Prepared in cooperation with the Socioeconomic Benefits Community

A workshop organized by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the 

U.S. Geological Survey, the University of Colorado, Boulder, and the George Washington 

University, Elliott School of International Affairs

Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact and Value of Open 

Geospatial Information

Open-File Report 2016–1036

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
Cover: A view of the Washington, D.C. skyline from the workshop.
A workshop organized by the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, the U.S. Geological Survey, the University of 

Colorado, Boulder, and the George Washington University, Elliott 

School of International Affairs

Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact and 

Value of Open Geospatial Information

By Francoise Pearlman, Jay Pearlman, Richard Bernknopf, Andrew Coote, 

Massimo Craglia, Lawrence Friedl, Jason Gallo, Henry Hertzfeld, Claire Jolly, 

Molly Macauley, Carl Shapiro, and Alan Smart

Prepared in cooperation with the Socioeconomic Benefits Community

Open-File Report 2016–1036

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

SALLY JEWELL, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Suzette M. Kimball, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2016

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living 

resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit http://www.usgs.gov or call 1–888–ASK–USGS.

For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, 

visit http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod/.

Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this information product, for the most part, is in the public domain, it also may contain copyrighted materials 

as noted in the text. Permission to reproduce copyrighted items must be secured from the copyright owner.

Suggested citation:

Pearlman, Francoise, Pearlman, Jay, Bernknopf, Richard, Coote, Andrew, Craglia, Massimo, Friedl, Lawrence, 

Gallo, Jason, Hertzfeld, Henry, Jolly, Claire, Macauley, Molly, Shapiro, Carl, and Smart, Alan, 2016, Assessing the 

socioeconomic impact and value of open geospatial information: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016–1036, 

36 p., http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161036.

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)
iii

Acknowledgments

The organizations and agencies listed below are acknowledged for providing financial, organizational, and (or) logistical cosponsorship of the workshop:

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)

• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

• University of Colorado, Boulder (CU)

• IEEE-USA

• The Space Policy Institute

• Elliott School of International Affairs, George Washington University

The organizers would like to thank NASA for their funding under grant NNX14O01G, USGS for 

their funding under grant G14AC00303 to the University of Colorado (CU), CU and IEEE-USA for 

contributing financial support and George Washington University Elliott School of International 

Affairs for providing the workshop venue and logistics support.

The authors would like to thank Nancy Serby from NASA, Sophia Liu from the USGS, and the 

students from the Elliott School of International Affairs for sharing their notes of the workshop. 

Appreciation is also given to Shonte Jenkins from the USGS for her excellent production efforts 

in developing an early draft. Special thanks are given to Michael Deacon of the USGS for his 

exceptional editorial review within a tight deadline.

This report summarizes discussion at the Workshop on Assessing the Impact and Value of 

Open Geospatial Information held at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. in 

October 2014. This event was cosponsored by the USGS, NASA, CU, IEEE-USA, the Space 

Policy Institute, and George Washington University. Comments made by speakers not affiliated 

with the USGS do not represent the views or position of the USGS. Any opinions, findings, and 

conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not 

necessarily reflect the views of NASA, CU, or IEEE.
iv

Contents

Acknowledgments........................................................................................................................................iii

Concept Definition .........................................................................................................................................1

Workshop Summary ......................................................................................................................................2

Day 1—October 28, 2014......................................................................................................................2

Opening Session ..........................................................................................................................2

Keynote—Open Geospatial Information: Empowering Decisions and the 

Economy ..........................................................................................................................2

Keynote—The Emerging Information Environment and Impacts on 

Decisionmaking ..............................................................................................................3

Keynote—Future Evolution of Geospatial Information Sector.............................................4

Session 1. Impact of Increased Access to Data and New Modes of 

Consumption ...................................................................................................................5

Session 2. Increased Supply of Geospatial Information and Expanded

Participatory Processes in the Production of Data................................................10

Perspectives—A Dialogue Between Panelists ...................................................................12

Day 2—October 29, 2014....................................................................................................................13

Welcome to Day 2 .....................................................................................................................13

Day 1 Summary...........................................................................................................................13

Keynote—Social Impact of Information Abundance ..........................................................14

An Interactive Discussion on Data Impacts on Decisionmaking .....................................15

Session 3. Emerging Approaches for Economic Impact Assessments ........................15

Session 4. Emerging Issues for Societal Impact Assessments......................................18

Workshop Recommendations and Summary........................................................................20

References Cited..........................................................................................................................................21

Appendix 1. Agenda.................................................................................................................................24

Appendix 2. List of Participants .............................................................................................................26

Appendix 3. Brief Biography of the Speakers, Session Chairs, and Discussants.........................28

Figures

1. Workshop attendees listen to presentations...........................................................................1

2. Suzette Kimball, U.S. Geological Survey Acting Director, opens the workshop................2

3. Nick Sinai, U.S. Deputy Chief Technology Officer, Office of Science and 

Technology Policy.........................................................................................................................3

4. Walter Scott, founder of DigitalGlobe, focuses on the future of geospatial 

information.....................................................................................................................................4

5. Session 1 panel .............................................................................................................................5

6. John Houghton presents a paper on the impacts of increased access and new

modes of consumption.................................................................................................................6

7. Diagram showing the range of approaches for considering societal benefits .................7

8. Graph showing movement from traditional notions of science to science with

uncertain facts, disputed values, high stakes, and urgent decisions..................................9

9. Session 2 panel ...........................................................................................................................10
v

10. Max Craglia presents a paper he developed in collaboration with Lea Shanley............10

11. Perspectives for the workshop panelists...............................................................................12

12. Lawrence Friedl gives his perspectives on the first day of the workshop .......................13

13. Myron Gutmann gives a keynote address on the impact of information 

abundance ...................................................................................................................................15

14. Session 3 panel ...........................................................................................................................16

15. Richard Bernknopf presents the position paper on emerging approaches to

economic assessment developed in collaboration with Carl Shapiro ..............................16

16. Session 4 panel discusses the changing role of data in society........................................18

17. Bridgette Wessels presents the position paper on emerging issues for societal

impact assessment.....................................................................................................................19

18. Jamie Kruse draws lessons learned from the workshop ....................................................20

19. Attendees consider the paths forward...................................................................................20
vi

Abbreviations

API application program interface

CMS Center for Medical Services

EO Earth Observation

EC–JRC European Commission–Joint Research Centre

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

ESIP Earth Sciences Information Partnership

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

GDP gross domestic product

GLAM galleries, libraries, archives, and museums

GMO genetically modified organism

GPS global positioning system

IT information technology

lidar light detection and ranging

LSST Large Synoptic Survey Telescope

MRLI moderate resolution land imagery

NGO nongovernmental organization

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NSF National Science Foundation

NYU New York University

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy

PSI public sector information

RoI return on investment

QA/QC quality assurance/quality control

UAV unmanned aerial vehicle

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development

USGS U.S. Geological Survey

VOI value of information
Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact and Value of Open 

Geospatial Information

By Francoise Pearlman,1 Jay Pearlman,1 Richard Bernknopf,2 Andrew Coote,3 Massimo Craglia,4

Lawrence Friedl,5

 Jason Gallo,6 Henry Hertzfeld,7 Claire Jolly,8 Molly Macauley,9 Carl Shapiro,10 and 

Alan Smart11

 1J&F Enterprise.

2

University of New Mexico.

3

ConsultingWhere, U.K.

4

European Commission–Joint Research Centre.

5

National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

6

Science and Technology Policy Institute.

7

George Washington University.

8

Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.

9

Resources for the Future.

10U.S. Geological Survey.

11ACIL Allen Consulting.

Concept Definition

The production and accessibility of geospatial information including Earth observation is changing greatly both 

technically and in terms of human participation. Advances 

in technology have changed the way that geospatial data are 

produced and accessed, resulting in more efficient processes 

and greater accessibility than ever before. Improved technology has also created opportunities for increased participation 

in the gathering and interpretation of data through crowdsourcing and citizen science efforts. Increased accessibility has 

resulted in greater participation in the use of data as prices for 

Government-produced data have fallen and barriers to access 

have been reduced.

The increase in participation in the production and in 

the use of data, defined as data democracy for this workshop, 

are having great impacts on economics and more generally on 

society.

There is also a strong drive by governments around the 

world, as shown by the G8 Declaration in June 2013 (Cabinet 

Office, 2013), to make public sector information and scientific 

data more widely accessible. These are respectively termed 

“open data” and “open research data.”

The workshop participants examined the consequences of 

expanding data democracy with a focus on its socioeconomic 

impacts. Evaluations were presented of state-of-the-art methods 

to assess these socioeconomic impacts, which included position 

papers and remarks by discussants. The workshop included 

discussions about the following topics:

• Increased and expanded information sources.

• Societal impacts, including approaches to economic 

assessments.

• Constraints to open access, including the demands 

for return on investment, specifications of intellectual 

property rights, and privacy issues.

• Learning from WKH experiences of other data-rich, 

domains, such as environmental management, internet 

businesses, health, and transportation.

The workshop was a working meeting with strong 

participant engagement, leading to recommendations for 

action. The meeting included five topic-driven sessions and 

keynote presentations (appendix 1). Precirculated position 

papers for each panel session facilitated preparation and 

remarks by discussants. After the position papers are updated 

following the discussants’ remarks, it is planned to submit 

them for publication.

The workshop included 68 participants coming from 

international organizations, the U.S. public and private 

sectors, nongovernmental organizations, and academia (fig. 1). 

Figure 1. Workshop attendees listen to presentations.
2 Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact and Value of Open Geospatial Information

Participants included policy makers and analysts, financial 

analysts, economists, information scientists, geospatial 

practitioners, and other discipline experts. A list of participants 

is included in appendix 2. A brief biography of the speakers, 

session chairs, and discussants is provided in appendix 3.

Workshop Summary

Day 1—October 28, 2014

Opening Session

Molly Macauley, Resources for the Future (RFF)

As co-chair of the workshop, Molly opened the session. 

In her opening remarks, she referred to a Wall Street Journal 

article titled, ”The Big Mystery—What’s Big Data Really 

Worth?” (Monga, 2014), indicating, “You cannot manage what 

you do not measure.” Measurement of the socioeconomic 

benefit and its value of geospatial information are critical 

inputs for society to weigh in its deliberation of the future of 

spatial data and its science.

Keynote—Open Geospatial Information: 

Empowering Decisions and the Economy

Suzette Kimball, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

Linking Science to Decisions

Suzette opened her presentation by addressing the value 

of natural resources, spanning from the deep geologic time to 

recent historic time to the future (fig. 2). It is the responsibility 

of the USGS to provide scientific understanding associated 

with those resources. Suzette discussed this role for the USGS 

as a way to link science to decisions.

Figure 2. Suzette Kimball, U.S. Geological Survey Acting 

Director, opens the workshop.

Data Democracy

Citizens are enhancing scientific efforts. Information 

from citizens are used to inform a variety of efforts, such as 

the loss of critical ecosystems, increased need for resources, 

and other problems, where difficult choices arise. Scientific 

information needs to be easily accessible and interpreted to 

inform decisions. This is done hand in hand with a variety of 

actors, domestically and internationally, broadening communities’ ability to understand science. For example, the USGS 

looked to engage citizens in earthquake monitoring. One in 

four people in the United States live with the risk of earthquakes. A crowdsourced Web site hosted by the USGS, “Did 

You Feel It,” gathered earthquake information from the public. 

Impacts from the magnitude 5.8 earthquake that occurred in 

Washington D.C. a few years ago were shown effectively 

via rapid and automatic intensity maps based on felt reports 

submitted online by individuals. With this example and others 

in mind, Suzette Kimball asked how science agencies could 

further engage with communities of interest.

Economic and Societal Impacts

Spatial data are gathered on a variety of scales, and there 

is a need to understand how socioeconomic benefits of this 

geospatial data accrue to society. One important focus is to 

assess the socioeconomic benefit of geospatial information in 

valuing natural resources. Alternative approaches to achieve 

this have been discussed in the societal benefits community.

As data become more abundant, “Big Data” can overwhelm users. There is a need to take advantage of such Big 

Data to make the provided information relevant for decisionmakers and more accessible for communities. An example is 

the Shuttle Radar Topography Data: local communities can 

make great use of this information and help economic sustainability in underdeveloped regions.

By making information available without charge or at 

low cost, benefits can be maximized with an open data policy. 

Landsat is an example of this. We saw an increase of use of 

tens of millions of images that are being produced. Once the 

data have been transformed into usable information, local 

communities and individuals are able to make better-informed 

decisions regarding their region. We are coming together 

globally to embrace open access to data. The general public 

has a need for this information. Citizen science has been an 

effective way to expand the number of information users.

Challenges to Consider

• How can the concept of data democracy be applied to 

enhance the breadth and depth of users of geospatial 

and scientific information?

• How can approaches like citizen science and crowdsourcing not only increase the production of geospatial 

information, but also strengthen the understanding and 

appreciation of the value of science?
Workshop Summary 3

• How can we evaluate the impacts of geospatial 

information more routinely and effectively?

• What methodological issues need to be addressed now 

to better understand the economic and societal impacts 

of geospatial information?

• What information is most important to assess, analyze, 

and evaluate the societal impacts of geospatial 

information and how can it be obtained?

Discussions

What effect does citizen science have on the USGS 

budget? Does it cost money or save money? 

As citizens become more able to contribute, they become 

a more effective constituency. For example, if a half million 

people say that we really need access to, and understanding of, 

a certain type of information (for example, earthquake early 

warning), this need provides linkages to the human dimension, 

not just the geologic dimension. Because politics is primarily 

local, such large scale requests carry real weight on Capitol 

Hill. Capital investment upfront is needed, however, to make 

the systems useful and user friendly. This adds both a human 

and social dimension to the development and operation of 

interfaces for citizen-science contributions.

An instructive example of changes in policy and impact 

on broader access is the availability of imagery data produced 

by the U.S. Government. The imagery that U.S. agencies 

once sold is now available for free. What are the effects of 

providing data without direct compensation? Where would 

revenue sources come from to replace the lost sales? 

Revenue analysis shows there are more than just dollarfor-dollar replacements. Instead of obtaining revenues from 

the sale of imagery, monetary benefits arise as a general 

benefit to, and further growth of, the economy at large. For 

example, by releasing the data at no cost to the user, we obtain 

information that would not have been available otherwise. 

In addition to information, new partnerships and interactions occur between the public and private sector, stimulating 

economic growth.

Keynote—The Emerging Information 

Environment and Impacts on Decisionmaking

Nick Sinai, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)

Nick Sinai (fig. 3) started his presentation by giving the 

example of Weatherbill, a company founded by a Google 

engineer, David Freeburg. Weatherbill was focused on the 

agricultural sector, producing applications for farmers, helping 

them to manage yields. Payments were tailored to specific 

farms. The business would not have existed without open data. 

The company recently sold for $1 billion. Several hundred 

jobs were created in the U.S. Midwest.

Figure 3. Nick Sinai, U.S. Deputy Chief Technology Officer, Office 

of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).

The OSTP signed a memo requiring agencies to inventory data that could be made public. The President supports 

open data to spur innovation. Data are vast assets in the 

Federal Government and we are just scratching the surface. 

The phrase “open and machine-readable” represents the 

new default (U.S. Department of State, 2012). In the initial 

directions for new data availability, we should focus on the 

thematic use (tied to mission), pioneering a few data assets, 

highlighting those among entrepreneurs and others, to catalyze use. Thinking about it thematically, health, energy, public 

safety, and so forth, all have open data initiatives. Health 

care and human services was the first example. The Center 

for Medical Services (CMS) indicates that open data was key 

for them to move from “paid by volume” to “paid by value.” 

There is a need for companies to add value.

There are a series of open data initiatives, illustrated by 

global positioning system (GPS) and weather-data examples. 

GPS was designed for military and later, opened up, resulting 

in multiple-fold returns. A traditional application of GPS is 

in agriculture, and the use of GPS has resulted in significant 

yield improvements. There are also unanticipated innovations, 

such as the GPS chip embedded in a dog collar. In a July 

2012 report entitled “The social economy: Unlocking value 

and productivity through social technologies,” the McKenzie 

Global Institute estimated the value of Earth Observation at 

over a trillion dollars, across several sectors and consumer 

groups (Chui, 2012).

