CRP RGIS Needs Assessment Survey

1
CRP RGIS Needs Assessment Survey

• Today
• summary of needs assessment survey
• discussion of next steps

2
Survey Summary

• Response
• Total response 23 (thanks!)
• 13 Technical GIS staff
• 10 non-GIS staff (answered a subset of questions)

3
Survey Summary Local Data Holdings

• Highest responses were for roads, land use
  zoning, and orthos
• Some disparity between GIS non-GIS responses
• Other included building point loc.s, service
  locations (e.g. schools, hospitals), storm and
  water lines, and other cadastral data.

4
Survey Summary Local Data Gaps

• Highest responses were for utilities (telecom
  power lines) and ecological features
  (ecologically significant areas, land cover)
• Not as much consensus as with data holdings
• Other included urban fringe cadastral, hydrant
  locations, and actual land use
• One respondent unable to comment.

5
Survey Summary Local Data

• Some general comments
• Seems to be a great demand for GIS data on
  utilities (power lines, telecommunications
  infrastructure, gas, cable, etc.)
• Some suggested that data comes from third
  parties, and is of uncertain quality
• Some voiced concerns around capacity to improve
  local data situation limited resources for GIS
  work, concerns around updating data.

6
Survey Summary Local Data Management

• Metadata (GIS staff only)
• Half (6/12 respondents) of you write and
  maintain metadata
• Only two employ a metadata standard 5/8 use
  ESRI ArcCatalog (3 exclusively), others create
  text files.
• Data updates are as indicated
• Of 5 added comments, 4 indicated a desire to
  improvemetadata standards withintheir
  municipality.

7
Survey Summary Data Sharing

• Data Sharing Issues
• 8/12 (67) said that there are restrictions to
  sharing locally-owned data (some flexible, others
  not)
• 10/11 (91) said that there are restrictions to
  sharing third-party data held by their
  municipality (AltaLIS is big player, also private
  companies (oilgas, utility)
• Unanimously open to the possibility of sharing
  data with third parties but which ones

8
Survey Summary Data Sharing

• Almost everyone in favour of sharing within the
  CRP
• Half in favour of sharing with non-CRP
  municipalities (mostly GIS folks)
• Strong support for sharing with Educational
  Institutions
• Otherwise little agreement on who to share with
• Comments mentioned licensing / fee structure,
  and not my decision!

9
Survey Summary Data Sharing

• Equal support for different ends of the
  continuum
• GIS wants to go it alone, non-GIS prefer a
  general agreement
• General concerns legacy of current agreements,
  difficulty in reaching consensus on what to share
  with whom, how to regulate data distribution

10
Survey Summary Regional Data

• Regional data holdings
• 9/15 (60) currently make use of regional GIS
  data sets
• 3 used rural road net, others use pathways,
  watershed data, regional land use plan data,
  multi-municipality data sets.
• 8/12 technical GIS staff knew of regional data
  sets that they do not currently use (many
  references to CRP regional land use plan data)
• Most common reasons for not using data were no
  use for data beyond municipal boundary, no use
  for this type of data, and other
  (licensing/distribution issues and incomplete
  coverage)

11
Survey Summary Regional GIS

• Regional GIS Issues
• 16/18 (89) see value in compiling some local
  data sets at a regional scale.
• Most popular themes are land use/zoning, digital
  orthos, hydrology, and pathways
• other suggestions included area structure
  plans/proposed development, rural drives and
  roads

12
Survey Summary Regional GIS

• Regional GIS Issues
• Highest priority for regional compilation land
  use zoning and orthophotos (both 4/15), roads and
  ESAs (both 2/15), hydrology, landform,
  telecommunications/power infrastructure (1 each)
• Second highest priority land use zoning (3/14),
  ESAs, landform and hydrology (all 2/14), orthos,
  oil gas development, vegetation,
  water/wastewater, and building footprint (1 each)
• Third highest priority hydrology (3/11), base
  features, orthos, pathways, ESAs, population,
  land use zoning, landform, oil gas development
  (1 each)

13
Survey Summary Regional GIS

• Barriers to RGIS
• Most popular answer legal restrictions on data
  sharing (overall non-GIS responses)
• Most popular response for GIS people financial
  resources to sustain project.

14
Survey Summary Regional GIS

• Regional Standards
• High level of support (consensus with GIS staff)
  for regional metadata standard
• Less agreement on other proposed standards

15
Survey Summary Regional GIS

• RGIS Functionality
• Greater importance on more basic functionality
  (searching, down-/uploading data)
• Not much interest in providing archives of old
  data sets.
• comments suggest a strong preference for
  distributed data model.

16
Survey Summary Technical Concerns

• Technical GIS Capacity
• Majority of municipalities (12/19) have a GIS
  department. 6/19 either contract or have someone
  in-house with limited experience.
• 92 use ESRI, 42 use other (AutoCAD/Bentley,
  GeoSQL, GeoMedia)
• 5/12 GIS staff, 5/7 non-GIS stated that more
  training was needed in theeffective use of GIS
• One comment suggested that moreadvanced
  municipalities help the othersthrough training /
  mentoring
• 84 (16/19) favoured development of a RGIS
  based on technical level that is regionally
  attainable by all municipalities

17
Survey Summary Conclusion

• Of 23 survey participants
• 17 support the development of the CRP Regional
  GIS
• 2 do not support it
• 4 did not answer the question.
• Additional comments focused on
• Desire for a distributed data model (not
  centralized)
• Respect for existing data sharing / data
  licensing issues (e.g. AltaLIS)
• The need to move forward on this project as a
  region

18
THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Majority support for RGIS Initiative
• Highest local need for utilities and ecological
  data
• Highest regional need for land use zoning,
  orthophotos, hydrology, and pathways (and
  continued use of roadnet)
• Strong support for a regional metadata standard,
  many individual municipalities want to improve
  metadata protocols
• Strong support for a distributed (not
  centralized) data model, with basic functionality
  data query, update, access, distribution
• Willingness to share beyond CRP, but contingent
  on political will
• Some technical capacity issues that should be
  addressed
• Biggest concerns licensing issues, financial
  sustainability, capacity issues at local level

19
SO, NOW WHAT ?!

• Discussion (its your turn to talk)
• Regional metadata standard?
• Distributed data model? (Ken can develop some
  ideas)
• Land Use Zoning as a pilot? (regional demand,
  ability to demonstrate a wide range of
  functions/problems)
• Is consensus an issue (all or nothing)? What is
  the consequence of gaps in regional data?
• What about existing (successful) regional
  initiatives (e.g. rural road net, orthophoto
  project)?
• If third-party sharing is important, how to
  generate buy-in from decision-makers? Are
  licensing issues too confounding?