Final Report The National Map Partnership Project
Download 1.89 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- Figure 3.2 - Summary of Responses to Internet Survey by State 3.3 Findings
- Table 3.3 Comparison of Responses by Sector to Internet Survey
- Respondents County Respondents City
3.2 Methodology The Work Group was established through appointments by the Core Team member organizations. The individual members of the Work Group and their affiliations are listed in Section 7.2.1 (Appendix B). They represent the varying perspectives of each level of government. The Work Group primarily used teleconferences and E-mails to communicate and develop their information products and report. An Internet-based survey instrument was jointly created with the Objective Three Work Group. Work Group members identified state and local government organizations or particular representatives to be interviewed or surveyed. Survey responses were analyzed and used in the production of this report. Initially, both work groups conducted several teleconferences to develop the interview questions. The questions were designed to “discover” the level of understanding and/or the perceptions of state and local governments regarding the relevancy of The National Map. The groups surveyed regarding the relevancy of The National Map, included: Existing National Map Project Participants, State GIS Coordinators, County GIS Managers and Representatives, and Municipal GIS Managers and Representatives The actual survey form was developed and hosted using the tools available at http://www.SurveyMonkey.com. The survey was officially run for a period of thirty-three (33) days from July 23 to August 25, 2004, during which time the NSGIC State Coordinators were also urged to complete the survey on behalf of their state. The Core Team representatives promoted the survey within their respective organizations to encourage and maximize participation (e.g. NACo advertised the survey to their GIS Committee list serve). Individuals from the federal and private sectors were discouraged from completing the survey. Three hundred and sixty-nine (369) responses were received by the time the survey was closed for final analysis by the Work Group. Caution: The survey conducted by these work groups was not developed to be scientifically or statistically valid. It was designed by the work group members to be applied to their own constituent groups in order to solicit comments on general issues related to the relevancy of The National Map. The survey identifies and reinforces generally held beliefs about The National Map program within state and local government. The general findings from the survey are discussed in Section 3.3 while the complete summary reports and detailed answers to the survey can be found in Section 7.3 Appendix C. The geographic distribution of respondents can be determined in the following table. 
Figure 3.2 - Summary of Responses to Internet Survey by State 3.3 Findings The Work Group compared the survey responses by four categories of respondent, including all respondents, all state respondents, all county respondents, and all city respondents. The other categories including tribal and regional respondents each had too few responses to allow meaningful interpretation of the results. The table below provides a side-by-side comparison of the responses by category and question. Not all questions from the survey are included in this table. Table 3.3 Comparison of Responses by Sector to Internet Survey
Responses to the survey from state, county and city representatives account for 78% of the total responses. A cursory review of these responses yields several interesting trends, but without supporting documentation or additional questions to qualify the answers, we are often left without a clearly defined reason for the responses. For example, in Question 16 the response rate (agreement with statement) drops off significantly from state to local governments that are working on The National Map partnerships. At first, this appears to point to a need to provide more funding opportunities for local governments. However, it can not be definitively determined if they are aware of the existing opportunities and choose not to avail themselves, or if they are unaware of available grants due to poor communication mechanisms. The Work Group believes that the latter reason is correct, but this can not be verified solely from the survey. In Question 17 we find the same trend reported on all types of Federal grant and partnership opportunities. This consistency points to a need for additional funding, better information about funding opportunities and other support mechanisms. Less than half of the state respondents are partnering with Federal agencies and they represent the highest response group. In Question 18 the respondents indicate that the following definition of The National Map provided was clear and descriptive. "The National Map provides a consistent framework for geographic knowledge needed by the nation. It provides public access to high-quality, geospatial data and information from multiple partners to help informed decision-making by resource managers and the public." However, responses to Question 20 indicate that a majority of respondents (69%) believe that The National Map will provide access to all forms of data, not just framework data. This was contrary to the planned implementation of The National Map at the time of the survey. In Question 21 a slightly greater number of respondents (74%) indicated an understanding that only the framework data will be provided through The National Map interface. Overall, there was relative agreement (~70% or higher) by the respondents that Questions 23, 26, 28 and 31 were stating values, or relevancy issues, that they accepted, including: Seamless integration across political boundaries, New opportunities for regional applications and enable analysis of issues across political boundaries, Increased access to data across political boundaries, and Increased ability of all levels of government to meet their missions and better serve the public These issues resonate with state, county and city respondents and more emphasis on these points should be provided in future marketing materials. There was significantly less agreement with the statements in Questions 24, 25, 27, 29 and 30. These are value statements that respondents did not accept as relevant, including: The National Map will provide custom applications to meet their organization’s business needs, That the private sector, or the respondent’s own organization, will develop applications on The National Map to meet their business needs, Participation will reduce costs for their organization to produce, maintain and serve data, and Participation will result in price reductions for application development and promote application sharing. The above values need to be examined to determine if they should be eliminated from marketing efforts, or if they can be restated or additionally supported in a way that will be accepted. Responses to Question 32 indicate that federal and state partners need to do a better job of marketing The National Map to show how and why county and local governments can participate. In Question 33, approximately 68% of state respondents indicated that The National Map was relevant, while less than 50% of county and local government respondents indicated they thought The National Map was relevant to their organization’s involvement with other programs and partners. This indicates that they believe The National Map is more of a stand alone program and that it is not relevant to other potential programs or partners. Improved efforts are required to show the relationships between The National Map and other Federal programs that are relevant to state, county and city governments. Examples include the activities of the U.S. Census Bureau and FEMA’s Flood Map Modernization Program. Question 34 indicates that ~ 60% of all respondents are ready to provide data for download on The National Map. However, it is perplexing that Question 35 indicates the respondents seem far less willing (39%) to provide data to The National Map for viewing purposes only. Given the use of licensing, copyright and data charges that are employed by state, county and city agencies, the Work Group expected to see a much higher level of agreement with this question. This may indicate that the respondents felt strongly about making their data available in the public domain, or that they felt The National Map will be of less use if data are not freely available for download. Further research is warranted on this issue. Directory: report report -> Original: English report -> Reconfigurable computing Three Month Report report -> Charter School Enrollment Data Annual Report report -> Request for Proposal [insert date] report -> Government of India Ministry of Communication and it department of Telecommunications report -> Government of India Ministry of Communication and it department of Telecommunications report -> 1. 2 Authority 1 3 Planning Area 1 report -> Pricing Closing Price $3,578 (June 22) 52-Wk High $3,825 52-Wk Low $2,982 Market Data report -> Work performed under agreement report -> Monitoring implementation of the hazardous and noxious substances convention Download 1.89 Mb. Share with your friends:
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||