[GSDI Legal Econ] Legal-Econ Digest, Vol 39, Issue 20
Yola Georgiadou
georgiadou at itc.nl
Thu Mar 27 02:22:25 EDT 2008
I am also very interested in the CODATA-OECD workshop results.
Regards
Yola
________________________________
From: legal-econ-bounces at lists.gsdi.org
[mailto:legal-econ-bounces at lists.gsdi.org] On Behalf Of Tracey P.
Lauriault
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 11:44 PM
To: legal-econ at lists.gsdi.org
Subject: Re: [GSDI Legal Econ] Legal-Econ Digest, Vol 39, Issue
20
I am really enjoying this discussion thread and was wondering if
you could prove urls to some of the studies that have been mentioned in
particular the:
PIRA International study of 2000
and the CODATA-OECD workshop results.
I am posting the links to those here 0 datalibre.ca
Cheers
Tracey
On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 6:12 PM,
<legal-econ-request at lists.gsdi.org> wrote:
Send Legal-Econ mailing list submissions to
legal-econ at lists.gsdi.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
visit
http://lists.gsdi.org/mailman/listinfo/legal-econ
or, via email, send a message with subject or body
'help' to
legal-econ-request at lists.gsdi.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
legal-econ-owner at lists.gsdi.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is
more specific
than "Re: Contents of Legal-Econ digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Value of spatial information (2008) (Yola
Georgiadou)
2. Re: Value of spatial information (2008) (Francis
Harvey)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:39:12 +0100
From: "Yola Georgiadou" <georgiadou at itc.nl>
Subject: Re: [GSDI Legal Econ] Value of spatial
information (2008)
To: "Uhlir, Paul" <PUhlir at nas.edu>, <ral at alum.mit.edu>,
"Walter de
Vries" <devries at itc.nl>
Cc: SDI-legal-econ <legal-econ at lists.gsdi.org>
Message-ID:
<5AF149DBB6DFE24AA3F4F53201E539AD01D90415 at itcnt24.itc.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Paul,
the art of rhetoric is mobilized not only in the field
of law but also
in many other fields, such as economics, policy sciences
and public
administration. See for example McCloskey (1985) on an
analysis of the
rhetorical aspects of argument in modern economics,
Lindblom and Cohen
(1979) on persuasive processes in the policy sciences
and Hood and
Jackson (1991) on the link between public administration
argument and
persuasion. The proposition is that the impact of
argument is a function
of its credibility, not necessarily of its truth.
Rhetorical arguments may be true or false, but when the
persuade they
serve as a shared frame of reference that enable
individuals, groups and
organizations (=us) to deal with contradictions that can
never be fully
resolved. They are ubiquitous, usually rest on soft data
(selectively
drawn examples) and soft logic (use of persuasive
example), they 'win'
over competing ideas by persuasion in communicative
processes rather
than by hard factual evidence, and often are
contradictory and unstable
(susceptible to new styles, fashions and fads). But if
they win they
may act to integrate behavior in a sensible way, being a
source of
inspiration that experts, politicians and other
participants in
geospatial development can use to enact social reality.
And this is
fine!
I think that instead of looking at the truth or falsity
of an argument
(e.g. that spatial information increases the GDP or
something like that)
we should treat the argument as an object of study in
itself using tools
of rhetorical analysis to understand how come argument X
persuades in
circumstances Y. We should also look at the historical
evolution of
such arguments and how they have been 'domesticated' as
they travelled
from place to place and across time especially from the
North to the
South.
To your invitation for additional research topics:
I think that we should try to understand three 'worlds'
in our research:
(i) the real world of practice (how exactly do policy
makers use
information in the real world? which
technological/administrative/policy
design produces which performance (based on whatever
performance
criterion) in given circumstances in the real world?,
etc), (ii) the
world of spatial information rhetoric and how it enables
the enaction of
social reality in given circumstances in the real world
and (iii) the
world of theories from different disciplines that can
explain the other
two worlds.
Roger might say, that the answer to these questions at
the end may be 42
:-)
Regards
Yola
-----Original Message-----
From: legal-econ-bounces at lists.gsdi.org
[mailto:legal-econ-bounces at lists.gsdi.org] On Behalf Of
Uhlir, Paul
Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 5:49 PM
To: ral at alum.mit.edu; Walter de Vries
Cc: SDI-legal-econ
Subject: Re: [GSDI Legal Econ] Value of spatial
information (2008)
This is a good discussion and I especially appreciate
the book chapter
on the value of info.