Nick Sinai suggested the following three points: 

Point 1—The administration is focusing rigorously on 

users of our data (raw data, data products, analytics, and 

application program interfaces [APIs]) to understand what 

users need. In the past, information technologists used a 

waterfall approach—talking to the users and then delivering 

products up to 8 years later. This created a real problem, 

resulting in systems failure. Some reports say that over 

90 percent of Federal information technology (IT) projects 

die eventually because of the lack of user focus. We need to 

understand use cases and consider ourselves users as well.
4 Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact and Value of Open Geospatial Information

Point 2—The public has entrusted us to collect vast 

sums of data. Although there is a tremendous amount of 

data dissemination, the majority of data remain within our 

enterprises. Public-private partnerships are helpful in getting 

data out to potential users.

Point 3—People are critical as data stewards. They need 

partners, such as the presidential innovation fellows, who are 

at the forefront of technology and research and can help the 

data stewards.

Discussion

Comparing weather data, which are local and short-term, 

to climate data, which are long-term, how can we address the 

long-term needs for open data? 

Climate is an important issue for the Administration. It is 

easy to give a crisp story about weather. For climate, it is more 

important to make sure that data are available; this leads again 

to a rigorous focus on the users. Assuming that local planners 

know what tools they want, the Government acts as a retail 

provider; this empowers the large companies and startups to 

develop services. Is there a public interest and what level of 

retail services should the Federal Government support?

Referencing the data commons model, how can one 

support the costs of infrastructure?

We are moving to a digital world, requiring peerreviewed science articles, as well as the underlying data, to 

be publicly available in 12 months. This evolution into the 

digital world impacts scientists and nonscientists as well, 

through the research and business information they use, for 

example, clinical health records and genomic information. 

Tremendous opportunities in mining the data become available 

for precision medicine and personalized medicine. Information 

is categorized into the following groups: nonpublic, restricted 

public, and public. Mining public data is relatively easy; mining nonpublic and restricted public data is more difficult but 

with more practical benefits.

We have talked about U.S. open data. What about climate 

data from other countries India, China, Europe? Is there some 

sort of reciprocity?

We need to work with other countries. Some have, 

very small, low-cost satellites, equipped with single sensors, 

called micro-sats, for example and would like to sell the data 

collected by the micro-sats. We need to spur innovation in 

sensor development.

Keynote—Future Evolution of Geospatial 

Information Sector

Walter Scott, DigitalGlobe (fig. 4)

Satellite imagery is not free, but it appears free to most 

people who view it. The technology is driving demand for 

“show me where” over “show me what.” Big themes include 

source proliferation, data normalization, and open platforms.

Figure 4. Walter Scott, founder of DigitalGlobe, focuses on the 

future of geospatial information.

Source proliferation:

• Over 500-percent growth in smart phone usage in 

5 years

• OpenStreetMap–crowdsourced maps

• Geo-tagged photos

• Social media—also geo-tagged

• GPS tracks

• Internet of “things”—refrigerators and devices 

reporting out

• Satellite imagery—Internet of “everything else” 

(5 billion square kilometers [km2

] of imagery)

DigitalGlobe has 63 petabytes and is growing. Exponential 

growth is our friend. Storage makes it possible.

Data normalization:

• Much of the emerging geospatial information is 

fragmented, inconsistent, and not yet analysis-ready. 

It may be meaningful to humans but not to machines. 

Interpretation is a bottleneck to get to machine-ready 

data.

• Algorithms are enablers; for example, facial recognition requires a large enough training set of data to 

allow statistical comparison algorithms to work; videotracking.

• Hazy imagery has been unusable and the atmosphere 

distorts color, based on aerosol and water-vapor 

distortion. To solve the problem, the atmosphere is 

measured so that its impact can be determined.

• A number of examples illustrate the leverage obtained 

from the computers. These include automated image 

mining of vehicles and their respective speeds—cars 

are given colors based on speed limit and those 

traveling in excess of the limit. Another example 
Workshop Summary 5

is related to automated building detection, village 

boundary identification and population estimation.

• Vector data conflation—merge sources.

• DigitalGlobe personnel have leveraged the crowd 

to quickly analyze an image (hurricane impact) by 

sending it to a large number of volunteers, CrowdRank 

sorts between reliable and unreliable sources and then 

converts the collected information into a damage map, 

all within in 1 hour.

• DigitalGlobe MH370 statistics.

Open Platforms:

• Geospatial Big Data are too big. The cloud model 

moves the computation to the data (platform as a 

service).

Show me Where:

• Geospatial Big Data are a living digital inventory of the 

surface of the Earth, used for finding, counting, and 

measuring.

• “Show me where” examples: a picture that wasn’t 

geo-tagged—look at ridgeline, land cover; look at a 

heat map; risk of where terrorist activities are highest; 

where farmers are cheating on their subsidies; where 

copper theft is most likely; where oil theft risk is high; 

where there are schools near water; where are the 

people in Kano State (Nigeria)? What kind of neighborhood is this? Is it a favela (slum)?

• Google indexed the Internet. How will we index the 

planet?

Discussion

How do you decide the boundary when engaging in a 

public-private partnership? Where can you make money? 

The purpose is to see a better world, go after particular 

problems to save lives, money, and time. Private companies 

evaluate many possibilities, addressing problems that are 

important to customers and aligned with the company strategy.

How about crowdsourcing? How accurate can the first 

cut be? 

A million people are looking at imagery; the crowd 

acts as a filter; OpenStreetMap, for example, is a wiki and 

leverages people on the ground (hardcopies of maps are given 

to local resident to modify). The first cut is not accurate but 

close enough for the need.

How about the use of time series, for example to analyze 

pollution trends? 

Time series imagery is used frequently to look at landcover specification, and encroachment in areas.

How do you motivate people? 

People in the crowd are motivated by a variety of factors, 

and many just want to help. It is easy to engage a crowd for 

humanitarian issues (such as search and rescue and public 

health). The crowd can also be more community-focused. It 

may be a commercial operation and micro-payments can be 

used.

Session 1. Impact of Increased Access to Data 

and New Modes of Consumption

Chair: Andrew Coote, ConsultingWhere, U.K., introduced 

the position paper author, and the panel of discussants.

Position paper: John Houghton, Centre for Strategic 

Economics Studies, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia

Panel discussants: Pierre Glynn, USGS; Chris Goranson, 

White House Innovation Fellow, Department of the Interior 

(DOI); Sally Wyatt, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and 

Sciences (fig. 5)

Figure 5. Session 1 panel. Shown from left to right: 

John Houghton, Andrew Coote, Pierre Glynn, Chris Goranson, and 

Sally Wyatt.

John Houghton

John Houghton authored a position paper for the workshop on the impacts of increased access and new modes of 

consumption (fig. 6). John’s research is at the intersection 

of theory and practical applications. The paper focuses on 

several aspects of the emerging open-data policy context; John 

suggested that, while countries confront their own particular 

issues and difficulties in going from policy to practice and 

progress is uneven, there is a trend toward more open data 

(that is, data made available at zero or marginal cost, with 

unrestrictive licensing, and machine-readable in standardized 

data formats). There is also a shift toward being more inclusive, especially in the increasing expansion into static content 

and the galleries, libraries, archives, and museums (GLAM) 

sector. John noted that there may also be a wide-open data 

opportunity, based around establishing a regulatory and policy 

environment conducive to enabling the maximization of 

opportunities to open private data—both business data and 

individual data.

In acknowledging these trends, the path forward is not 

without challenges. Looking at new modes of consumption, 

John Houghton noted the impacts of online delivery of digital 

content, the increasing length and complexity of value chains, 
6 Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact and Value of Open Geospatial Information

Figure 6. John Houghton presents a paper on the impacts of 

increased access and new modes of consumption.

and the expanding ”shared base.” Acknowledging that data 

are typically an intermediate good, with many and multiple 

possible uses and combinations of data feeding into many 

possible production processes, market signals are becoming 

more varied, fragmented, mediated, and so forth, and much 

less clear. The paper proposes the theoretical underpinnings of 

the private versus public tradeoff shifts, with a larger role for 

Government in the digital economy examined in the context of 

new data uses.

John’s presentation highlighted the key points from his 

position paper.

Aims and Scope of Open Data Policies

• Data are often categorized by their sector of production and characteristics. Data can be dynamic (that is, 

continually generated, such as in business registries), 

or static (that is, part of an established collection, such 

as for a library or museum).

• Open data policies seek to foster growth and innovation by making data available at zero or marginal cost, 

with unrestrictive licensing, and machine-readable in 

standard data formats.

• There are many open data policy initiatives at the 

international, national and sector levels, and among 

national and international agencies.

Open Data Policy Trends

• Countries confront their own particular issues and difficulties in going from policy to practice, and progress 

is uneven.

• Nevertheless, there are trends toward

• More open data—at zero or marginal cost, with 

unrestrictive licensing, and machine-readable in 

standard data formats.

• Being more inclusive—with an expansion into static 

content and the GLAM sector.

• There may also be a wider private data opportunity, 

based around establishing a regulatory and policy 

environment conducive to enabling open private data 

(both personal and business data).

• Research focuses on the production of Government 

data or public sector information (PSI), and the 

publications and data arising from publicly funded 

research. Many studies explore evidence of the impacts 

of open access to Government and research data.

• Methods include the following: ex-ante estimates 

and prediction (for example, PIRA, 2000), and 

ex-post evaluations and measurement (for example, 

Houghton, 2011); top-down approaches (for example, 

PIRA, 2000), and bottom-up approaches (for 

example, DotEcon, 2006); qualitative approaches (for 

example, Beagrie and others, 2008, 2010) quantitative 

approaches, and mixed approaches (for example, 

Beagrie and Houghton, 2013a, b, 2014); and, multiple 

U.K. Research Data Centre studies).

• Methods used by Beagrie and Houghton (2013a, b, 

2014) to explore value are summarized in figure 7.

Impacts of Increased Access

• The evidence from these studies suggests that providing open access to data leads to more use and creates 

greater value than do priced and (or) restrictive access 

regimes.

• The main dimensions of impact include the following: 

transaction cost savings for both data providers and 

users; efficiency impacts that can be quantified as 

time-cost savings; increases in the return on investment in data creation from the additional uses that 

would not otherwise have been possible; potentially 

significant wider impacts that are more difficult, 

perhaps impossible, to fully capture; and new applications and combinations of data, with unforeseen value 

and impacts emerging over time.

New Modes of Consumption

• Data are typically an intermediate good (that is, a 

good that is an input to the production of a final 
Workshop Summary 7

Figure 7. Diagram showing 

the range of approaches for 

considering societal benefits. 

From John Houghton’s 

presentation herein and 

Beagrie and Houghton (2014).

good or finished product), whose consumption 

takes place in the context of production. There are 

greater connections in production, with production 

often involving many inputs and many suppliers 

and customers, increasing the length and complexity of value chains, and weakening market signals 

(increasing noise?).

• There is an expanding shared base (that is, an openly 

available platform providing the basis for production), 

with open innovation and open access to research, 

shared IP cores in electronics, open source software, 

the expansion of fair use-fair dealing and exceptions in 

copyright, and multiple Internet platforms.

• Digitization and online delivery make content-based 

goods more like public goods, and the marginal cost of 

distribution near zero.

• There is an increasing role for Government, as the 

characteristics of information shift the private versus 

public tradeoff in a digital economy.

There Is No Such Thing As a Free Lunch

• Benefits can be reaped from charging for data, in terms 

of alignment of production with demand, quality, 

reliability, and so forth.

• Certain uses may be excluded, however, where the 

capacity to pay is limited or the value of the use is 

uncertain or unrealizable.

• Nonexcludability creates a free-rider problem, but nonrivalrousness (that is, where a person’s consumption of 

something does not prevent others from consuming it, 

such as is the case with information) creates a freerider opportunity, which is often much bigger—it is 

commercially advantageous to give things away.

• Who won’t pay for data? Innovative uses for which 

the outcome is uncertain and there is no established 

market, or which are themselves public goods, such as 

research and education.

• A better question might be: How can we find a way 

to pay that does not raise access barriers and stifle 

innovation? 

Temporal Analysis and Value

• Changes in value over time—for time-series data, and 

from new research techniques, new theories and new 

questions, new commercial uses, and new products.

• Changes in impact over time—counterfactual (for 

example, World War III), hindsight (for example, 

thalidomide).

• Rubbish Theory—from transient to durable via rubbish (for example, antique furniture and vintage motor 

cars, which are purchased and used, depreciate in 

value, are scrapped, then rediscovered and re-used, and 

appreciate in value as a result of that re-use). Rubbish 

Theory (1) suggests point-in-time estimates cannot 

fully capture value, (2) suggests that value can change 
8 Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact and Value of Open Geospatial Information

in unforeseen ways, (3) makes more shapely the 

distinction between use and re-use, and (4) shows that 

the potential value of re-use is very difficult to predict. 

Value can change significantly over time, and the value 

of re-use is difficult to predict.

• These points, described above, suggest that methods 

that take account of value perceptions (for example, 

contingent valuation) might be useful in approaching 

the value of data.

Skills and Capacity

• The value and impact of data depend on the skills and 

capacity of people to analyze and apply it throughout 

the economy and society.

• Data scientists are often called “unicorns,” because the 

combination of skills required is so rare.

• Universities are moving to modify and create new 

courses to develop suitable recruits for data scientist 

jobs, but more could be done on the training side.

• Automation can be an important contributor as a semisubstitute for skilled labor on both the production and 

use sides (for example, metadata and APIs).

Chris Goranson

“Data are the grapes, and wine is the information.” 

stated Chris Goranson, who highlighted a number of aspects 

from John Houghton’s position paper. Data “are typically an 

intermediate good. Rarely, if ever, are data destined for final 

consumption.” Open data are “data made available at zero 

or marginal cost, with unrestrictive licensing, and machinereadable in standardized data formats.” Information can 

be “a powerful tool in economic growth and competitive 

advantage.” Open access leads to increased use and thus 

greater value (Houghton and others, 2011). Considering users, 

with social media as one example, “platforms in which users 

are not active participants may not be nearly as valuable. 

Seldom are users active participants in existing Government 

repositories.” If participants can add value, why don’t we 

encourage them to do so? Other models could support the 

ability of users to define quality and usefulness for new 

services. They would allow users to create meaningful, 

derivative, and composite data that can be shared back with 

Government. There is a variable model in which industry can 

tell Government what data are most useful and conversely 

what data are useless. They could provide Government with 

an information feedback loop. Chris cited Wikipedia and 

GitHub, where users can copy, share, and improve code, as 

examples. What if they could do the same for Government 

data? Chris also showed various visualization implementations 

that take us from data to information, such as Mode 

(http://modeanalytics.com), where users can copy, share, 

visualize, and improve data; and visualizing.org, for which 

he gave a variety of uses. These included the congressional 

influences map (BrightPoint Consulting, Inc., 2012) and the 

open-source GeoGig StoryMap maker software (Geogig.org, 

n.d.).

Chris concluded by suggesting that how to value 

information is something that the author should further pursue 

in a follow-up paper.

Sally Wyatt

Open access to research data needs to be seen in the 

larger context of the open access and open science movements, suggested Sally Wyatt. For some years now, people 

around the world have been arguing for more access to 

information. Partially inspired by the success of the opensource movement, and with growing calls for accountability 

from authorities, individuals and groups are looking to make 

all kinds of data publicly accessible for a wider group of 

people. This call for more openness includes more access to 

scientific information, in particular when it is publicly funded. 

There are global bottom-up initiatives, consisting in particular 

of activists, technologists, nongovernmental organization 

(NGO) workers, that collaborate in finding ways of making 

data available (for example, Open Knowledge Foundation). 

They believe that open access will be for the benefit of society.

Sally also raised the question of what is meant by open? 

