data from the public can be added to enterprise data sets. To further ensure data quality, the types of data that are accepted from the public may also need to be restricted, and certain training classes will need to be completed before a public citizen can submit data to the Forest Service for inclusion in an enterprise database. There was a general concern expressed by some interviewees that technology will change faster than the agency can implement successful, long-term WebGIS solutions. One suggested solution is to keep researching and assessing new technology that may increase efficiency in the long run, and to not get stuck in a technology "rut." It was also suggested that the Forest Service not spend a lot of time and money pushing the leading edge as an organization, but letting Forest Service geospatial leadership, such as the regional GIS coordinators, and the GIS practitioners advance the technology by leveraging all of the available geospatial technology pieces available to them. The theory is that, by continuing to prototype and train and collaborate with other organizations, and personally push the technology - creating depth in the organization - eventually everyone in the organization will be brought to a higher level without it becoming an agency priority. For instance, the Forest Service did not have an agenda for transitioning to ArcSDE, but it evolved to ArcSDE over time. If the agency's technical level is high, it can overcome barriers as they arise. To allow geospatial leadership and practitioners to leverage the technology, it needs to be available for them to use. This would also help overcome the perception that WebGIS technology is not accessible. If the technology and training is made available locally, and WebGIS sites developed and maintained locally, the technology might be adopted by a wider user group and become more widely accepted as a viable solution. As an alternative, if more funding were made available for the GSTC to increase its throughput, then WebGIS sites could be developed faster, and maintained and updated quicker by the GSTC. This would dramatically reduce the call for the technology to be more localized, since much of this desire stems from the development and maintenance bottleneck at the GSTC. One way to help circumvent the bottleneck of updating numerous ArcIMS sites is to develop a faster and easier transition between ArcGIS and ArcIMS. In theory, this tool or extension would allow local ArcGIS users to post information to an ftp site based on what is in the Table of Contents of their map document. Custom code could translate the symbolization (classes, colors, line weight, etc) in the map document into AXL for replication on the server. From their location on the FTP sever, the WebGIS would see the changes and post the updated map automatically. This tool would be similar in concept to ArcMap Server, but would have a smaller memory footprint on the server, would be less resource intensive, and would allow updates to WebGIS sites much faster. If the local staff can get their maps posted easier and less costly than the current method, they might actually use WebGIS. If they did not have to pay for the sites, or frequent updates to existing sites, there might be more use of this technology. Whatever technological solutions are developed for WebGIS, they need to be tested at all levels of the organization. One common barrier is that a technology solution is developed in Ft. Collins or Albuquerque, but it ends up not working in Alaska or other "end-of-the-line" remote locations. In these remote locations, the highest-tech solution is often not the best. Viewing WebGIS sites can be very slow in these instances, and downloading even moderately sized data files out of the question. Words of advice from Forest Service staff at the local level in remote locations: Don't be distracted by the technology. If there is a better, lower-tech way to do something, then use it. WebGIS has a real future, but the Forest Service shouldn't ignore other ways to solve the challenge of sharing information, like shipping hard drives full of geospatial data. With the current technology, WebGIS is not a silver bullet for all locations. For those locations that have reliable and fast Internet connectivity, WebGIS is an extremely valuable geospatial tool. If it is simple enough to use without training, or if very little training is required, WebGIS can help staff do their jobs faster and easier. It can only happen if staff are aware of WebGIS sites and their utility. A good place to start the education process would be the existing WebGIS sites, taking the training and awareness of these sites on the road, teaching and marketing to leadership teams, staff groups, and public affairs officers with live demos about the benefits of the sites and how to use them. This action would address the need for training and would serve as an internal marketing tool, creating awareness of the technology and its usefulness. This awareness and training could include both staff and the public, helping to integrate public input and foster cooperation. Exposure to easy-to-use WebGIS sites might also increase the general understanding of the technology. Examples include on-board vehicle navigation systems and Web sites like Mapquest.com have increased the general understanding of GIS with the public, serving easy-to-use WebGIS sites at kiosks in public venues might help increase the awareness of WebGIS, as well as agency resources and objectives. WebGIS is currently being used in sporting goods store kiosks to help hunters locate hunting areas. Likewise, WebGIS-enabled kiosks could be set up to serve agency data to educate the public about resources like hiking trails, camping locations, fire danger, and availability of water along trails. The key is to make the use of this technology "user friendly" to the non-computer user. Educating management is the key to obtaining their backing and support. The EGIS Phase II Implementation Plan will help define how WebGIS benefits Forest Service workflow and business requirements, and helps define which resource areas