A couple of observations on what has been said thus far:
Yola raises important distinctions, which can be
characterized further
as belonging to the legal and scientific/engineering
methods of
presenting arguments. There are some lawyer/scientists
(or engineers) in
this group, but generally the worldview and practices of
these two types
of professions are not easily bridged. On the one hand,
the sci/eng will
seek to provide rigorous fact-based analysis, including
all the
limitations of the method and the uncertainties in the
results (I know
there are differences between sci/eng and even within
different sci
disciplines, but I am making a broad characterization
here that I
believe is correct). On the other hand, a lawyer will
cherry-pick the
facts, emphasizing the favorable ones, minimizing the
unfavorable, and
always attacking the opponent's position in favor of the
one the lawyer
is paid to uphold. The lawyer will seek to make the
strongest possible
argument to deliver a winning position in a rhetorical
contest,
frequently hiding the uncertainties or counteracting
facts. The two
methods are thus frequently incompatible and used very
differently for
different purposes. Many policymakers are lawyers or at
least think like
them and are swayed by legal arguments that can also
convince their
constituents. To the extent that the sci/eng results
have significant
uncertainties (and many do), the sci/eng will undermine
the
effectiveness of his/her own argument in favor of
methodological rigor.
Lawyers and policymakers try to dismiss the
(inconvenient) empirical
facts and create their own version of reality (consider,
e.g., the Bush
administration's policies on climate change).
With regard to methodologies, one of the outcomes of the
CODATA-OECD
workshop last month was that my office would develop a
research agenda
(focused on US implementation, but that could be adopted
in many other
countries/contexts) for improving the understanding of
the economic and
social effects of networked information. I expect to
begin on this
within a year and it will take some time, but hopefully
will add some
further rigor to such assessments, stimulate more work
in this area, and
generally support more empirically grounded policymaking
in this very
large and important area. Some preliminary topics that
we would want to
address are:
Network effects
Network externalities (both positive and negative) Role
and effects of
automated online knowledge extraction and reuse Value of
individual
users/reusers (vs. corp reusers) Methodologies for
understanding social
values (most are focused on economic value)
Characterizing the pros and
cons of different methodologies and their application to
research on
networked info Identification of research directions and
possible pilot
projects Promotion of the involvement by young
researchers
I would welcome comments or suggestions for additional
research topics.
Cheers,
Paul
-----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 10:51 AM
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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Legal-Econ mailing list
Legal-Econ at lists.gsdi.org
http://lists.gsdi.org/mailman/listinfo/legal-econ
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:12:30 -0500
From: Francis Harvey <francis.harvey at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GSDI Legal Econ] Value of spatial
information (2008)
To: "Yola Georgiadou" <georgiadou at itc.nl>
Cc: SDI-legal-econ <legal-econ at lists.gsdi.org>, "Uhlir,
Paul"
<PUhlir at nas.edu>
Message-ID:
<CF7976E7-AF3F-4E22-9461-BDBBCB5C5937 at gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII;
format=flowed; delsp=yes
Hello,
To pick up on Yola's conclusion: but 42 what?
Indeed, Sal Restivo has published work on rhetorics in
accounting (way
before Enron too) that I would also add to Yola's
stimulating list of
readings.
I might add as well that there's room for the social
deconstruction of
cost-benefit analysis. Deconstruction is something
engineers are
specialized in, but rarely share with the rest of us.
Francis
On 26 Mar 2008, at 13:39, Yola Georgiadou wrote:
> Paul,
>
> the art of rhetoric is mobilized not only in the field
of law but also
> in many other fields, such as economics, policy
sciences and public
> administration. See for example McCloskey (1985) on
an analysis of
> the
> rhetorical aspects of argument in modern economics,
Lindblom and Cohen
> (1979) on persuasive processes in the policy sciences
and Hood and
> Jackson (1991) on the link between public
administration argument and
> persuasion. The proposition is that the impact of
argument is a
> function
> of its credibility, not necessarily of its truth.
>
> Rhetorical arguments may be true or false, but when
the persuade they
> serve as a shared frame of reference that enable
individuals, groups
> and
> organizations (=us) to deal with contradictions that
can never be
> fully
> resolved. They are ubiquitous, usually rest on soft
data (selectively
> drawn examples) and soft logic (use of persuasive
example), they 'win'
> over competing ideas by persuasion in communicative
processes rather
> than by hard factual evidence, and often are
contradictory and
> unstable
> (susceptible to new styles, fashions and fads). But
if they win they
> may act to integrate behavior in a sensible way, being
a source of
> inspiration that experts, politicians and other
participants in
> geospatial development can use to enact social
reality. And this is
> fine!