Open access publications; open research data; open source 

software; open standards; or open knowledge? Static versus 

dynamic data is more of a continuum and not as either/or, 

as expressed in John Houghton’s paper. In addition to static 

versus dynamic, Sally added open versus closed data and 

gave examples of census and weather data. Only 20 percent 

of GLAM data may be digitized and the rest is anything but 

machine-readable. Sally then addressed the economics of the 

knowledge commons. Rivalry can be low to high; exclusion 

can be difficult to easy. All of these different possibilities have 

different consequences in terms of policy. Data are not freefloating items, but rather, are deeply social, always inscribed 

in the instruments used to create them. Data are interrelated 

with how they are produced and used. Sally reminded everyone to not forget the work that goes into producing, using, 

reusing, and curating; noting that considerable labor goes 

into the upkeep and organization of data. In conclusion, Sally 

provided the following points for consideration: defining key 

terms in this debate is not so easy; the practice of open data is 

even harder; there are distributional implications—between 

individuals, institutions, disciplines, and countries; learning 

from philosophy of science, for example, that data do not 

travel easily; and lastly, there are rational reasons for not 

making data open. We should look at both successful and less 

successful instances of making data open and pay attention to 

technical infrastructure.
Workshop Summary 9

Pierre Glynn

The position paper is very useful in taking a pulse 

as to where we are with open data. In summary, the Open 

Data Barometer ranks key open-access data sites; the paper 

provides a rationale for data as a public good (nonrival and 

nonexclusive); and it provides an estimate for the value added 

by open data. It is suggested in the paper that “As more 

people, businesses and governments use information to make 

better decisions, the information becomes more valuable.”

Pierre addressed his own views on open data. He thinks 

quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) of data is 

important and should be expanded. More data does not 

necessarily mean more value, nor better decisions. Taxpayers 

need to have a return on investment (RoI) and be able to 

monitor how their dollars are being used. Open data and 

open access are essential to scientific integrity and progress. 

They allow checking available data, and potentially, adding 

new data, or bringing new transformations of the data, or 

new applications. Taxpayers don’t just need access to more 

data, they also need to be able to explore and use the data 

smartly, and they need to have confidence in the data made 

available. Data mining, checking, and analysis tools are 

essential complements to open data. Pierre stated that his 

own research is more efficient because of the open access of 

information through the internet—he uses Web sites, including Wikipedia, to get links to primary source references and 

then uses Google Scholar and (or) ResearchGate to get access 

to journal articles and reports. He rarely goes to hardcopy 

encyclopedias collection for background information, because 

the information will generally not be up to date. 

What about information overload? Information can also 

be a form of pollution. The Oracle of Delphi shows that people 

often attach more value to things they need to pay for; and 

they may get better answers when they are engaged to think. 

The Oracle of Delphi institution lasted at least 12 centuries 

on sparse cryptic answers and restrictive access. Today’s 

science requires greater transparency, more approachability, 

and diversity of perspectives, but some of the Oracle’s lessons 

remain. 

Open data increasingly defines our new world, with 

7 billion hyper-connected people. The way science happens 

today is different than in the past traditional model. Pierre 

showed the Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993) diagram (fig. 8) 

in which the vertical axis illustrates decision stakes and the 

horizontal axis represents the level of uncertainty—circular 

“waves” (shown as quadrants in fig. 8) extend outward from 

normal science to expert-professional judgment to post-normal 

science with uncertain facts, disputed values, high stakes, 

and urgent decisions. The diagram shows the role of different 

types of science in the continuum from data to information 

to knowledge to decisions and to action. For managing the 

commons, a top-down approach does not suffice. We need 

more bottom-up approaches. Good implementations of “open 

data” and “open access” require addressing their human 

dimensions much more fully. Such dimensions control the true 

Figure 8. Graph showing movement from traditional notions of 

science to science with uncertain facts, disputed values, high 

stakes, and urgent decisions. From Pierre Glynn’s presentation, 

herein, and modified from Funtowicz and Ravetz (1993).

accessibility of information, and even more importantly, its 

meaningful and smart use for decisionmaking.

Discussion

How could we measure the value in data? 

Robert Solow’s economic growth model was referenced. 

Static versus dynamic data is a continuum. Typically, we start 

with the dynamic part; it is captured in a digital form so we 

can do something with it. Measuring what you can value as in 

a cost-benefit framework is better than not doing it at all.

Measuring the value of data depends on skills and 

capacity of people to analyze the data. Can we have too much 

data and how do we deal with that? What is the cost of too 

much data?

How do we address these questions? Better education; 

more joint posting and uses involving both experts and 

members of general public; structured, transparent, traceable, 

coordinated processes that strive for honesty, including 

cognizance of human biases and red lining to fight biases.

What about the role of open source-like wiki’s without 

Government control? Can industry tell the Government what 

to do and show a better way to do it? The private sector does 

the implementation, whereas the Government has a unique 

role in providing a balance. It is a lot of work to make data 

open; is it always worth it?

In astrophysics, there is a national virtual observatory; 

a context was created that encompasses it—a 3D spatial 

visualization; they made a virtual camera that can fly into 

the data, enabling the world-wide telescope to be accessible 

(http://www.worldwidetelescope.org/Eyewire/). One of our 
10 Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact and Value of Open Geospatial Information

participants thought that we would be talking about different 

business models for different users. What type of business 

model should we be offering? That is an important and 

difficult question. It is difficult to come up with good business 

models. Open data and access is the default, with marginal 

cost for the worst case. How do we prioritize what we create, 

that we feel is valuable enough to curate? Should we give 

away information and sell data?

Concluding Remarks

• The position paper includes a lot of material for discussion.

• Can we rebalance public-private partnerships around 

open data?

Session 2. Increased Supply of Geospatial 

Information and Expanded Participatory 

Processes in the Production of Data (Such as 

Crowdsourcing)

Chair: Carl Shapiro, U.S. Geological Survey

Position paper: Lea Shanley, Presidential Innovation Fellow 

at National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 

and University of Wisconsin-Madison; Max Craglia, European 

Commission–Joint Research Centre (EC–JRC)

Panel discussants: Mikel Maron, Presidential Innovation 

Fellow with the State Department and OpenStreetMap team; 

Robin McLaren, Know Edge Ltd., U.K. (fig. 9)

Figure 9. Session 2 panel. Shown from left to right: Lea Shanley, 

Max Craglia, Robin McLaren, Mikel Maron, and Carl Shapiro.

Carl Shapiro

Although satellites and sensors have exponentially 

increased the quantity of geospatial information available, 

public participation is transformative because it can enhance 

the use and value of the information decisionmaking. Public 

participation can increase understanding and application 

of the information and at the same time it can add critical 

information through techniques like crowdsourcing. It also 

can expand and broaden the range of beneficiaries from 

the information as wider groups of individuals become 

knowledgeable about its existence and utility. The paper 

explores these opportunities as well as many issues that arise 

in using data generated by the public: Can the “wisdom of the 

crowd” improve the quantity and quality of data available? 

Can it be relied upon? What are the risks? What are the 

benefits? Is it sustainable? What are the quality aspects to 

consider?

Max Craglia

Max Craglia gave the position paper presentation titled, 

“Data democracy—Increased supply of geospatial information 

and expanded participatory processes in the production of 

data” (fig. 10). He started with a short introduction on the 

European Union.

Figure 10. Max Craglia presents a paper he developed in 

collaboration with Lea Shanley.

Citizen science is part of the changing data landscape. 

There are many new sources of data, in the public and private 

sector. There has been a huge increase in the volume of data, 

including data from new satellites and sensor networks. In 

addition, the “Internet of things” will further contribute to this. 

According to SINTEF (SINTEF, n.d.), 90 percent of all data 

in the world were collected in the last 2 years. Crowdsourcing 

and citizen science are not just about more data, but are about 

new and collaborative modes of production and consumption. 

People are both users and producers of information; the 

Internet has allowed their contributions to increase.

In Europe, people talk about citizen science as a single 

concept; however, there are different views of citizen engagement. The purpose may be more focused on raising awareness 

and (or) education; community-led projects, cooperating with 

universities; and crowdsourcing in which citizens are involved 

in data production. Data mining in social media is arguably 

not citizen science.

The extent to which communities participate is an 

important marker. Four levels have been identified: crowdsourcing, distributed intelligence, participatory, and “extreme.” 

In the latter, the citizens contribute in the definition of the 

problem.
Workshop Summary 11

The discussion on genetically modified organisms 

(GMOs) in Europe was given as an example. Most people are 

not concerned about the safety of GMOs, but they are interested in who is benefitting and controlling them and what the 

long-term issues are. For this issue, is quality a problem? Not 

necessarily. Is the methodology good or bad? Quality has to be 

assessed in relation to the objectives.

Open Issue

Reproducibility can be difficult; sustainability of engagement for a volunteer operation must also be considered. 

Points for Discussion

How do we empower communities to collect, analyze, 

and understand data to improve lives? How do we involve 

people in the framing of the questions as well as collecting 

data? What kind of infrastructure is appropriate for sharing data, and methods? How do we foster multi-disciplinary 

thinking? Do we need educational programs in school 

on citizen science and data management? Are the existing regulatory frameworks adequate? How can we design 

an international research program on the value of citizengenerated content for policy, science and society?

Finally, we are living in a society that is increasingly 

polarized, with lack of trust between society, science, and 

policymaking. There are many “wicked problems” in which 

facet, interests, and values are inextricably meshed. Citizen 

science could be a way to build bridges between communities. 

Are we as a society truly prepared for the challenge?

Mikel Maron

Mikel is looking through the lenses of OpenStreetMap, which is essentially the Wikipedia of maps. From 

a crowdsourcing standpoint, it is an “extreme” project. 

OpenStreetMap was started 10 years ago by a college dropout 

using a GPS and walking the streets. The goal was to map 

the entire world using a community of walkers, hikers, canal 

boat operators, humanitarians, and so forth. The focus was on 

physical infrastructure and land use (what you can see with 

your own eyes or from the sky). OpenStreetMap treats data as 

a conversation by using a flexible system of tags. Nobody is 

in control of the schema. The representation is enclosed in the 

tools.

Mikel Maron argues that issue of data quality raised 

by some is a red herring. The expert is the person who 

participates and lives in a certain place. Acknowledging the 

voice and needs of the community helps them advance their 

agenda. Without applications such as OpenStreetMap, the 

wealthier, safer areas are mapped while the poorer, more 

dangerous areas are not.

Open Cities Project in Sri Lanka and Nepal uses the 

approach of engaging with Government, schools, and 

communities to collect map data and prepare for inevitable 

disasters. Participants have taken on the responsibility of 

engaging with these communities.

There are questions of sustainability. What is the value of 

the mapping products created by crowdsourcing? (How much 

would it cost if the product was produced commercially?)

Robin McLaren

Robin McLaren noted that the session 2 position papers 

had several gaps—especially in the crowdsourced open data 

domain where considerable value can be added through 

networks based on trust, protocols, and rules. Crowdsourcing 

is morphing into ecosystems that add even more value. The 

discussion is given through the lens of democratization of real 

property rights. Seventy-five percent of the world’s population 

does not have access to secure land rights. MapMyRights 

is a foundation project Robin is working on and his current 

activities consist of the U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID) Mobile Project, three pilot projects 

in Tanzania, Cloudburst, and more. Socioeconomic benefits 

associated with documentation of property rights include 

the following: increased security of tenure for citizens and 

communities leads to social stability; reduction of poverty; 

better land governance; reduced risk of land “grabbing”; and 

lastly, the ability of children to devote time to school rather 

than guarding property. Trust-based systems are replacing 

legal-based systems to fill this current tenure-based security 

vacuum. The earlier initiatives avoided open crowdsourcing 

at the outset by asking land professionals and (or) NGOs to 

train trusted intermediaries in communities and self-organize 

into collaborating networks. Robin showed a continuum 

between informal and formal land rights. Crowdsourcing is 

a launching pad on this continuum that can support a person 

moving toward formal land rights. Crowdsourced data support 

a Fit-For-Purpose approach (participatory, upgradeable, and 

affordable). There are unintended consequences, however—

people may misrepresent ownership by recording claims for 

land that is not theirs and some slum dwellers want to hide. 

These issues will have to be managed effectively to build trust 

in this open approach.

In conclusion, it is possible for trust-based systems to 

serve as entry points for legally based systems and incrementally build value.

Passive data can be mined and used in many different 

ways. Their value was estimated to be worth $156 billion 

in 2012 ($500 billion in 10 years) and represents $60 for 

each of the world’s 2.5 billion Internet users. If we estimate 

that 25 percent of this revenue is directly related to location 

information, then passive location information is worth 

$40 billion/year. Citizens should be compensated for use of 

their passive location information.

Discussion

Lea Shanley is very aware of unintended consequences; 

there is an intellectual property issue, as well as a political 

issue. She gave the example of unmanned aerial vehicle 

(UAV) monitoring of private properties.
12 Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact and Value of Open Geospatial Information

Max Craglia indicated that there are transferrable skills 

coming from these citizen science and (or) crowdsourcing 

activities, which are increasingly needed for tomorrow. An 

area of concern is the shift to an economy built on personal 

data collected and used by the private sector, in which we as 

citizens are the commodities and no longer the subjects.

One discussion focused on the role of governance in 

data and in creating opportunities for social and economic 

impacts. This is, in part, balancing the roles of the public and 

private sectors. A possible foundation is for the Government 

to provide a geographic framework. Other factors for broad 

uptake are to adjust the tools to make maintenance fun; 

create partnerships to address imbalances in participation and 

resources; and work with after-school programs—education 

is key. There are incentives at the local level regarding, 

for example, roads being paved or trash being picked up. 

An important role of the Government is to fund the data 

collection, including collection of baseline data, as well 

infrastructure and archives; just setting the standards will not 

be sufficient. There are other models, such as the Dutch Key 

Register that is definitive, authoritative, and free to use. In this 

case, Government is the custodian for this information and 

the framework to tie it together. In the United Kingdom, data 

collection is outsourced. For data collection from nonstandard 

sources, citizens involved in scientific projects have been 

generating the testable hypotheses, as well as providing citizen 

sensor data and other information. Are there activities that 

are best suited for different types of participatory processes? 

Citizens may be best at identifying societal impacts. Is there 

use in assessing value? It is often hard to tease information 

from data. In addition, there can be unintended circumstances 

that impact the collected data and resulting information. 

(For example, squatters in underdeveloped countries do not 

necessarily want to divulge where they live.) Lastly, volunteer 

citizen scientists may require expert coordination.

Perspectives—A Dialogue Between Panelists 

Chair: Jay Pearlman

Panelists: Molly Macauley, Resources for the Future and Jim 

Geringer, Esri (fig. 11)

Figure 11. Perspectives for the workshop panelists. Shown from 

left to right: Jay Pearlman, Molly Macauley, and Jim Geringer. 

Jim Geringer

How do we assure the data being gathered is worth 

something? Do we know its worth? It is important to 

personalize the context so one recognizes the purpose of the 

data collection exercise. “Information within context is the 

most powerful visualization of all.” 

The gap in understanding of “what is crowdsourcing” 

is narrowing considerably. How do you answer the question 

“What is the value of GPS?” Valuing these services is very 

important.

Molly Macauley

The pace of technological advances is ahead of policy 

advances. The capacity to handle data was not expected, and 

this leaves us behind. It reminds us, as we look ahead, to 

anticipate technological advances. We are led to a profound 

policy question: Where do our decisionmakers invest in the 

next generation infrastructure? At the margin, what will we 

do? When will the private sector and nonprofit sector be more 

broadly engaged?

Today’s discussion was focused on technological advance 

with respect to spatial detail. Temporal and spectral data 

characteristics are important considerations as well. These 

are the “wave of the future.” Now we can describe the data in 

more detail, rather than focusing on the averages. When we 

augment Earth-observing systems, where do decisionmakers 

invest in the next generation of infrastructure? Should there be 

a bureau of environmental statistics? Creating one may help 

avoid duplication of effort.

There is value in having data collected over time. 

Respective responsibilities to collect and archive the 

information must be adjudicated between the public and 

private sectors.

Discussion

How can Federal agencies communicate the value of their 

distributed data to decisionmakers on Capitol Hill? 

The recommendation is to illustrate the value of data 

with a story which decisionmakers can relate to. For example, 

what is the value to somebody back home? For decisionmakers, value is subjective in many ways. The difference between 

value and perceived value is very important. The key is to give 

options so users can select according to their perceived values. 

It could be said that value is created when an agency offers 

data and users want more.

As an agency example of value creation and flow, there 

are instances where the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) is using data to draw flood maps. FEMA uses 

geospatial information for first responders; thus, the ultimate 

value assessment is at the local level. Part of the issue is 

how and when to address risk management for applications. 

Integrated risk management means you integrate it in context.

Packaging the message, tools, and data, there is 

consideration of value versus ease of use and (or) access. 

Agencies do not do that; it is the duty of scientists to share 
Workshop Summary 13

information derived from data with the public. In turn, this 

information can help the public inform science.

