[GSDI Legal Econ] Value of spatial information (2008)

Wed Mar 26 11:18:26 EDT 2008

Roger,

The point of these reports is *not* to satisfy the orthodox canons of
science with systematic investigation, explicit methodology, carefully
selected control groups, monitoring and observation of changes over time
and a large array of cases.

This type of report should be seen a rhetorical ARGUMENT that aims to
PERSUADE a target audience. If the report succeeds in persuading the
target audience then it is a persuasive report, in other words a good
report. It is not a THEORY that aims to EXPLAIN a certain phenomenon.
Therefore, it should be studied, if studied at all, using rhetorical
analysis tools (well known since the times of the sophists in ancient
Hellas) with the purpose to understand what makes it persuasive or not. 

I think we have to draw a clear line between "rhetorical arguments and
their persuasive power" on the one hand and "theories and their
explanatory power" on the other hand.  Mixing the two is what is still
causing a lot of confusion. 

My 2 cents :-)

Yola 

-----Original Message-----
From: legal-econ-bounces at lists.gsdi.org
[mailto:legal-econ-bounces at lists.gsdi.org] On Behalf Of Roger Longhorn
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 3:51 PM
To: Walter de Vries
Cc: SDI-legal-econ
Subject: Re: [GSDI Legal Econ] Value of spatial information (2008)

Walter de Vries wrote:
> Hi Vlado /Roger / Yola,
>
> I would certainly be interested in contributing. My estimate is that 
> the two reports are very alike and are based on similar methodologies 
> (largely survey / questionnaire based). It might however not be bad to

> be a bit critical towards these methodologies and these numerical 
> "value" figures (just read James Scott : seeing like a state).
>   
Walter, the problem I found with the OXERA report, similar to a very
large study by PIRA International on the value (economic and investment)
of Public Sector Information, with a significant GI component - was that
there was too little detail in either of these reports to fully
understand the methodology - and assumptions.
> I would think that in a chain economy - with use and re-use - many 
> figures are counted more than once, and as a result are not so
reliable.
>   
Too true - and also true for all forms of 'information' - which can be
used, used and used again, without being consumed. The classic problem
in trying to treat information like most other goods. So is each
use/re-use adding value to the economy? Many will say, "Yes, of course" 
- but where do you draw the line between the 'value' of property
boundary - or more importantly, a very large (national?) collection of
property boundaries - as an information object versus the multiple,
value-generating purposes for which that the property boundary(ies) can
be used?
> More importantly, we may also ask whether these are at all useful to 
> public managers and politicians.
Sadly, most high-level decision makers - those who control budgets,
especially - are exactly the ones who *want* 'numeric figures' - which I
contend have little value in themselves, since they will always be based
on, or derived from, numerous assumptions such as those touched on
above. Hence the need to re-educate decision makers / politicians in
new, more constructive ways to look at 'value of information'? But
surely, much of this must have already been faced one way or another in
developing the many grandiose e-Government strategies that abound
globally - and which are very expensive to implement.
> The interesting dilemma from a public
> economic perspective is the question how much public funds should 
> encourage investments by the private sector in GI and SDI. 
> Economically, the public sector has two types of instruments to 
> encourage private
> sectors: either coercive measures, such as regulation and through the 
> use of public (public information providing) institutions; or 
> non-coercive measures, including sponsoring, easing 
> participation/access, reduction of investment barriers and partial 
> investments. The economic difficulty in choosing any type of measures 
> is
> twofold: the first type of measures creates by definition transactions

> costs for the private sector (in making sure how to apply the 
> regulations and their interactions with the institutions) and 
> enforcements costs for the public sector (in making sure the 
> regulations are implemented correctly), and as a result this is by 
> definition inefficient. The second type of measures is more efficient 
> (economic theory assumes the occurrence of investments in the public 
> information good provision of private sector if it is sufficiently 
> attractive based on all information necessary for making investment 
> decisions), but the public outcome of the measure is less predictable 
> (meaning: the degree to which the public information remains a public
good is less known).
>
> Resuming, the value is not in the money, but in the extent to which it

> is of value / importance to people, or to the quality of life. Maybe 
> this would be a good start for a qualitative (!) research exercise.
>   
Exactly the problem/question - as first posed! What is the value of GI? 
I attach a pre-publication version of Chapter 2 which looks at this
issue from a book that Prof. Mike Blakemore and I produced recently for
CRC Press/Taylor & Francis. Excuse typos, etc. as this was an early
version. Also, it is not intended as a deeply researched treatise on all
the measures of 'value' for information - since numerous excellent texts
already exist on that subject (references can be found at the end of the
Chapter).
> Please count me in.
>   
Excellent. Since Vlado offered first, I suggest that he coordinate
contributions? And if we continue to copy these to the list, everyone
can participate if they wish to.