would benefit from WebGIS and how. Achieving these educational objectives will be instrumental in helping management understand the need for WebGIS, thus decreasing apprehension and enhance opportunity for backing and support for the technology. Currently, no national or regional project exists to justify the cost and the effort to implement WebGIS. Therefore, the burden is on Forest Service GIS staff to determine which WebGIS uses could be generically applied across the agency, and which would justify the development time and the investment. One example could be travel access; with the OHV rule out now, it's an issue that the public is involved in, and that would help generate management support. The barrier of limited funds and manpower is a significant barrier to overcome . An example of overcoming the funding barrier can be found in Region 1. Montana drafted and passed the Montana Land Information Act (http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/mca_toc/90_1_4.htm) - an act to provide stable funding primarily for maintenance of the Montana Spatial Data Infrastructure by increasing the present document recordation fees by $1 per page. This has been a tremendously successful program for funding GIS in the state. Without the option to obtain more resources, there are few alternatives. To address the reduction in staff, possibly volunteers could be trained and utilized, although this does pose other cost and efficiency problems. To reduce WebGIS site development costs, careful planning and development of the cartographic elements is helpful. Development of standardized viewer components that can he used repeatedly in different projects is also beneficial (Evans 2004). D.3 Cost Savings by Using WebGIS Some of the interviewees experienced a significant reduction in the time expended to fulfill FOIA requests after data was provided on the Internet for download. Allowing the public to create and print user-customized maps that show their personal interests and answer personalized "what-if' questions avoids time and expense of packaging and shipping. Because WebGIS applications tend to be more user-friendly than desktop GIS applications, WebGIS time and costs expended for training may be avoided. One of the great advantages to implementing WebGIS is that the data are centralized, thus facilitating ease of update. Since data can be updated once, instead of once at every district, the timesavings are substantial. This consolidation and centralization of data will help reduce subcontractor costs, too, by streamlining or eliminating the data integration and standardization stage at project startup. Data centralization means that more data will be in a usable format to support better decision-making, which also reduces costs. D.4 Potential Pitfalls of Using WebGIS The greatest pitfall to using WebGIS is the potential for the Internet to marginalize stakeholders that are less technically advanced if it is used as the sole vehicle for information dissemination. As discussed by Kelly et al. (2003), in Web-based GIS for Monitoring " Sudden Oak Death" in Coastal California, there are societal factors that may influence public participation [in WebGIS]:
The converse of # l, above, is also assumed to be true, and that is if household income is lower, participation in a WebGIS application would be lower. Thus, marginalization of low-income earners is one type of problem related to access. This relationship of income to technology use may be a larger issue in poor urban areas and very remote areas. WebGIS needs to be easy to use for non-technical users, with the need for training minimal. If Web applications are marginalizing a certain demographic, then steps would have to be taken to ensure that they are included in some other way, such as traditional hardcopy maps, digital distribution via CD or DVD, personal interaction through other avenues like the telephone and town hall meetings, or public kiosks with Internet access. Another issue is site/Internet availability and performance speed. This is a very important consideration when relying on the Internet to distribute information. If the Internet is down, the information is not available. The Internet, however, is fairly redundant, so there are usually multiple paths in the network to get to the same site. However, if the site itself is down, there is no other alternative. Access speed is a similar consideration. Most users will not try to access a site more than once or twice. Also, if access times are extremely slow, users do not return to the site. Another access-related pitfall is the possibility of losing access to processing capabilities and data detail if the Forest Service centralizes and converts to WebGIS for all its GIS functionality. Providing GIS capabilities over the Internet with Citrix servers causes concern for some because of the potential to lose local computing capability. There is concern that there will be limited functionality with this technology, and that local editing, data detail, and analytical capabilities will be lost. These pitfalls can be minimized through extensive testing before the Citrix solution is adopted, by including local data in the national, centralized database, by making sure that applications that have been written to address particular local idiosyncrasies are still available for use, and by extensive testing at the local level before implementing any solution. Another unintended consequence of using WebGIS is that it can create a new level of public expectation. WebGIS can provide the public with opportunities to be involved that heretofore were unavailable, and allow them to see more clearly how data and information is (or is not) used in the decision making process. In instances where WebGIS is successfully implemented, a new standard might be established whereby the public now expects a certain level of service and transparency in most (or all) of its future dealings with the agency. Since WebGIS can be somewhat expensive and time consuming to implement, the agency should consider this consequence when deciding whether or not to embrace this technology. |
 
|