Some key points of the discussions related to the way 

the information is used—should there be stricter regulation to 

protect personal data? The problem is primarily enforceability.

In summary, value is subjective; data should be given as 

options for decisions.

Engage the social, economic, and political sciences 

as well as natural sciences; consider public-private sector 

partnerships.

End of Day 1

Day 2—October 29, 2014

Welcome to Day 2 

Tim Stryker

Tim Stryker gave a short introduction to the U.S. Group 

on Earth Observations. He mentioned the Federal initiative 

on climate, and talked about discoverability of datasets that 

agencies are holding. The Global Change Information System 

supports the outcome of the climate assessment.

Regarding socioeconomic benefits, Tim appreciates the 

work the team is doing to define the value of information. We 

cannot assume the value of Earth observation and geospatial 

data; the value needs to be adequately quantified. What do we 

value as social goods and how do we explain their value to 

policy makers?

Tim Stryker then addressed OSTP’s work on civil earth 

observation policy and planning. The NASA Authorization 

Act of 2010 updated the strategic plan for Earth Observation 

(EO). The OSTP was asked to evaluate civil observations 

for the Nation, which was a beneficial catalyst. The 2013 

Earth Observation Strategy followed (Executive Office of the 

President National Science and Technology Council, 2013), 

providing a societal benefits framework and guidance for data 

management (use of machine-readable formats; increased 

inoperability). Publicly funded data are open.

The National EO task force is providing Federal-wide 

assessment for nine societal benefit areas (Federal and nonFederal) looking at impacts from streamgages to satellites. 

The national plan for EO was released in July 2014 (National 

Science and Technology Council Executive Office of the 

President, 2014). To help accelerate implementation, a Big 

Data Initiative was started (fiscal years 2014/2015). Making 

data freely available is not free by itself; there is a need for 

standard curation practices across agencies.

Discussion

The data working group is taking a comprehensive 

look at data discoverability and usability. The Climate Data 

Initiative focuses attention on particular aspects of this. There 

is a plan to provide Federal Government-wide metrics on 

usability over the next 18 months.

Day 1 Summary

Lawrence Friedl

Lawrence added his perspective to the comments given 

by Molly Macauley and Jim Geringer on the first day (fig. 12). 

The entire workshop is addressing the linking of information 

to decisions and actions. This includes both the value of that 

linkage and the valuation of the resulting actions, such as 

the ability to value natural resources and natural-resource 

assessments (Suzette Kimball’s points). From Molly’s 

opening, we heard about the increasing supply of data and, 

hopefully, information. In many ways, Day 1 focused on 

the supply side, increasing supply through open data and 

the engagement and participation of the “crowd.” Today, by 

comparison, will focus on demand side.

Figure 12. Lawrence Friedl gives his perspectives on the first 

day of the workshop.

We recognize that, for the Earth science community 

in the United States, open data—from Government and 

publicly funded research or observations—has been part 

of the culture since the early 1990s, and that the Internet 

accelerated the process. As John Houghton suggested, there 

is a tacit assumption that open data supports greater use, and 

that greater use spurs greater innovation. In Nick Sinai’s 

talk, as well as in one of the Birds of a Feather lunch session 

discussions, we did get reminded that not all publicly collected 

information can be shared—that there is public, restricted 

public, and nonpublic data. Thus, although there is an inherent 

attraction of openness, there are limits to it.

So, do we need to value open data? Certainly, as we 

encourage other countries to share their data and adopt our 

approach, both for their gain and ours. In addition, with 

recent economic and budget crises, there were again calls in 

Congress for Government to charge for certain data. Thus, 
14 Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact and Value of Open Geospatial Information

although the policy debate is for open data for now, the 

valuation analyses need to be ready if proponents of that 

policy want it to continue.

In Day 1, overall, some points serve as good reminders 

to us. Walter Scott noted that, such as in the case with satellite 

images on Google Maps, “Open data is not always free 

data.” In addition, Jim Geringer and others noted, there is the 

real, financial impact in the loss of a revenue stream for that 

organization providing the data, even if the benefits to society, 

innovation, and the economy dominate.

In the first panel discussion, John Houghton showed 

that many studies explore evidence of the impacts of open 

access. After talking about the main dimensions of impacts, 

John reminded us that, with data, the consumption rarely takes 

place in the context of production and that data are typically 

an intermediate good. Following that thought, Sally Wyatt 

reminded us of the critical importance of the data systems 

manager. The work of producing and caring for data are 

undervalued. This situation has been identified by the Earth 

Sciences Information Partnership (ESIP) Federation in the 

United States as needing attention.

Panel 2 gave us an excellent overview of the citizen 

science movement. Max Craglia and Lea Shanley provided a 

useful typology of citizen-generated content projects as well 

as the dimensions of engagement. Everyone on the panel and 

a few members of the audience referred to the work by Muki 

Haklay at University College London. Among the important 

points that Max left us with was that citizen involvement 

is, in part, about helping to clarify the questions to address. 

Members of the panel and some workshop participants 

noted that there are specific places where citizen science 

is appropriate and others where it is not. Participants also 

recognized the involvement of citizens as a key marketing 

tool to better connect the public to the scientists’ work. Mikel 

Maron showed the efficiencies and positive contributions 

that crowdsourcing provided in the case of open street maps, 

and Robin McLaren discussed trends in the socioeconomic 

valuation of crowdsourced data. Robin noted that the crowd is 

morphing into ecosystems.

Some key themes that recurred through the presentations 

and panels include the following: 

• Participation and participatory approaches

• Public-private partnerships

• Capacity

• Role of Government: when to be the provider or 

collector; when to be the custodian and quality assurer.

• Serendipity of innovation from open data, civilian 

science, and crowdsourcing. Although, as a science 

policy or technology policy, serendipity of innovation 

doesn’t help you identify which measurements to 

collect.

Right before the end of the day, Jim Geringer raised an 

important point—that there is a difference between value and 

values. Science and technology can present options to a decisionmaker and politician, although the decision itself is based 

on the policy-maker’s values—what is his or her calculus 

of all the economic, social, scientific, and political factors. 

Although science and data and analysis can inform that, they 

cannot trump the value basis the public official has.

As we circle back to Suzette Kimball and Nick Sinai’s 

remarks, we return to a focus on users. While talking about the 

supply chain, Suzette talked about the challenge to enhance 

the breadth and depth of users of geospatial and scientific 

information:

• How do we know when we are being effective? 

• How do we know which information is valuable? 

• How do we distinguish what is important from what is 

not relevant for the issue at hand? 

These are the points that lead us into the Day 2 discussions.

Discussion

We mentioned marketing. What does marketing mean in 

this context? 

It is a better understanding of users, or consumers. 

When we do market studies, we are looking at values and 

perceptions. Based on a range of decisions, what are the 

different methods, such as building case studies in geospatial/

science communities? To achieve a better collaboration 

between social and EO science communities, what are the 

appropriate tools to make one’s case? What can help prioritize 

measurements we need that can be advocated on Capitol Hill? 

We should lead with the analysis and close with a face on it.

Jay Pearlman, session chair, introduced the keynote speaker.

Keynote—Social Impact of Information 

Abundance

Myron Gutmann, University of Colorado, Boulder

People keep talking about increasing volumes of data, 

as said by Myron in his introduction (fig. 13). How do we 

move beyond the abundance of EO data to an integrated 

approach? Valuable findings can be obtained by combining societal information with environmental data. Myron 

identified four significant impacts of information abundance 

regarding innovation and economic growth, data-driven public 

knowledge, data-driven policy making, and data-relevant 

learning.

Big Data examples include the data produced by the Large 

Synoptic Survey Telescope (LSST) in Chile; the 1.23 billion 

monthly Facebook users; the billion plus people IPUMS 

(https://www.ipums.org) has data on; the building shape data 

from OpenStreetMap; and the data from Google.
Workshop Summary 15

Figure 13. Myron Gutmann gives a keynote address on the 

impact of information abundance.

Steve Koonin, at the Center for Urban Science and 

Progress at New York University (NYU), identifies data 

integration as the key to future science, policy, and civic 

engagement. Broad sets of sensor data are output from our 

instrumented cities (many different kinds of sensors), and 

integrated with other sources (transportation, traffic) for 

visualization.

A National Science Foundation (NSF) project 

(Terra Populus) links population census micro data and 

environmental data (land cover, land use, climate data, and so 

forth). A lot still needs to be done, such as understanding the 

social environment. To understand the complex policy setting 

is important. How do you protect confidentiality and also 

acquire data?

There is a lot of information, but it is not consistent 

in terms of what you can predict from it. Myron gave the 

example of flu trend predictions from Google (Google, Inc., 

n.d.) and several others. The public is increasingly engaged by 

data because of its abundance and their ability to analyze it.

Myron focused on the four significant societal impacts 

of information abundance, giving several examples: more 

economic and technological innovation and growth (not much 

more at this point); more data-driven public knowledge; and 

more data-driven policy-making. In addition, the demand for 

data-relevant learning has increased in schools. For example, 

the University of Colorado College of Media, Communication 

and Information has created a new major in this area in Arts 

& Sciences alongside the one in Computer Science, and 400 

students signed up for it.

In conclusion, what do we need to do to lock in these 

societal impacts? Continue information abundance, adding 

more details and enhancing data integration. Continue to add 

human capacity for data analysis and public engagement. Be 

mindful to protect confidentiality and privacy, and be sensitive 

to cultural context.

An Interactive Discussion on Data Impacts on 

Decisionmaking 

The discussion included Camille Touton of the 

Department of the Interior; Bob O’Connor of the National 

Science Foundation; and Al McGartland of the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. The discussion was 

facilitated by Claire Jolly of the Organisation for Economic 

Co-operation and Development.

Camille Touton, Counselor to the Assistant Secretary 

for Water and Science at DOI, talked about how to discuss 

scientific results with elected officials. Translating budget line 

items into actual values, in economic and societal impact, 

are hard to do. Access to data and interpretation of data are 

important to Congress. Camille mentioned the example of the 

Open Water Data Initiative, which is part of the President’s 

Climate Action Plan. There is an attempt to make datasets 

more uniform. There is a difficult balance between advocating 

for science and the integrity of the science. Scientific integrity 

cannot be compromised, so advocacy must come from outside 

the system. 

Al McGartland, chief economist at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regards the EPA 

as a customer for data as well as a regulator. The EPA does 

research using tools, such as cost-benefit analysis, to evaluate 

the efficiency of environmental regulations. For example, 

they are monitoring refineries’ real-time impacts on local 

populations (birth weight is impacted by exposure to toxins). 

Al notes the difference between observational data and model 

data. Valuing environmental ecosystem services is important.

Bob O’Connor indicated that although there are benefits 

to geospatial data, it is not certain that more geospatial data 

always lead to better decisions. He raised a number of illustrative questions. Has it led to better decisions for zoning, health, 

or EPA regulations? Further, the data may be accessible but 

not usable. There may be too much data. Open geospatial 

information may benefit terrorists. Has the technology 

increased or decreased inequality?

Discussion

Public trust is down everywhere. It is more difficult for 

scientists to say, “Here are the data and here are the uncertainties” and be listened to. There is an old adage about “trust 

but verify.” It is important to link the data value chains to the 

decisions.

Session 3. Emerging Approaches for Economic 

Impact Assessments

Chair: Claire Jolly, Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)

Position paper: Richard Bernknopf, University of New 

Mexico; Carl Shapiro, USGS
16 Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact and Value of Open Geospatial Information

Panel discussants: David Arthurs, Hickling Arthurs Low, 

Canada; Benjamin Simon, DOI; Larry Sugarbaker, USGS 

(fig. 14)

Figure 14. Session 3 panel. Shown from left to right: Claire Jolly, 

David Arthurs, Richard Bernknopf, Carl Shapiro, Larry Sugarbaker, 

and Benjamin Simon.

Richard Bernknopf

Decisionmakers can be better informed with geospatial 

data. The position paper describes an economic model 

that involves application of spatial and temporal scientific, 

technical, and economic data to better inform decisionmakers 

(fig. 15). The value of information (VOI) is determined as 

the difference between the benefits of a decision with and 

without the data. An economic model that describes the 

value added of geospatial data in decisionmaking is applied 

in three examples: (1) a retrospective model about environmental regulation of agrochemicals, (2) a prospective model 

about the impact and mitigation of earthquakes in urban 

areas, and (3) a prospective model about developing privatepublic geospatial information for an ecosystem services 

market. Each of these examples demonstrates the value in 

use of geospatial information within a decision framework. 

Economic values are established in specific applications in 

an empirical economics approach as the basis for the value in 

use of the information. The method has two stages; the first 

Figure 15. Richard Bernknopf presents the position paper on 

emerging approaches to economic assessment developed in 

collaboration with Carl Shapiro.

is the development of an interdisciplinary model of economic 

behavior in which the application of the geospatial information is demonstrated as a consequence of spatiotemporal 

observations. The second stage is to estimate the net benefits 

with and without the geospatial information or VOI. The 

VOI of geospatial data in use for decisions is the focus of this 

paper.

Geospatial information is an intermediate good that has 

public and private good attributes. General geospatial information is a public good; however, specific geospatial information 

can be a private good. The value of geospatial information is 

determined as the impact on final (consumption) goods. The 

economic value of geospatial digital data is a technological 

innovation that contributes to an increase in the efficiency 

of the production of a final good. Determining the economic 

value of the information requires an understanding of its use 

in producing the final good. Empirical applications for specific 

decisions are needed.

Rich Bernknopf gave three case study examples: 

1. An inductive retrospective model—Environmental 

regulation of agrochemicals: Geospatial data provide 

information for regional environmental and health policy 

decisions.

2. An inductive prospective model—An application to 

earthquake hazards mitigation and income distribution: 

Geospatial information provides input for earthquake 

housing risk concentration in a hazard scenario.

3. An integrated market model for ecosystem services 

markets—An application of geospatial information can 

provide an objective, replicable accounting framework 

to reduce transaction costs in environmental market(s) 

activities.

Case Study 1

• In the first example, the issue is whether moderate 

resolution land imagery can provide economic benefits 

to society. The case study focuses on maximizing 

agricultural production (corn and soybeans) in Iowa, 

while sustaining potable groundwater according to 

EPA standards: 

• Application of nitrogen to crops, when leached, 

transforms into nitrate, which reacts with other 

chemicals to create carcinogenic compounds.

• EPA health standard: Nitrate concentration in 

drinking water cannot exceed 10 milligrams per liter 

(mg/L).

• Moderate resolution land imagery (MRLI)—Spatial 

data having a pixel resolution of 30 to 250 square 

meters (m2

).

• Approach—Couple individual producers and 

regional water-resource managers who use geospatial 
Workshop Summary 17

information from markets and natural systems to aid 

in maximizing agricultural production and sustaining 

potable groundwater. 

• An MRLI archive provides a baseline for analysis. 

• A statistical model is estimated for time-dependent 

nitrate accumulation. 

• A production efficiency model is applied in a 

regulatory decision.

• Estimated the VOI of MRLI as an input to revising 

regional land use in 35 Iowa counties and 2 aquifers 

for production of corn and soybeans and sustaining 

groundwater quality.

• $43 million VOI for a 1-percent improvement in 

information.

This example case study has been completed with an 

estimate of the VOI. The other two are under development.

Case Study 2

• Application of an earthquake scenario (USGS: The 

Great Shake Out): Spatiotemporal natural science 

process models provide input for estimating earthquake 

housing risk concentration and mitigation. 

• Study highlights social inequality issues.

• Approach—Couple an individual’s housing and 

income status and regional earthquake hazards to help 

minimize housing damage and sustaining economic 

production and growth.

• Geospatial information provides a baseline for 

analysis, and natural science process models provide a 

scenario. 

• A spatial risk indicator is estimated that combines 

housing damage and low-income group concentration 

by census tract. 

• A benefit-cost analysis is applied in for mitigation of 

the earthquake hazard as a building regulation with and 

without a socioeconomic variable. 

• The expanded regulation includes a socioeconomic 

criterion that uses geospatial information to identify 

how many low-income multifamily buildings are 

affected.

• The study demonstrates the cost effectiveness of 

adding socioeconomic criteria to assess the social 

justice issue.

• Benefits are estimated for a retrofit building code based 

on mitigation efficiency and income status in Los 

Angeles County, California.