>
> I think that instead of looking at the truth or
falsity of an argument
> (e.g. that spatial information increases the GDP or
something like
> that)
> we should treat the argument as an object of study in
itself using
> tools
> of rhetorical analysis to understand how come argument
X persuades in
> circumstances Y. We should also look at the
historical evolution of
> such arguments and how they have been 'domesticated'
as they travelled
> from place to place and across time especially from
the North to the
> South.
>
> To your invitation for additional research topics:
>
> I think that we should try to understand three
'worlds' in our
> research:
> (i) the real world of practice (how exactly do policy
makers use
> information in the real world? which
technological/administrative/
> policy
> design produces which performance (based on whatever
performance
> criterion) in given circumstances in the real world?,
etc), (ii) the
> world of spatial information rhetoric and how it
enables the
> enaction of
> social reality in given circumstances in the real
world and (iii) the
> world of theories from different disciplines that can
explain the
> other
> two worlds.
>
> Roger might say, that the answer to these questions at
the end may
> be 42
> :-)
>
> Regards
> Yola
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: legal-econ-bounces at lists.gsdi.org
> [mailto:legal-econ-bounces at lists.gsdi.org] On Behalf
Of Uhlir, Paul
> Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 5:49 PM
> To: ral at alum.mit.edu; Walter de Vries
> Cc: SDI-legal-econ
> Subject: Re: [GSDI Legal Econ] Value of spatial
information (2008)
>
> This is a good discussion and I especially appreciate
the book chapter
> on the value of info.
>
> A couple of observations on what has been said thus
far:
>
> Yola raises important distinctions, which can be
characterized further
> as belonging to the legal and scientific/engineering
methods of
> presenting arguments. There are some lawyer/scientists
(or
> engineers) in
> this group, but generally the worldview and practices
of these two
> types
> of professions are not easily bridged. On the one
hand, the sci/eng
> will
> seek to provide rigorous fact-based analysis,
including all the
> limitations of the method and the uncertainties in the
results (I know
> there are differences between sci/eng and even within
different sci
> disciplines, but I am making a broad characterization
here that I
> believe is correct). On the other hand, a lawyer will
cherry-pick the
> facts, emphasizing the favorable ones, minimizing the
unfavorable, and
> always attacking the opponent's position in favor of
the one the
> lawyer
> is paid to uphold. The lawyer will seek to make the
strongest possible
> argument to deliver a winning position in a rhetorical
contest,
> frequently hiding the uncertainties or counteracting
facts. The two
> methods are thus frequently incompatible and used very
differently for
> different purposes. Many policymakers are lawyers or
at least think
> like
> them and are swayed by legal arguments that can also
convince their
> constituents. To the extent that the sci/eng results
have significant
> uncertainties (and many do), the sci/eng will
undermine the
> effectiveness of his/her own argument in favor of
methodological
> rigor.
> Lawyers and policymakers try to dismiss the
(inconvenient) empirical
> facts and create their own version of reality
(consider, e.g., the
> Bush
> administration's policies on climate change).
>
> With regard to methodologies, one of the outcomes of
the CODATA-OECD
> workshop last month was that my office would develop a
research agenda
> (focused on US implementation, but that could be
adopted in many other
> countries/contexts) for improving the understanding of
the economic
> and
> social effects of networked information. I expect to
begin on this
> within a year and it will take some time, but
hopefully will add some
> further rigor to such assessments, stimulate more work
in this area,
> and
> generally support more empirically grounded
policymaking in this very
> large and important area. Some preliminary topics that
we would want
> to
> address are:
>
> Network effects
> Network externalities (both positive and negative)
Role and effects of
> automated online knowledge extraction and reuse Value
of individual
> users/reusers (vs. corp reusers) Methodologies for
understanding
> social
> values (most are focused on economic value)
Characterizing the pros
> and
> cons of different methodologies and their application
to research on
> networked info Identification of research directions
and possible
> pilot
> projects Promotion of the involvement by young
researchers
>
> I would welcome comments or suggestions for additional
research
> topics.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
> -----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 10:51 AM
> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Legal-Econ mailing list
Legal-Econ at lists.gsdi.org
http://lists.gsdi.org/mailman/listinfo/legal-econ
End of Legal-Econ Digest, Vol 39, Issue 20
******************************************
--
Tracey P. Lauriault
Geomatics and Cartographic Research Centre
Dept. of Geography and Environmental Studies
Carleton University
Ottawa (ON) Canada
tlauriau at gmail.com
https://gcrc.carleton.ca/confluence/display/GCRCWEB/Lauriault
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.gsdi.org/pipermail/legal-econ/attachments/20080327/2b6f4ed0/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Legal-Econ
mailing list