Kind regards

Roger

> -----Original Message-----
> From: legal-econ-bounces at lists.gsdi.org 
> [mailto:legal-econ-bounces at lists.gsdi.org] On Behalf Of Roger Longhorn
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 2:28 PM
> To: Vlado Cetl
> Cc: SDI-legal-econ
> Subject: Re: [GSDI Legal Econ] Value of spatial information (2008)
>
> Great, Vlado!
>
> Anyone else wish to join Vlado on this interesting work?
>
> I attach the 1999 OXERA report just in case some of you don't have it.
>
> Remember, we are not looking at another 'value of GIS' investigation 
> here - of which there are more than a few already existing - but 
> rather the trickier question of 'value of GI/spatial information' to 
> an economy and then the value of the SDI that is alleged to be needed 
> in order to make that spatial information most useful to the most 
> users. The issue is a serious one because, until you agree on 'value' 
> it is quite difficult - if not impossible - to conduct a meaningful 
> Cost-Benefit Analysis, in my opinion - and direct experience - using 
> virtually any of the many 'CBA' methodologies that exist.
>
> Kind regards
>
> Roger
>
> Vlado Cetl wrote:
>   
>> Dear Roger,
>>
>> It is a very good idea to make it and I think it could be a very 
>> interesting research. I will give it a try (but time is always a 
>> limit
>>     
>
>   
>> factor ...)
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> PhD Vlado Cetl
>> Faculty of Geodesy
>> Institute of Applied Geodesy
>> Chair of Spatial Information Management Kaciceva 26, HR-10000 Zagreb,

>> Croatia Tel. ++385 1 4639 191 Fax. ++385 1 4828 081
>> Web: www.geof.hr
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Longhorn" 
>> <ral at alum.mit.edu>
>> To: "SDI-legal-econ" <legal-econ at lists.gsdi.org>
>> Cc: "Kate Lance" <lancekt at aya.yale.edu>
>> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 9:38 AM
>> Subject: Re: [GSDI Legal Econ] Value of spatial information (2008)
>>
>>
>>     
>>> It might be an interesting exercise for some enterprising academic -

>>> or academics - from within the Working Group to do a comparative 
>>> analysis of the methodologies, assumptions and findings between what

>>> are now two in-depth studies into the 'value of spatial 
>>> information/GI' to a national economy - i.e. the OXERA study of 1999

>>> which Ordnance Survey GB quotes repeatedly - which stated that 
>>> national mapping underpinned 100 billion GBP of the British economy 
>>> -
>>>       
>
>   
>>> and this new study. Perhaps with a side analysis of the PIRA 
>>> International study of 2000 into the economic and investment value 
>>> of
>>>       
>
>   
>>> public sector GI to the European economy and information market.
>>>
>>> Any takers?
>>>
>>> Roger Longhorn
>>> co-Chair GSDI Legal & Socioeconomic W.G.
>>>
>>> Kate Lance wrote:
>>>       
>>>> http://www.crcsi.com.au/pages/news.aspx?NewsArticleID=433&Display=1
>>>> <http://www.crcsi.com.au/pages/news.aspx?NewsArticleID=433&Display=
>>>> 1
>>>>         
>>>> Value of spatial information (2008) According to a new study on the

>>>> economic impact of spatial information released by Australia's 
>>>> Spatial Information Council (ANZLIC), the spatial information 
>>>> industry is a major contributor to
>>>>         
>
>   
>>>> the national economy generating revenue of A$1.37 billion in the
>>>> 2006/07 financial year. This is a contribution of between $6.4 and
>>>> $12.6 billion to Gross Domestic Product (GDP).  The study also 
>>>> estimated that inefficient access to data reduces the direct 
>>>> productivity of some sectors by between five and 15 per cent.
>>>> The complete study is available for download at 
>>>> http://www.crcsi.com.au/UPLOADS/PUBLICATIONS/PUBLICATION_324.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Legal-Econ mailing list
>>>> Legal-Econ at lists.gsdi.org
>>>> http://lists.gsdi.org/mailman/listinfo/legal-econ
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Legal-Econ mailing list
>>> Legal-Econ at lists.gsdi.org
>>> http://lists.gsdi.org/mailman/listinfo/legal-econ
>>>
>>> __________ NOD32 2973 (20080326) Information __________
>>>
>>> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
>>> http://www.eset.com
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>>
>>     
>
>
>   