Case Study 3

• The third example is a proposed joint public (“general” 

information)—private (“specific” information) 

application to assess how geospatial information 

can be used to reduce environmental externalities in 

ecosystem services markets. 

• The application is to examine how remotely-sensed 

data can reduce the transactions and enforcement costs 

of a cap-and-trade market. 

• This research would use the Philadelphia region as 

an example. 

• Moderate-resolution imagery is used with World 

View 3 data to support market operations by 

monitoring investments on a regular basis.

In summary, digital geospatial data are a technological 

innovation. Investments in the technologies that deliver geospatial data have economic benefits. Microeconomic analysis 

can be used in specific applications to quantify the VOI of 

geospatial information.

David Arthurs

Economics is not about money, but instead, is a structure 

with which to view the world and make decisions about social 

interactions. Economic assessments are supposed to provide a 

“rational” foundation for policy decisions. Policy decisions are 

also influenced by “politics”—the exogenous factors that are 

not “rational.” How can economic assessment operate in this 

environment? Decision criteria—a lot of people and points of 

view are represented, underlying real factors (see the production possibility frontier). There is no right answer, but rather, 

infinite possibilities. There are many challenges in performing 

economic assessments. Methods are adequate: do not make 

the analysis too complex; it is difficult to move from micro 

(“value in use”) to macro (value in the economy). Regarding 

data, there are limitations in the ability of users to articulate 

value; the structure of economic statistics agency data can 

be challenging, and there are restrictions on the collection of 

data. Finally, there is a lack of common understanding and 

language. Collective mitigation actions include the following: 

using accepted approaches to economic assessment; creating a 

database of example studies and benefits transfer (for example, 

Environmental Valuation Reference Inventory); and community review and accreditation of studies.

Ben Simon

The techniques presented in this paper are grounded 

in traditional welfare economics. Distribution of income 

is implied by a production possibilities frontier. The paper 

presents three well-documented case studies. Markets need 

information to function; more information should imply more 

efficient markets. Asymmetries are endemic, and remote 

sensing can help in a lot of ways. In relation to ecosystems 

service markets, remote sensing is valuable, but we need to 
18 Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact and Value of Open Geospatial Information

figure out what the corresponding market rules are. Obtaining 

information is not costless, and there should be some recognition of the cost. The analysis provided in this paper helps 

illustrate tradeoffs and the contribution of economics to the 

measurement process. Future research using techniques that 

validate estimates similar to the ones made in this paper would 

be valuable.

Larry Sugarbaker

Larry thinks of himself as a practitioner but has been on 

the tip of the spear for his entire career. He appreciated the 

three case studies provided and looked at a more simplified 

way of how we evaluate the tradeoff between societal services and production. Real business cases have been used in 

the USGS and Larry discussed, as examples, USGS work on 

light detection and ranging (lidar). User-based requirement 

assessments were performed, leading to benefits that might 

be achieved. 

Challenge—The collective public value of open data is 

contrary to the investment model of Government agencies in 

which mission needs drive data collection. How will open data 

influence the investment model if the data collectors are mission focused? How can this be changed, or does it need to be 

changed? Larry gave the example of FEMA flood maps, which 

were originally created to meet only their mission needs and 

are now being used more broadly.

Carl Shapiro and Richard Bernknopf 

Why are we bothering with the value of information? 

Certain types of information are multipurpose and support 

multiple stakeholders. These types of information fit the 

criteria of a public good, so techniques from resource and 

environmental economics are particularly useful. The USGS 

tries to provide unbiased information. Positive analysis can 

be tested for right or wrong. Normative analysis takes into 

account and incorporates values. What we are talking about 

here is positive analysis. How do we start obtaining this 

information at less cost and time? Not every type of information needs to be valued. Some information is very costly and 

requires more knowledge about its socioeconomic impact. 

Equity and fairness issues exist and need to be considered. The 

production possibilities frontier approach shows efficiency but 

does not address equity. One of the challenges that economists 

face in the value of information is the issue of trust and 

believability. This model is appropriate because it represents 

a number and narrative, and explains why the benefits are 

occurring. Presenting just a number reduces the believability.

Rich mentioned the limitations of the production 

possibility frontier approach and suggested using a portfolio 

approach for comparing options for decisions.

Discussion

It is good to use multiple methods to achieve confidence 

in the results. The introductory position paper by Alan Smart, 

which summarizes methods, was noted.

There is a general consensus that studies give decisionmakers a different data view; however, this use of information 

may not be cost effective or practical because of the length of 

the studies. The information in studies could end up being far 

more confusing to a decisionmaker than helpful, even if it was 

possible to apply the information in a timely manner. There is 

a balance that needs to be struck. How do we actually make 

information about socioeconomic impacts useful to policy 

makers? 

Geospatial information, in general, leverages a vast 

amount of non-market goods and services. We need to think 

about the economic value of the information, to make others 

appreciate why we make these investments. This is not about 

the data, but rather, the attributes of the data. Do we need data 

in another spectral resolution scale, or at a finer scale? This 

question is important to consider for future investments and 

infrastructure. Most important are the attributes to leverage 

how we manage our resources. We try to minimize how many 

observations are needed to get a certain level of uncertainty 

reduced. In the case of satellites, how many times do I need to 

see the satellite data to determine what color the observation 

really is?

Session 4. Emerging Issues for Societal Impact 

Assessments

Chair: Alan Smart, ACIL Allen Consulting, Australia 

Position paper: Bridgette Wessels, University of Sheffield, 

U.K.; Max Craglia, EC–JRC

Panel discussants: Craig Broadbent, Illinois Wesleyan 

University; Philip Stark, U.C. Berkeley; John King, University 

of Michigan (fig. 16)

Figure 16. Session 4 panel discusses the changing role of data in 

society. Shown from left to right: Max Craglia, Bridgette Wessels, 

Craig Broadbent, John King, and Philip Stark.

Bridgette Wessels

The purpose of this position paper is to address the 

changing role of data in society (including geospatial 

data) and its possible social impacts (fig. 17). It places the 

debates from the earlier positioning in a social context. The 

presentation focused on a sustainable society and social 

quality, smart innovation, and data in context. To do this, 

Bridgette asked about the role of data and addressed some of 

the details about the production and use of data by societal 

stakeholders (individuals, governments, the commercial 
Workshop Summary 19

Figure 17. Bridgette Wessels presents the position paper on 

emerging issues for societal impact assessment.

sector, and nongovernmental organizations). The context 

of the discussion was the ”worst financial, economic and 

social crisis in post war history” (Stiglitz and others, 2009). 

This leads us to the concepts of social quality and how we 

innovate in that environment (smart innovation). Challenges 

in part from globalization are inequality, unemployment, 

urbanization, waste, and environmental degradation. There 

is also a digital divide or data divide in the world, like access 

to data or to the Internet. The concept of social quality was 

developed in the early 1990s as some addressed the concerns 

about the limitations of gross domestic product (GDP) and 

other economic indicators to measure societal well-being. 

Social quality is the measure of well-being under a social 

environment in how much it allows people to grow and 

reach their potential. Well-being is multidimensional and 

requires environmental and geospatial data. Smart innovation includes rethinking risks and rewards, and data play 

a role in these dynamics. The availability of open data is 

uneven and fragmented across the world and results in some 

countries falling behind. If the data are not discoverable, 

their full use is not possible. There is tremendous value in the 

private sector in Big Data and analytics. Many governments 

ask, “What can we say with these data in terms of the public 

policy sphere?” We can maximize social and economic value 

through open and mobile services (connect, communicate, 

and challenge: Generation C). We can affect decentralized 

knowledge exchange. The European Commission sees the 

value of consumer data in terms of commercial services and 

helps with their inclusion. There is a lack of clarity about what 

the citizens can give, and what public services can provide. 

Are services sufficiently inclusive? Social quality indicators 

address values associated with environment, socioeconomic 

security, social cohesion, and inclusion. There is a risk of 

a digital divide in all dimensions. There is a real need for 

regulations to protect and enable innovation. We need to ask 

how geospatial data can be fed into social quality indicators. The paper argued that there is a requirement to develop 

a range of indicators that can assess and measure the social 

impact of open data.

John King

John King liked the position paper but felt he needed 

to challenge the phrase, “If you can’t measure it, you can’t 

manage it.” All measurements look backwards to make 

predictions about the future. The Internet has led to a 

reversal in terms of how we think about our personal data. 

Four reversals (changes) have been identified, as a result of 

information technology: 

1. Thomas Fuller: Fool’s names and fool’s faces are often 

seen in public places—Facebook now has everybody!

2. Henry Ford: Production engineering and the “supply 

chain”—we are switching toward a demand chain;

3. James Carey: Communication is dependent on transportation—this is now flipped as well; and 

4. Margaret Thatcher: Society doesn’t exist—now, really?

Walmart thinks of inventory in terms of flow instead of 

stock, which is why they were ready for Hurricane Katrina. 

Privacy and confidentiality have changed. Those who see 

public good as an oxymoron are not buying it. Some people 

think that public good is an aggregation of individual welfare; 

John disagrees with that line of thinking.

Philip Stark

Philip Stark showed an example of geospatial information serving the public good: mapping wild foods in “urban 

food deserts.” Urban food deserts are defined using geospatial 

data: they are urban areas with low income according to the 

U.S. Census Bureau, more than a mile from any store that sells 

fresh food. His project shows that in many urban food deserts, 

there is in fact an abundant source of free, fresh, nutritious 

food, namely, edible “volunteer” plants. The Berkeley Open 

Source Food project is using crowdsourced science and 

an open-source GPS-enabled mapping tool, iNaturalist, to 

produce open maps of the abundance of wild edibles, many 

of which are invasive species (for example, dandelion, 

dock, oxalis, sow thistle, and so forth). Such edible “weeds” 

can provide fiber and micronutrients that are missing from 

many U.S. diets, an absence that may contribute to the high 

incidence of type 2 diabetes among people who live in food 

deserts. These sustainable, nutritious, drought-tolerant plants 

already grow in neighborhoods where they are needed, but 

they are not recognized by residents as food; what is missing 

is information. Educating residents could improve their 

nutrition, and possibly their health, for free.
20 Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact and Value of Open Geospatial Information

Craig Broadbent

Craig Broadbent is an environmental economist who 

looks at the issues through a water-resource lens. It is 

expensive to clean up and share data; in addition, there is the 

issue of privacy. A lot of work focuses on third-party effects. 

Craig showed geospatial information for the Rio Grande. He 

discussed the difference between point source pollution, which 

can be traced to a single source, and non-point source pollution, which cannot directly be traced to a single source. Ethanol subsidies led to more production of corn, which in turn 

can lead to more nitrogen pollution in the water. Mitigation 

techniques for nitrogen exist, for example, no tillage, strip 

tillage, riparian buffers, grassed waterways (buffer zone 

between crops), and wetlands. Most popular are the techniques 

of no tillage, strip tillage, and grassed waterways. Geospatial information is important to help monitor nitrogen effects 

in water. The challenge comes in integrating different data 

sources because it is hard to overlay data in geospatial maps 

from multiple data sources.

Discussion

The examples given in responses show innovative uses of 

data, incorporation of local knowledge, and use of data leading 

to social equality.

Workshop Recommendations and Summary

Chair: Max Craglia, EC–JRC

Panel Discussants: Lawrence Friedl, NASA; Jamie Kruse, 

East Carolina University (fig. 18)

Figure 18. Jamie Kruse draws lessons learned from the 

workshop.

Jamie Kruse 

Where is next? In this area, we are awash in innovation 

and entrepreneurship. We are in the “wild west” at this point in 

time with digital information. There are existing methods for 

valuing geospatial data that need to be refined. What about the 

applications that we have not imagined yet? How do we value 

future opportunities? 

What is the role of Government here? In the case of 

“public good” geospatial data sources, the Government 

will be charged with providing unbiased information. The 

Government is a data interpreter, and the data need to be provided with the utmost scientific integrity. The Government has 

a regulatory and risk management role. National and private 

security needs to be protected. Private industry can create and 

interpret data. Who is going to do it and why? We must look 

at the incentives behind actions. There must be an incentive, 

either financial or social. This has to be balanced against the 

protection of personal rights. What do we need? 

Valuing geospatial data will not be easy. New statistical 

methods are needed to understand large datasets. Is there a 

way to use geospatial and economic information to figure out 

what affordability means?

Lawrence Friedl

Two items resonated: participation during the ideageneration phase and feedback from the public. Public-private 

partnerships could be used to address budget realities and to 

leverage strengths. We need to engage with nontraditional 

partners to address key challenges.

How do we address the need to foster better interactions 

between involved communities? There is an interest to connect 

with social sciences. Help is needed to answer the question, 

“What does that mean?”

Data becomes more valuable as it is used to make better 

decisions. There was discussion of a need for case studies. 

Connecting projects with managers interested in participating 

with these studies is important. How do we know when we are 

being effective and what is valuable? What is important for 

the problem at hand? The landscape is evolving so rapidly that 

the regulatory framework and policy framework operate at 

different speeds than the environment.

How do we recognize success? Has this issue been 

addressed in the past? We need a framework to evaluate future 

work (fig. 19). What are the metrics? What are the measures of 

progress (rather than success)? More agreement on methodologies would be useful. It is important to talk to decisionmakers 

and ask what they need. National security geospatial databases 

should not be ignored, as some cleared researchers may extract 

Figure 19. Attendees consider the paths forward.
References Cited 21

information. Private-sector databases should not be ignored 

either. The decadal survey for Earth science will be available 

from the national academies within 2 years. What does this 

group want to put forward? 

End of Day 2

References Cited

Beagrie, N., Chruszcz, J. and Lavoie, B., 2008, Keeping 

research data safe: London and Bristol, Jisc, accessed 

February 17, 2016, at http://www.beagrie.com/krds.php.

Beagrie, N., Lavoie, B., and Wollard, M., 2010, Keeping 

research data safe 2: London and Bristol, Jisc, accessed 

February 17, 2016, at http://www.beagrie.com/jisc.php.

Beagrie, N., and Houghton, J.W., 2013a, The value and 

impact of the archaeology data services—A study 

and methods for enhancing sustainability: Bristol and 

London, Joint Information Systems Committee, accessed 

February 17, 2016, at http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/preservation/ADSImpact.aspx.

Beagrie, N., and Houghton, J.W., 2013b, The value and 

impact of the British Atmospheric Data Centre: Bristol and 

London, Joint Information Systems Committee and the 

Natural Environment Research Council, U.K., accessed 

February 17, 2016, at http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/

programmes/di_directions/strategicdirections/badc.aspx.

Beagrie, N., and Houghton, J.W., 2014, The value and impact 

of data sharing and curation: A synthesis of three recent 

studies of UK Research Data Centres, Bristol and London, 

Joint Information Systems Committee (Jisc), accessed 

February 17, 2016, at http://repository.jisc.ac.uk/5568/.

BrightPoint Consulting, Inc., 2012, Political influence: 

BrightPoint Web site, accessed February 17, 2016, at 

http://www.brightpointinc.com/political_influence/.

Cabinet Office, 2013, G8 open data charter and technical 

annex, June 2013: Report accessed February 18, 2016, at 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-datacharter.

Chui, Michael, Manyika, James, Bughin, Jacques, Dobbs, 

Richard, Roxburgh, Charles, Sarrazin, Hugo, Sands, 

Geoffrey, and Westergren, Magdalena, 2012, The social 

economy—Unlocking value and productivity through social 

technologies: McKinsey Global Institute Report, accessed 

February 17, 2016, at http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/

high_tech_telecoms_internet/the_social_economy.

DotEcon, 2006, The commercial use of public information 

(CUPI): London, Office of Fair Trading Report OFT861, 

accessed February 17, 2016, at http://www.opsi.gov.uk/

advice/poi/oft-cupi.pdf.

Executive Office of the President National Science and 

Technology Council, 2013, National Strategy for Civil 

Earth Observations: Executive Office of the President 

National Science and Technology Council report, accessed 

March 3, 2016, at, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/

files/microsites/ostp/nstc_2013_earthobsstrategy.pdf.

Funtowicz, S.O., and Ravetz, J.R., 1993, Science for the postnormal age: Futures, v. 25, no. 7, p. 739–755.

Geogig.org, n.d., GeoGig: A tool for geospatial data 

management: Accessed February 17, 2016, at 

http://geogig.org/.

