The future of the spatial information infrastructure

A Research Agenda for Geographic Information Science

Volumn , Issue , 2004, Pages 225-255

  Onsrud, Harlan ^a   Poore, Barbara ^b   Rugg, Robert ^c   Taupier, Richard ^d   Wiggins, Lyna ^e  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MAINE   (United States)

^b U S GEOLOGICAL SURVEY   (United States)

^c VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS   (United States)

^e RUTGERS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 38049086169     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: None     Document Type: Chapter

References (39)

1. Agre, P.E. and M. Rotenburg, 1998, Technology and Privacy: The New Landscape, Cambridge: MIT Press.
2. Arrow, K., 1971, The Value and Demand for Information. Essays in the Theory of Rick-Bearing, Chicago, IL: Markham.
3. Brown, K., 1990, Local Government Benefits from GIS, Lexington, KY: PlanGraphics.
4. Budic, Z.D., 1994, Effectiveness of Geographic Information Systems in Local Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 60, pp. 244-263.
5. Cornes, Richard and Todd Sandler, 1986, The Theory of Externalities, Public Goods, and Club Goods, New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. DeLone, W.H. and McLean, E.R., 1992, Information Systems Success: The Quest for the Dependent Variable. Information Systems Research, Vol. 3, pp. 60-95.
7. Didier, M., 1990, l’Utilite et Valeur de l’Information Geographique, Paris: Editions Economic.
8. Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), 1995, Development of a National Digital Geospatial Data Framework, Washington, D.C.
9. FGDC, 1997a, A Strategy for the NSDI, http://www.fgdc.gov/NSDI/strategy.html
10. FGDC, 1997b, Framework: Introduction and Guide.
11. General Accounting Office, 1990b, Geographic Information System: Forest Service Not Ready to Acquire Nationwide System, Washington, D.C.: GAO.
12. General Accounting Office, 1992, Geographic Information System: Forest Service Has Resolved Concerns about Its Proposed Nationwide System, Washington, D.C.: GAO.
13. Gillespie, S., 1992, Digital Benefits Test, Reston, VA: USGS National Mapping Division.
14. GISLounge, 2000, The Geography Network, July 5, http://gislounge.com/features/aa070500.shtml
15. Janelle, D. and Hodge, D., 1998, Measuring and Representing Accessibility in the Information Age: Research Conference Report, http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/varenius/access/access-rpt.htm
16. Marschak, J. and Radner, R., 1972, Economic Theory of Teams, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
17. Maurer, S.M., Hugenholtz, P.B. and Onsrud, H.J., 2001, Europe’s Database Experiment. Science, Vol 294, 26 October 2001.
18. National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) 1998, Geographic Information for the 21st Century: Building a Strategy for the Nation, Washington, D.C.
19. National Research Council (NRC) Mapping Science Committee, 1993, Toward a Coordinated Spatial Data Infrastructure for the Nation, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/records/0309048990.html
20. NRC Mapping Science Committee, 1994, Promoting the National Spatial Data Infrastructure through Partnerships, Washington, D.C. National Academy Press, http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/records/030905141X.html
21. NRC Mapping Science Committee, 1995, A Data Foundation for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, http://www.nap.edu/readingroom/records/NX005078.html
22. NRC Mapping Science Committee, 1997, The Future of Spatial Data and Society: Summary of a Workshop, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, http://www2.nas.edu/besr/22d6.html
23. NRC Steering Committee on Research Opportunities Relating to Economic and Social Impacts of Computing and Communications. Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, 1998, Fostering Research on the Economic and Social Impacts of Information Technology: Report of a Workshop, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
24. NRC Committee for a Study on Promoting Access to Scientific and Technical Data for the Public Interest, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics and Applications, 1999, A Question of Balance: Private Rights and the Public Interest in Scientific and Technical Databases, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
25. NRC Panel on Distributed Geolibraries (PDG), Mapping Science Committee, 1999, Distributed Geolibraries: Spatial Information Resources, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
26. NRC Committee on Intellectual Property Rights and the Emerging Information Infrastructure, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, 2000, The Digital Dilemma: Intellectual Property in the Information Age, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
27. NRC Committee on Geophysical and Environmental Data, Board on Earth Sciences and Resources, 2001, Resolving Conflicts Arising from the Privatization of Environmental Data, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
28. NRC Mapping Science Committee, 2001, National Spatial Data Infrastructure Partnership Programs: Rethinking the Focus, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
29. Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 1994, Referenced in NAPA report or Congressional breakfast materials.
30. OMB, Revised OMB Circular A-16, Final Draft, July 3, 2001.
31. Office of the President, 1994, Coordinating Geographic Data Acquisition and Access: The National Spatial Data Infrastructure, Presidential Executive Order 12906 (April 11, 1994), Federal Register (April 13, 1994), 59 (71), pp. 17,671-17,674, Washington, D.C.
32. Onsrud, H.J., 1998, The Tragedy of the Information Commons. Policy Issues in Modern Cartography, Elsevier Science, pp. 141-158.
33. Pira International, 2000, Commercial exploitation of Europe’s public sector information, (Luxembourg: Office of Official Publications of European Communities).
34. Smith, D.A. and Tomlinson, R.F., 1992, Assessing costs and benefits of geographical information systems: methodological and implementation issues. International Journal of Geographic Information Systems, Vol. 6, pp. 247-256.
35. Taupier, R.P., 1995, Comments on the Economics of Geographic Information and Data Access in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Sharing Geographic Information, New Brunswick NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research.
36. Torkzadeh, G. and Doll, W.J., 1988, Test-Retest Reliability of the End-User Computing Satisfaction Instrument. Decision Science, Vol. 22.
37. Tveitdal, S. and Hesjedal, O., 1989, GIS in the Nordic Countries-Market and Technology, Strategy for Implementation-A Nordic Approach. Proceedings of GIS 89 Symposium, Vancouver, B.C.
38. U.S. Congress, 1986, Intellectual Property Rights in an Age of Electronics and Information, Washington, D.C.: Office of Technology Assessment.
39. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 2001, The National Map: Draft for Public Comment April 26, 2001, http://nationalmap.usgs.gov/