Google, Inc., n.d., Flu Trends, 2014: Accessed February 18 

2016, http://www.google.org/flutrends/about/.

Houghton, J.W., 2011, Costs and benefits of data provision: 

Canberra, Report to the Australian National Data Service, 

accessed February 17, 2016, at http://ands.org.au/resource/

cost-benefit.html.

Houghton, J.W., Swan, A., and Brown, S., 2011, Access 

to research and technical information in Denmark, 

Forsknings- og Innovationsstyrelsen and DEFF: Report 

to The Danish Agency for Science, Technology and 

Innovation (FI) and Denmark’s Electronic Research Library 

(DEFF), accessed February 17, 2016, at http://fivu.dk/

en/publications/2011/access-to-research-and-technicalinformation-in-denmark.

International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) and World 

Bank, 2014, Fit-for-purpose land administration (2d ed): 

Copenhagen, Denmark, International Federation of 

Surveyors Publication No. 60., accessed March 3, 2016, 

at http://www.fig.net/resources/publications/figpub/pub60/

figpub60.asp.

Monga, Vipal, 2014, The big mystery—What’s Big Data really 

worth?: The Wall Street Journal, October 12, 2014. [Also 

available at http://www.wsj.com/articles/whats-all-that-dataworth-1413157156.]

National Science and Technology Council Executive Office 

of the President, 2014, National Plan for Civil Earth 

Observations: Washington D.C., report prepared by the 

National Science and Technology Council Executive 

Office of the President, accessed February 17, 2016, at 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/

ostp/NSTC/national_plan_for_civil_earth_observations_-_

july_2014.pdf.
22 Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact and Value of Open Geospatial Information

PIRA, 2000, Commercial exploitation of Europe’s public 

sector information: European Commission, Brussels, 

accessed February 17, 2016, at ftp://ftp.cordis.europa.eu/

pub/econtent/docs/2000_1558_en.pdf.

SINTEF, n.d., About us: SINTEF Web site, accessed 

March 3, 2016, at http://www.sintef.no/home/about-us/#/.

Stiglitz, J.E., Sen, A., and Fitoussi, J.P., 2009, Report by 

the Commission on the Measurement of Economic 

Performances and Social Progress, INSEE: Accessed 

February 17, 2016, at http://www.insee.fr/fr/publicationset-services/dossiers_web/stiglitz/doc-commission/RAPPORT_anglais.pdf.

U.S. Department of State, 2012, Digital government—

Building a 21st Century platform to better serve the 

American people: U.S. Department of State report, accessed 

February 18, 2016 at https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/

files/publications/digital-strategy/digital-governmentstrategy.pdf.

Wessels, Bridgette, 2007, Inside the digital revolution—

Policing and changing communication with the public: 

Ashgate Publishing Company, 160 p.

Wessels, Bridgette, 2010a, The cultural dynamics of the 

innovation of new media—A case of telematics: VDM 

Verlag Dr. Muller, 324 p.

Wessels, Bridgette, 2010b, Understanding the Internet—A 

socio-cultural perspective: U.K., Palgrave Macmillan, 

208 p.

Wessels, Bridgette, 2014, Exploring social change—Process 

and context: U.K., Palgrave Macmillan, 256 p.

Wessels, Bridgette, and Bagnall, Val, 2002, Information and 

joining up services—The case of an information guide 

for parents of disabled children: U.K., Policy Press at the 

University of Bristol, 88 p.

Wouthers, Paul, Beaulieu, Anne, Scharnhorst, Andrea, 

and Wyatt, Sally, eds., 2013, Virtual knowledge—

Experimenting in the Humanities and the Social Science: 

Cambridge, Mass., MIT Press, 272 p.
Appendixes

Appendix 1. Agenda

Appendix 2. List of Participants

Appendix 3. Brief Biography of the Speakers, Session Chairs, and Discussants
24 Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact and Value of Open Geospatial Information

Appendix 1. Agenda

Tuesday October 28, 2014

8:30 – 9:00 Welcome/Badging—Coffee and Tea

Workshop opening Opening Session Chair—Molly Macauley, Resources for the 

Future (RFF)

9:00 – 9:30 Keynote—Open geospatial information: 

Empowering decisions and the economy

Suzette Kimball, Acting Director, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

9:30 – 10:00 Keynote—The emerging information environment and impacts on decisionmakingNick Sinai, White House Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP)

10:00 – 10:30 Keynote—Future evolution of geospatial 

information sector

Walter Scott, DigitalGlobe

10:30 – 11:00 Break—Coffee and Tea

11:00 – 13:00 Session 1—Impact of increased access to data 

and new modes of consumption

Chair—Andrew Coote, ConsultingWhere, 

U.K.; 

Position paper—John Houghton, Centre for 

Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia

Panel discussants—Pierre Glynn, USGS; Chris 

Goranson, Department of Interior (DOI); 

Sally Wyatt, Royal Netherland Academy of 

Arts and Sciences

13:00 – 14:00 Lunch Birds of a Feather lunch session

14:00 – 16:00 Session 2—Increased supply of geospatial 

information and expanded participatory 

processes in the production of data (such as 

crowdsourcing)

Chair—Carl Shapiro, USGS; 

Position paper—Lea Shanley, Presidential Innovation Fellow at the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration 

(NASA), and University of Wisconsin-Madison; Max Craglia, European Commission–

Joint Research Centre (EC–JRC)

Panel discussants—Mikel Maron, Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team; Robin McLaren, 

Know Edge Ltd., U.K. 

16:00 – 16:30 Break

16:30 – 17:30 Perspectives Chair—Jay Pearlman, J&F Enterprise, and 

University of Colorado; 

Panel discussants—Molly Macauley, RFF; Jim 

Geringer, Esri

17:30 – 19:00 Reception (sponsored by IEEE-USA)
Appendix 1. Agenda 25

Appendix 1. Agenda—Continued

Wednesday October 29, 2014

8:00 – 8:30 Badging—Coffee and Tea

Day 2 Opening Chair—Jay Pearlman, J&F Enterprise and 

University of Colorado

8:30 – 8:45 Welcome to Day 2 Tim Stryker, OSTP

8:45 – 9:00 Day 1 Summary Lawrence Friedl, NASA

9:00 – 9:30 Keynote—Societal impact of information 

abundance

Myron Gutmann, University of Colorado

9:30 – 10:00 An interactive discussion on data impacts on 

decisionmakingn

Camille Touton, DOI; Bob O’Connor, National 

Science Foundation (NSF); Al McGartland, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA)

10:00 – 10:30 Break—Coffee and Tea

10:30 – 12:30 Session 3—Emerging approaches for Economic impact assessmentsChair—Claire Jolly, Organisation for Economic 

Co-operation and Development (OECD); 

Position paper—Richard Bernknopf, University 

of New Mexico, and Carl Shapiro, USGS

Panel discussants—David Arthurs, Hickling 

Arthurs Low, Canada; Benjamin Simon, 

DOI; Larry Sugarbaker, USGS

12:30 – 13:15 Lunch Birds of a Feather lunch session

13:15 – 15:15 Session 4—Emerging issues for societal 

impact assessments

Chair—Alan Smart, ACIL Allen Consulting, 

Australia; 

Position paper—Bridgette Wessels, University 

of Sheffield, U.K.; Max Craglia, EC–JRC

Panel Discussants—Craig Broadbent, Illinois 

Wesleyan University; Philip Stark, U.C. 

Berkeley; John King, University of Michigan

15:15 – 16:00 Workshop recommendations and summary Chair—Max Craglia, EC–JRC 

Panel discussants—Lawrence Friedl, NASA; 

Jamie Kruse, East Carolina University
26 Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact and Value of Open Geospatial Information

Appendix 2. List of Participants

Joan Aron, Semantic Community, U.S.A.

David Arthurs, Hickling Arthurs Low, Canada

Jeff Atkins, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S.A.

Rich Bernknopf, University of New Mexico, U.S.A.

Mark Brender, DigitalGlobe Foundation, U.S.A.

Craig Broadbent, Illinois Wesleyan University, U.S.A.

Ken Chomitz, World Bank, U.S.A.

Andrew Coote, ConsultingWhere, U.K.

Max Craglia, Joint Research Center, European Commission

Georgina Crepps, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), U.S.A.

Bradley Dorn, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), U.S.A.

Cheryl Eavey, National Science Foundation (NSF), U.S.A.

Carolyn Fonseca, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), U.S.A.

Lawrence Friedl, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), U.S.A.

Jason Gallo, Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) Science and 

Technology Policy Institute (STPI), U.S.A.

Jim Geringer, Environmental Systems Research Institute 

(Esri), U.S.A.

Anita Gibson, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 

Development (OECD), U.S.A.

Pierre Glynn, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S.A.

Chris Goranson, Presidential Innovation Fellow—Department of Interior (DOI), U.S.A.

Myron Gutmann, University of Colorado, Boulder, U.S.A.

Elisabeth Haggquist, Luleå University of Technology, 

Sweden

Henry Hertzfeld, George Washington University, U.S.A.

John Houghton, Center for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University, Melbourne, Australia 

Thorhildur Jetzek, Copenhagen Business School, Denmark

Claire Jolly, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and 

Development (OECD), U.S.A.

Ralph Kahn, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA), U.S.A.

Suzette Kimball, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S.A.

John King, University of Michigan, U.S.A.

Jamie Kruse, East Carolina University, U.S.A.

Mary Ann Kutny, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S.A.

Tony Lavoi, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S.A.

Rodney Liesveld, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), U.S.A.

Sophia Liu, United States Geological Survey (USGS), U.S.A.

Lucia Lovison, Afriterra Foundation, U.S.A.

Molly Macauley, Resources for the Future, U.S.A.

Alexander MacDonald, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA)

Mikel Maron, Presidential Innovation Fellow, Department of 

State and Humanitarian Open StreetMapTeam, U.S.A.

Al McGartland, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), U.S.A.

Robin McLaren, Know Edge Ltd., U.K.

Larry Meinert, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S.A.

Josh Murphy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S.A.

Siobhan Murray, World Bank, U.S.A.

Bob O’Connor, National Science Foundation (NSF), U.S.A.

Francoise Pearlman, J&F Enterprise, U.S.A.

Jay Pearlman, J&F Enterprise, U.S.A.

Emily Pindilli, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S.A.

Ana Prados, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA), U.S.A.

Tracy Rouleau, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), U.S.A.

Walter Scott, DigitalGlobe, U.S.A.

Nancy Searby, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), U.S.A.

Lea Shanley, Presidential Innovation Fellow at National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and 

University of Wisconsin-Madison, U.S.A.

Carl Shapiro, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S.A.

Benjamin Simon, Department of the Interior (DOI), U.S.A.

Nick Sinai, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), 

U.S.A.
Appendix 2. List of Participants 27

Alan Smart, ACIL Allen Consulting, Australia

Philip Stark, University of California, Berkley, U.S.A.

Tim Stryker, Office of Science and Technology Policy 

(OSTP), U.S.A.

Larry Sugarbaker, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S.A.

Camille Touton, Department of the Interior (DOI), U.S.A.

Andrew Turner, Esri, U.S.A.

Glenn Vancauwenberghe, Spatial Applications Division 

Leuven, KU Leuven, Belgium

Bridgette Wessels, Sheffield University, U.K.

Curtis Wong, Microsoft, U.S.A.

Chuck Wooldridge, National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), U.S.A.

Sally Wyatt, Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, The Netherlands

Karen Yasumura, DigitalGlobe, U.S.A.

Jonghyun Yoon, World Bank, U.S.A.

Paul Young, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), U.S.A.
28 Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact and Value of Open Geospatial Information

Appendix 3. Brief Biography of the Speakers, Session Chairs, and Discussants

David Arthurs

David Arthurs is the president of Hickling Arthurs Low 

Corporation (HAL). He specializes in economic analysis, 

policy development, and strategic planning for public sector 

science and technology organizations. For the past 15 years, 

David has been informing the evolution of all aspects of the 

Canadian geomatics industry, including surveying, geodesy, 

Earth observation, cartography, hydrography, positioning, and 

geographic information systems. HAL is currently finalizing 

a major study for Natural Resources Canada on the economic 

value of geospatial information in the Canadian economy.

David has a B.S. degree in engineering from the 

University of Waterloo, an M.B.A. degree from the University 

of Ottawa, and a Ph.D. from the School of Business at Queens 

University.

HAL is headquartered in Ottawa, Canada. Clients are 

decisionmakers, policy advisors and public sector administrators at the local, regional, and national levels, who seek 

specialized information, strategies, and assessments that 

are factual, practical, and that can catalyze change. HAL’s 

practice areas include innovation policy, public administration and strategy, socioeconomic impact analysis, and regional 

economic development.

Richard L. Bernknopf 

Richard L. Bernknopf is a research professor in the 

Department of Economics at the University of New Mexico 

(UNM). Before joining the faculty at UNM, Richard was an 

economist with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for more 

than 38 years. His research focuses on the demonstration of 

the relevance (value to society) of natural science information, 

including Earth observation and the translation of that information into a form compatible with decisionmaking processes. 

During his tenure at the USGS, Richard was a consulting 

professor and co-director of the Center for Earth Science 

Information Research at Stanford University, and co-director 

of the Spatial Integration Laboratory for Urban Systems at the 

University of Pennsylvania. Currently, Richard is associated 

with the Science Impact Laboratory for Policy and Economics 

at the University of New Mexico and the Wharton Geospatial 

Initiative at the University of Pennsylvania.

Craig D. Broadbent

Craig D. Broadbent is an assistant professor of economics 

at Illinois Wesleyan University in Bloomington, Illinois. Craig 

received his Ph.D. in environmental and resource economics 

with an emphasis in public finance and experimental 

economics in 2009. His dissertation work emphasized the 

importance of coupling physical and engineering models 

with an economic market model that could facilitate the 

voluntary transfer of water rights on a temporary basis. Craig 

has published papers on these temporary transfer markets in 

Agricultural Water Management, the Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education, and the Natural Resources 

Journal. Currently, he is part of a joint effort with the U.S. 

Geological Survey, investigating water quality markets for 

nitrate mitigation in the central portion of the United States. 

Geospatial data are a large component of this effort because 

they form the basis of nitrate monitoring, which involves 

tracking the location and quantity of nitrogen in waterways 

through the Mississippi River region.

In addition to investigating the potential of water 

markets, Craig specializes in the valuation of ecosystem 

services. He has been part of two studies that gather public 

perceptions for riparian systems in the southwestern United 

States. This effort has led to an investigation into the precision of nonmarket valuation techniques with multiple published papers in the Journal of Environmental Planning and 

Management, Economics Bulletin, and Western Economics 

Forum. Currently, he is coupling multiple physical and social 

science models together to conduct valuation studies for two 

river systems in southern Arizona. This research investigates 

the tradeoffs of water use for human consumption versus 

riparian ecosystem preservation. Geospatial data are utilized 

to create maps that depict vegetation species throughout these 

river systems, which are used to demonstrate possible future 

conditions.

Andy Coote

Andrew Coote is the director of ConsultingWhere, U.K. 

He is an information technology consultant, specializing in 

location-based applications, with a strong interest in strategy 

development and socioeconomic value assessment.

Andrew has over 30 years of experience in developing 

and using information systems, specializing in management of 

location-enabled applications. He has held senior management 

positions in both Government at Ordnance Survey and the 

private sector at Esri (U.K.). His undergraduate degree was in 

Land Surveying and Geography, Andrew also holds an M.Sc. 

degree in computer science from University College London 

and a diploma in company direction.

In 2008, Andrew formed ConsultingWhere, an 

organization that specializes in providing business strategy 

advice and business case development support to organizations 

worldwide. His recent consultancy assignments include 

facilitating data specification work for the European Union 

INSPIRE program; strategic business direction reviews for 

software companies in the United States, Russia, and Egypt; 

and advising the New Zealand Geospatial Office. He has 

led recent studies on the economic benefits of geospatial 

information for both local government and Ordnance Survey. 

In the latter case, this was part of their evaluation of the 

impact of the Open Data Initiative. 
Appendix 3. Brief Biography of the Speakers, Session Chairs, and Discussants 29

Massimo “Max” Craglia 

Since 2005 Max Craglia has been working at the Digital 

Earth and Reference Data Unit, European Commission–

Joint Research Centre. The unit is responsible for the 

technical coordination of the INSPIRE Directive, creating 

an infrastructure for spatial information in Europe to support 

environmental policy. Max is responsible for research on 

the socioeconomic impact assessment of INSPIRE. He 

coordinates research projects related to the interoperability 

of multidisciplinary e-infrastructures that contribute to 

the Global Earth Observation System of Systems. Recent 

activities have taken Digital Earth as a framework for 

evolving current e-infrastructures and integrate official data 

with real-time data coming from citizens and sensors. This 

approach is being applied to develop novel indicators of 

quality of life in urban areas to include both quantitative 

data from sensors and qualitative information from the 

public. For a selection of recent publications, please see 

http://inspire-forum.jrc.ec.europa.eu/pg/pages/view/29954/

publications-articles-in-refereed-journals.

Lawrence Friedl

Lawrence Friedl serves as the Director of the Applied 

Sciences Program within the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA) Earth Science Division. The program 

supports efforts to discover and demonstrate innovative and 

practical applications of Earth science by public and private 

organizations. He has been with the NASA Applied Sciences 

Program since 2002.

Among his responsibilities, Lawrence is a co-chair of 

the interagency U.S. Group on Earth Observations (USGEO) 

and represents the United States on the international Group on 

Earth Observations (GEO). Lawrence is the NASA principal 

for the interagency Civil Applications Committee. He also 

serves on the award committee for the National Space Club’s 

Award for Innovative Uses of Earth Observation Satellite 

Data, the program organizing committee for the American 

Meteorological Society 2014 meeting, and the International 

Committee for Remote Sensing of Environment.

Prior to joining NASA, Lawrence worked at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, focusing on applications 

of geospatial data and technology. He also served as a space 

shuttle flight controller in NASA’s Mission Control Center for 

15 missions, including several Earth science missions.

Lawrence received a master’s degree in public policy 

from Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government, 

specializing in science and technology policy. He received 

a bachelor’s degree in mechanical & aerospace engineering 

from Princeton University. Lawrence also received a 

certificate in space policy and law from the International 

Space University.

Jason Gallo

Jason Gallo leads the IDA Science and Technology Policy 

Institute’s (STPI) Earth observation work with the Office 

of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the National 

Science and Technology Council (NSTC) U.S. Group on Earth 

Observation Subcommittee and Program. Before joining STPI, 

Jason was a lecturer in the communications studies department 

at Northwestern University and a dissertation fellow at the 

Center for Nanotechnology in Society at the University of 

Wisconsin-Madison. His academic research focused on the 

role of the National Science Foundation in the development 

of U.S. information infrastructure. He holds an M.A. degree 

in communication, culture, and technology from Georgetown 

University and a Ph.D. in media, technology, and society from 

Northwestern University.

James E. “Jim” Geringer

A native of Wyoming, James Geringer was reared on 

the family farm near Wheatland, and is a 10-year member of 

4-H. He holds a B.S. degree in mechanical engineering from 

Kansas State University. James spent several years on the U.S. 

Air Force (USAF) unmanned space programs, integrating 

space boosters and satellites for both the Air Force and the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 

including the Global Positioning Satellite System, early 

warning systems and the Mars Viking Lander. He served in 

the Wyoming legislature from 1983 to 1994, including 6 years 

each in the House and the Senate. His full time occupations 

included contract administrator for the construction of a large 

coal-fired electric power plant, then full-time production 

agriculture. James was elected Wyoming’s 30th Governor in 

1994, and completed a second term in January 2003.

In 2003, James Geringer joined Environmental Systems 

Research Institute (Esri), the world leader of geographic 

information systems software, as a senior executive. He serves 

on the board of directors for Dakota Gasification, producer of 

synthetic natural gas and 10 other co-products. James and his 

wife Sherri, have 5 children, 11 grandchildren, and 1 greatgrandchild. They base their consulting business, The Geringer 

Group, at their home near Cheyenne, Wyoming.

Other positions include board chair, Western Governors University; National Advisory Board, University of 

Wyoming College of Engineering and Applied Sciences; 

chair, Association of Governing Boards for Universities and 

Colleges; Global Positioning Satellite System Advisory Board; 

chair, Policy Consensus Initiative, fostering collaboration 

between and among elected leaders; chair, Complete College 

America; vice-chair, DigiLEARN, promoting technology for 

K–12 student-centered learning.

Past activities include chair, National Governors 

Association Technology Task Force; chair, Education 

Commission of the States; chair, Western Governors’ 

Association; chair of the Interstate Oil and Gas Compact 

Commission; National Commission on Mathematics & 

Science Teaching; National Commission on Service-Learning; 

National Commission on Teaching & America’s Future; 

Mapping Sciences Committee and the Climate Choices 

Committee under the National Research Council, National 

Academy of Science.
30 Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact and Value of Open Geospatial Information

Pierre Glynn

Pierre Glynn currently serves as branch chief for the 

eastern branch of the U.S. Geological Survey National 

Research Program in Reston, Virginia. The scientists in his 

branch conduct research in many fields and on many issues. 

These include numerical modeling of water flow and solute 

transport, environmental isotope forensics and characterization, groundwater dating, water and sediment contamination problems, nutrient cycling, ecological habitats, geomorphic processes, and the application of molecular and 

other techniques to the study of microbial processes.

Beyond his branch responsibilities, Pierre has undertaken 

a wide variety of assignments for the USGS. Recently, these 

have included the advancement of integrated environmental 

and ecological modeling across a range of organizations 

and disciplinary interests. His research efforts have focused 

on geochemical modeling and characterization of groundwater 

contamination, nuclear waste disposal, and groundwater dating 

studies.

Earlier in his career, Pierre also developed a thermodynamic framework to explain and predict how substitutional 

impurities affect the solubility and aqueous interactions of 

mineral phases and how impurities are released and taken up 

by minerals. His academic background includes a B.A. degree 

(with a major in geological sciences) from Columbia College 

and Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory, an M.Sc. degree from 

the University of Quebec in Montreal in isotopic environmental geochemistry and the cycling of atmospheric 14CO2

, and 

a Ph.D. from the University of Waterloo, where his studies 

focused on groundwater studies and the thermodynamics of 

water-rock interactions.

Christopher “Chris” Goranson 

Christopher Goranson is a Presidential Innovation 

Fellow working to support the Department of the Interior’s 

efforts to make data and services covering our Nation’s 

public lands and waters more accessible. Chris has worked 

in the fields of design, public health, academia, Government 

services and planning, and most recently as the director of 

the Parsons Institute for Information Mapping (PIIM) at 

The New School. While there, his team provided innovative 

design support for electronic health records at the Department 

of Defense and Veteran’s Administration, and supported the 

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) 

XDATA program. Other recent efforts include climate 

visualization initiatives with the Parsons Institute at The New 

School for Design, Aalborg University, and the University 

of Southern California (USC) / National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration (NASA) Jet Propulsion Laboratory 

(JPL). Previously, Chris was the director of the Geographic 

Information Systems Center at the New York City Department 

of Health, and in 2008, completed a National Science 

Foundation (NSF)-funded fellowship to compare different 

disease cluster detection methods at Japan’s National Institute 

of Public Health. Originally from Colorado, Chris is looking 

forward to bringing together a love of the outdoors and 

technology through this project.

Myron Gutmann

Myron Gutmann specializes in historical demography and 

population-environment relationships, with a focus on Europe 

and the Americas during the past four centuries. His current 

research focuses on the relationship between population and 

environment in the Great Plains of the United States, and on 

the history of the U.S. Hispanic population.

Myron is a professor at the Department of History, 

University of Colorado, Boulder; and off-campus research 

affiliate at the Population Studies Center, University of 

Michigan. He obtained his Ph.D. from Princeton University.

Henry R. Hertzfeld

Henry Hertzfeld is a research professor of space policy 

and international affairs at the Space Policy Institute, Center 

for International Science and Technology Policy, Elliott 

School of International Affairs, George Washington University 

(GWU). He is also an adjunct professor of law at GWU. 

Henry is an expert in the economic, legal, and policy issues 

of space and advanced technological development. He has 

served as a senior economist and policy analyst at both the 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and 

the National Science Foundation, and is a consultant to both 

United States and international agencies and organizations. 

Henry is author of many articles on the economic and legal 

issues concerning space and technology. He is a member of 

the bar in Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. Henry 

can be contacted by e-mail at hrh@gwu.edu or hhertzfeld@

law.gwu.edu.

John Houghton

John Houghton is professorial fellow at Victoria 

University’s Victorian Institute of Strategic Economic 

Studies (VISES). He has published and spoken widely on 

information technology, industry, and science and technology 

policy issues, and he has been a regular consultant to national 

and international agencies, including the Organization for 

Economic Cooperation and Development.

John’s research is at the interface of theory and practice, 

with a strong focus on the policy application of economic 

and social theory. Consequently, his contribution tends to 

be in bringing knowledge and research methods to bear on 

policy issues in an effort to raise the level of policy debate 

and improve policy outcomes. In 1998, John was awarded a 

National Australia Day Council, Australia Day Medal for his 

contribution to industry policy development.

A major focus of John’s recent research has been on 

knowledge access and the economic and social impacts of 

access to information. This work explores the economic 

implications of alternative publication and distribution models 

and the impacts of those models on the economy and society. 

Other major foci include open access models for scientific and 

scholarly publishing, the curation and open sharing of research 
Appendix 3. Brief Biography of the Speakers, Session Chairs, and Discussants 31

data, and the costs and benefits of making public sector 

information and Government data more openly and freely 

available (see http://www.vises.org.au/projects/innovation.

htm).

Jerry Johnston

Jerry Johnston is the Geospatial Information Officer 

at the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI). In this role, 

Jerry leads efforts by DOI to coordinate and implement 

geospatial technology across the department to meet a wide 

range of mission goals. This includes providing a vision 

for geospatial interoperability throughout the enterprise, 

with particular focus on building and operating the National 

Geospatial Platform. Previously, he was with the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), most recently 

serving as the agency’s geospatial information officer. Prior 

to his work at the EPA, he worked at Image Matters L.L.C. 

of Leesburg, Virginia, and Pangaea Information Technologies 

of Chicago, Illinois, both providers of geospatial information 

management products and services. Jerry holds a B.S. degree 

in environmental science from Michigan State University, as 

well as M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in environmental science from 

Indiana University, Bloomington, and recently completed his 

term as a charter member of the National Geospatial Advisory 

Committee (NGAC).

Claire Jolly

Claire Jolly is head of the Organisation for Economic 

Co-operation and Development (OECD) Space Forum, 

in the OECD’s Directorate for Science, Technology and 

Industry. Claire has 18 years of experience in business and 

policy analysis, having worked for both public and private 

organizations in aerospace and defense in Europe and 

North America, before joining the OECD in 2003. Her dual 

background is in international relations - finance (M.A., 

Versailles and Cornell University) and aerospace engineering 

(École Nationale Supérieure de Techniques Avancées 

[ENSTA] in Paris), with a focus on space applications (M.Sc., 

International Space University in Strasbourg, France). Claire 

is an alumna of the Institute for Higher National Defence 

Studies in Paris (Institut des Hautes Etudes de Défense 

Nationale [IHEDN]). The OECD Space Forum assists 

governments, space-related agencies, and the private sector to 

better identify the statistical contours of the space sector, while 

investigating the space infrastructure’s economic significance, 

innovation role, and potential impacts for the larger economy 

(for example, a publication titled, “The Space Economy at a 

Glance”). In 2015, the Space Forum’s Steering Group includes 

ten members, nine national space agencies / official bodies 

in charge of space activities from OECD economies and the 

European Space Agency (http://oe.cd/space forum).

Suzette Kimball

Suzette Kimball has been Director of the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) since January 2016 and was USGS Acting 

Director during 2013–16. She is internationally known for 

her work in coastal processes and served as Deputy Director 

from 2010 to 2013. Suzette was named Associate Director 

for Geology in 2008, coming to that position from being the 

Director of the Eastern Region since 2004.

Suzette joined the USGS as Eastern Regional Executive 

for Biology. In that position, she built many partnerships, 

helped shape programs, and led the establishment of the USGS 

Florida Integrated Science Center. Suzette came to the USGS 

from the National Park Service in Atlanta, where she was 

Associate Regional Director.

She was an assistant professor of environmental sciences 

at the University of Virginia, co-director of the Center for 

Coastal Management and Policy and a marine scientist at the 

Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and managed coastal 

morphology and barrier island studies at the U.S. Army Corps 

of Engineers.

Suzette serves on executive boards and many State and 

national committees, including the Department of the Interior 

(DOI) Climate and Energy Task Force, the U.S. National 

Committee on GeoScience, the National Academy of Science 

Roundtable on Environmental Health, the DOI Senior Ocean 

Policy Team, and the International Steering Committee 

for OneGeology. She was on the board of directors of the 

Coastal Society and has served as secretary of the American 

Geophysical Union’s Ocean Sciences Section.

She has authored numerous publications on barrier 

island dynamics, coastal ecosystem science, coastal-zone 

management and policy, and natural resource exploration, 

evaluation, and management. Suzette has twice received the 

Presidential Rank Award and twice received the Secretary of 

the Interior’s Gold Level Award for Executive Leadership, and 

the Secretary of the Interior’s Meritorious Service Award.

Suzette has a doctorate in environmental sciences with a 

specialty in coastal processes from the University of Virginia, 

a master’s degree in geology and geophysics from Ball State 

University, and a bachelor’s degree in English and geology 

from the College of William & Mary.

John King

John Leslie King is W.W. Bishop professor of 

information, former dean of the School of Information, 

and former vice provost at the University of Michigan. He 

came to Michigan in 2000 after serving 20 years as a faculty 

member at the University of California at Irvine. John has 

published widely from his research on the relationship 

between changes in information technology and changes 

in organizations, institutions, and markets. He has been 

a Marvin Bower Fellow at the Harvard Business School, 

distinguished visiting professor at the National University 

of Singapore and at Nanyang Technological University in 

Singapore, and a Fulbright Distinguished Chair in American 

Studies at the University of Frankfurt. From 1992 to 

1998, John was editor-in-chief of the INFORMS Journal 

Information Systems Research, and has served as associate 

editor for many other journals. He has been a member of 

the Board of the Computing Research Association (CRA), 
32 Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact and Value of Open Geospatial Information

the Council of the Computing Community Consortium, 

and National Science Foundation advisory committees for 

Computer and Information Science and Engineering (CISE), 

Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (SBE), and 

Cyberinfrastructure (ACCI). John also has served on a number 

of National Research Council studies. John holds a Ph.D. 

in administration from the University of California, Irvine, 

and an honorary doctorate in economics from Copenhagen 

Business School. He is a Fellow of the Association for 

Information Systems and a Fellow of the American 

Association for the Advancement of Science.

Jamie Kruse

Jamie Kruse is recognized for her research in economics 

and decisionmaking under uncertainty, especially as it relates 

to natural hazards. She completed her doctoral work at the 

University of Arizona under dissertation advisor, Vernon 

Smith (2002 Nobel Laureate). Jamie has published over 50 

refereed journal articles in addition to proceedings, abstracts, 

and reports. Her work has appeared in Econometrica, RAND 

Journal of Economics, Southern Economic Journal, Journal 

of Economic Behavior and Organization, Economic Inquiry, 

Natural Hazards Review, Journal of Wind Engineering and 

Industrial Aerodynamics, Environmetrics, Weather and 

Forecasting, Risk Analysis, Journal of Risk and Insurance, and 

others. 

Jamie has held faculty positions at the University 

of Colorado, Texas Tech University, East Carolina 

University, and a visiting position at Eidgenossische 

Technische Hochschule (ETH) in Zurich, Switzerland. 

Her funded research has been supported by the National 

Science Foundation, Department of Energy, National 

Institute of Standards and Technology, Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, 

Niagara Mohawk, State of Texas and the State of North 

Carolina. Jamie has served as principal investigator (PI) or 

co-investigator (Co-I) of research projects totaling over $20 

million. She is serving as a mentor to the 2014–16 cohort of 

the National Science Foundation (NSF) Enabling the Next 

Generation of Hazards Researchers, having mentored the 

2008–10 cohort as well.

During 2010, Jamie held the position of Chief Economist 

at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA). Her responsibilities within NOAA included member 

on the NOAA Research Council and chair of the Research 

Council Social Science Committee. Jamie was co-chair of the 

ad hoc committee for scientific integrity. At the interagency 

level, she served as a member of the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (OSTP) Subcommittee on Social, 

Behavioural, and Economic Sciences, OSTP Subcommittee on 

Ocean Science and Technology, and was co-chair of the Ocean 

Social Science Interagency Working Group. On April 20, 

2010, an explosion of the drilling rig known as the Deepwater 

Horizon triggered a response from NOAA that involved all 

line offices. Jamie served as lead in the social science thematic 

area for the NOAA Deepwater Horizon Science Team 

and served on the National Incident Command Economic 

Solutions Team.

At East Carolina University (ECU), Jamie was inducted 

as one of the 2011 Women of Distinction. Since then, Jamie 

has been recognized by ECU’s Division of Research and 

Graduate Studies with the Lifetime Achievement Award for 

Research and Creative Work and honored with the HCAS 

Distinguished Professorship.

Molly Macauley

Molly Macauley is vice president for research and Senior 

Fellow with Resources for the Future (RFF), in Washington 

D.C. RFF was established at the request of President Truman 

as a think tank focusing on the economics of natural resources. 

Her research emphasizes new technology and its application 

to natural and environmental resources, including the value 

of satellite-derived earth science information and its use in 

understanding ecological systems and human relationships 

with these systems, and the value placed by the public on 

the Nation’s space activities. Molly frequently testifies 

before Congress and serves on national level committees 

and panels including the Committee on Earth Science and 

Applications from Space of the National Research Council’s 

Space Studies Board, the board of advisors for the Thomas 

Jefferson Public Policy Program at the College of William and 

Mary, the Science Advisory Board of the National Oceanic 

and Space Administration, the Earth Science Applications 

Advisory Group of the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA), and the Scholarship Committee of 

the Women in Aerospace Foundation. She also served as a 

lead author for NASA on a synthesis and assessment report 

for the U.S. Climate Change Science Program on the use of 

Earth observations. Molly was selected as a Rising Star by 

the National Space Society, has been elected to membership 

in the International Academy of Astronautics, served as a 

Distinguished Visitor at the invitation of the Government of 

Quebec, and has received awards for her work from NASA 

and the Federal Aviation Administration. She has published 

extensively with more than 80 journal articles, books, and 

chapters of books. Molly has also been a visiting professor in 

the Department of Economics at Johns Hopkins University. 

She holds Ph.D. and M.A. degrees in economics from Johns 

Hopkins University and an undergraduate degree in economics 

from The College of William and Mary.

Mikel Maron 

Mikel Maron is a Presidential Innovation Fellow 

working on crowdsourcing initiatives at the Department of 

State. Mikel is a programmer and geographer dedicated to 

community and humanitarian use of open source and open 

data. He has organized mapping projects in India, Palestine, 

Egypt, Swaziland, and elsewhere with Ground Truth Initiative, 

and especially their flagship effort, Map Kibera, the first 

open source map of the slums of Nairobi. He is a long-time 

contributor to OpenStreetMap (OSM); and founder and 

board member of the Humanitarian OpenStreetMap Team, 
Appendix 3. Brief Biography of the Speakers, Session Chairs, and Discussants 33

having helped facilitate the OSM response to the 2010 Haiti 

earthquake. Mikel has served as technical lead for Moabi, 

a collaborative data project to monitor natural resources in 

DRC. He co-founded the geoweb company Mapufacture (now 

part of Esri), helped build the first wiki at the United Nations 

(WaterWiki at the United Nations Development Programme 

[UNDP]), and generally worked on collaborative platforms 

and geoweb standards.

Al McGartland

Al McGartland is the Director of the National Center 

for Environmental Economics (NCEE) and Lead Economist 

at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Al is 

responsible for insuring that EPA regulatory analyses are of 

high quality and in compliance with relevant EPA guidance. 

Al also develops interdisciplinary risk and benefit assessment 

methods to be used in EPA regulatory analyses, including the 

application of economic methods to value natural resource 

and environmental damages. Most recently, Al has been 

focusing on the benefits of improving water quality in the 

Chesapeake Bay, valuing reductions in noncancer morbidity, 

and quantifying the benefits of reducing greenhouse gases. 

As the director of NCEE, Al advises senior policy-making 

officials on the economics of environmental policies and helps 

translate research into applied policy contexts. The NCEE 

issues EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses 

and conducts numerous studies to assess the benefits and 

costs of environmental programs. The center also conducts 

key research on environmental economic issues. Al also 

supports numerous interagency initiatives, including projects 

concerning agriculture and environmental risks, as well as 

the environmental and economic benefits of policy reform in 

China.

Prior to working at the EPA, Al worked at the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of 

Management and Budget. While there, Al reviewed 

environmental regulations and supporting analyses. In 

addition, Al served as the economic advisor to the Chairman 

at the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Al was also 

a vice president at Abt Associates, Inc., a public policy and 

economics consulting firm. Al received his Ph.D. in economics 

from the University of Maryland. He has published in several 

journals, including the American Economic Review; the 

Canadian Journal of Economics; the Journal of Environmental 

Management; the Northwestern Law Review; the medical 

journal, Lancet; and the Journal of Environmental Economics 

and Management. Al also has contributed to numerous books 

and reports on environmental economic issues.

Robin McLaren

Robin McLaren is currently director of Know Edge 

Ltd., a U.K.-based, independent management consulting 

company formed in 1986, specializing in the application of 

geospatial information and is a prominent consultant in land 

administration. He has been at the forefront of the geospatial 

information system (GIS) revolution and is recognized as an 

expert in spatial data infrastructures and land policy. Robin 

works extensively with United Nations agencies, the World 

Bank and European Union on land policy—land reform—

National Spatial Data Infrastructures (NSDI) programs, and is 

on a mission to ensure that land professionals are delivering 

appropriate land administration services to the citizen. He was 

the lead consultant in formulating the U.K. Location Strategy 

and associated business case for the U.K. Government and was 

a founding member of the U.K. Location Council. Robin is 

an Honorary Fellow at the School of GeoSciences, University 

of Edinburgh, and his research interests are focused on how 

crowdsourcing can be used to support land administration. 

He has co-authored the International Federation of Surveyors 

FIG—World Bank publication, “Fit-For-Purpose Land 

Administration” (International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) 

and World Bank, 2014)

Jay Pearlman

Jay Pearlman was Chief Engineer of NCOC&EM 

at Boeing and a Boeing Technical Fellow where he was 

responsible for advanced development of information systems. 

His interests are in oceans research and information science. 

Jay has a Ph.D. from the University of Washington and a 

B.S. degree from the California Institute of Technology. 

Jay is a Fellow of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics 

Engineers (IEEE) and was IEEE co-chair of the Group on 

Earth Observation (GEO) Architecture and Data Committee. 

He is currently co-owner of J&F Enterprise, a small technical 

services company operating in the global dimension. Through 

J&F Enterprise, he is active in advancing the analyses of 

socioeconomic benefits from Earth and environmental 

information. Jay has more than 75 publications and 25 

international patents.

Walter S. Scott

As executive vice president and chief technical officer of 

DigitalGlobe, Walter Scott is responsible the development of 

space and ground systems, research and product development, 

and technical oversight for engineering at DigitalGlobe.

Walter founded DigitalGlobe in 1992 as WorldView 

Imaging Corporation, which was the first company to 

receive a high-resolution, commercial remote sensing license 

from the U.S. Government (in 1993), under the 1992 Land 

Remote Sensing Policy Act. WorldView became EarthWatch 

Incorporated in 1995. He managed the development of all of 

the commercial remote sensing satellites for the company. 

Walter secured the first-ever export license for launch of U.S.-

manufactured imaging spacecraft on Russian launch vehicles 

(Start-1 and Cosmos). The company became DigitalGlobe 

in 2001, and with the launch of the QuickBird-2 satellite 

that year, offered the world’s highest resolution commercial 

satellite imagery. Today, DigitalGlobe operates a five-satellite 

imaging constellation with the best revisit and greatest 

capacity in the industry.

From 1986 through 1992, Walter Scott worked for 

Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in 
34 Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact and Value of Open Geospatial Information

Livermore, California. He began as Project Leader for 

Computer Aided Design Tools for the Laser Pantography 

Program, developing tools to aid in the design of wafer-scale 

integrated circuits manufactured. In 1987, Walter joined a 

small team, developing a concept for a highly distributed 

constellation of space-based interceptors for the Strategic 

Defense Initiative, known as “Brilliant Pebbles.” In late 1987, 

Walter became the program leader for this effort, and was 

responsible for creating a series of hardware prototypes and 

conducting flight experiments. During 1989, Walter led the 

program successfully through over 20 reviews of technical 

feasibility, system performance, military operability, and 

estimated cost, resulting in the adoption of Brilliant Pebbles 

for the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization (SDIO) space 

segment in 1990. In late 1991, he was assistant associate 

director of the physics department and was responsible for 

development of new space-related programs and identification 

of promising technologies. 

Walter holds a bachelor of arts degree in applied 

mathematics, magna cum laude, from Harvard College and 

doctorate and master of science degrees in computer science 

from the University of California, Berkeley. He was a visiting 

student for a year at Edinburgh University in Scotland.

In 2004, Walter was named Entrepreneur of the Year 

by Ernst & Young for the Rocky Mountain Region in the 

Emerging Technology category.

Walter is a member of the National Research Council’s 

Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space 

(CESAS) and a member of the board of directors of the Open 

Geospatial Consortium (OGC).

Lea Shanley

Lea Shanley is a Presidential Innovation Fellow working 

on crowdsourcing initiatives at the National Aeronautics 

and Space Administration (NASA). Trained as a geospatial 

data scientist and policy expert, her research has focused on 

improving Government services and empowering communities 

through open and participatory innovation, new technologies 

and social media. Previously, Lea directed the Commons 

Lab of the Science and Technology Innovation Program 

at the Wilson Center. She is one of the chief organizers 

and co-founders of the Federal Community of Practice on 

Crowdsourcing and Citizen Science, a groundbreaking effort 

to enable Federal agencies to engage the public in collective 

problem solving. In 2009, Lea was an American Association 

for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Congressional 

Science Fellow in the U.S. Senate, crafting legislation on 

satellite Earth observations, oceans, and hazards. Lea also 

helped launch the new Citizen Science Association and 

Wisconsin Geographic Information Coordination Council.

Carl Shapiro

Carl Shapiro is the Director of the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) Science and Decisions Center (SDC) 

and is Senior Economist, Energy and Minerals and 

Environmental Health. The SDC is an interdisciplinary 

organization advancing the use of science in natural resource 

decisionmaking. The center focuses on research and 

applications in five science areas: ecosystem services, decision 

science, resilience, participatory science and innovation, and 

natural resource economics. The center works with partners in 

the Department of the Interior (DOI) and other Government 

agencies, universities, and nongovernmental organizations 

to develop methods, capacity, and institutional structures to 

integrate science more effectively with resource management.

Before his work with the SDC, Carl was the 

Principal Economist in the USGS Office of the Director, 

where he initiated, led, and participated in economic and 

interdisciplinary studies on public policy issues, resources, 

and natural hazards. While in the Director’s Office, Carl also 

served as Senior Advisor to the Director and Acting Chief, 

Office of Strategic Planning and Analysis. Carl has received 

the Department of the Interior’s Meritorious Service and 

Superior Service Awards.

Carl is an adjunct associate professor of economics 

in the School of Public Affairs at American University in 

Washington, D.C., where he has taught graduate courses in 

economics and public management for 20 years. Carl has 

received the American University Outstanding Teaching 

Award for Adjunct Faculty, as well as the Outstanding 

Teaching Award in the School of Public Affairs.

Nick Sinai

As U.S. Deputy Chief Technology Officer, Nick leads 

President Obama’s Open Data Initiatives to liberate data to 

fuel innovation and economic growth. A prominent advocate 

and frequent speaker for open data, he has said, “Government 

data are a valuable asset and should be available wherever 

possible.” Nick has also advanced the idea that Americans 

deserve access to their own health care (through Blue Button), 

energy, tax, and other personal data in machine-readable 

formats and has championed the White House’s Green 

Button Initiative, a public-private effort to provide electricity 

customers online access to their own energy usage data.

He also leads the Open Government Initiative, charged 

with “creating an unprecedented level of openness in 

Government.” Nick co-authored the second U.S. Open 

Government National Action Plan.

Nick also helped start and grow the Presidential 

Innovation Fellows program, which brings tech-savvy 

entrepreneurs into the Federal Government for 6–12 month 

“tours of duty,” focusing on data innovation projects.

Alan Smart 

Alan Smart is a Principal at ACIL Allen Consulting 

in Sydney Australia. Alan advises private and public sector 

clients on the economics of energy, infrastructure and 

geospatial markets. He heads the company’s geospatial 

practice. Alan has been involved in the economics of 

geospatial and positioning systems for over 15 years, 

undertaking the first national review of the value of spatial 

information in Australia in 2008. Since that time, he has 
Appendix 3. Brief Biography of the Speakers, Session Chairs, and Discussants 35

completed further assessments of geospatial information 

systems and services in Australia, New Zealand, and the 

United Kingdom. He is currently involved in similar work in 

Canada.

Alan’s professional interests are in the use and application 

of geospatial and positioning systems in Government and 

industry and in the development of evaluation methodologies 

and business cases.

Alan is qualified in engineering and economics and is a 

certified professional engineer in Australia. He is a director of 

the Spatial Industries Business Association and a member of 

the board of the Tasmanian Economic Regulator.

Philip B. Stark 

Philip B. Stark is professor and chair of the Department 

of Statistics, director of the Statistical Computing Facility, 

Senior Data Science Fellow of the Berkeley Institute for Data 

Science, member of the Theoretical Astrophysics Center, 

faculty in the Designated Emphasis in Computational Science 

and Engineering, and affiliated faculty of the Simons Institute 

for the Theory of Computing and the Berkeley Food Institute 

at U.C. Berkeley.

His research centers on inference problems and 

uncertainty quantification with applications including causal 

inference, climate, cosmology, earthquake forecasts, elections, 

endangered species, food webs, geomagnetism, geriatric 

hearing loss, information retrieval, Internet content filters, 

legislation and litigation, risk assessment, seismic structure 

of Sun and Earth, spectrum estimation, and urban foraging to 

improve nutrition in “food deserts.”

Philip was a Presidential Young Investigator and he 

won the U.C. Berkeley Chancellor’s Award for Research in 

the Public Interest and the John Gideon Award for Election 

Integrity for developing methods for auditing elections now 

in law in California and Colorado. Methods he developed 

or co-developed are part of the data pipelines of the Øersted 

geomagnetic satellite and the Global Oscillations Network 

Group. Philip has consulted for major corporations and for the 

U.S. Department of Justice, the Federal Trade Commission, 

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. Census Bureau, 

the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, the California 

Attorney General, the California Highway Patrol, and the 

Illinois State Attorney. Philip has testified to the U.S. House 

of Representatives Subcommittee on the Census; the State of 

California Senate Committee on Elections, Reapportionment 

and Constitutional Amendments; the State of California 

Assembly Committee on Elections and Redistricting; and the 

State of California Senate Committee on Natural Resources. 

His curriculum vitae (CV) is available at http://www.stat.

berkeley.edu/~stark/bio.htm.

Timothy “Tim” Stryker 

Timothy Stryker is Director of the U.S. Group on Earth 

Observations (USGEO) program, which supports the cabinetlevel National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) 

under the White House Office of Science and Technology 

Policy. Working with the USGEO Subcommittee of the 

NSTC’s Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and 

Sustainability, the program supports coordination of civil 

Earth observation activities, including systems assessments 

and data management initiatives, among multiple Federal 

agencies and their international partners.

Mr. Stryker’s previous positions include Chief of Policy, 

Plans, and Analysis for the Land Remote Sensing Program 

of the U.S. Geological Survey; Executive Officer of the 

international Committee on Earth Observation Satellites; 

and Deputy Director of the Office of Policy at the National 

Reconnaissance Office. He has also served in assignments at 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the 

U.S. Department of Commerce, the Office of Management and 

Budget, the Federal Communications Commission, and the 

U.S. Information Agency.

A former Presidential Management Fellow, Mr. Stryker 

earned his master’s degree in foreign service from Georgetown 

University and his bachelor’s degree in history from the 

University of Michigan.

Larry Sugarbaker

Larry Sugarbaker is the National Geospatial Program 

Senior Advisor for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Larry 

works on National Map policy formulation and new initiatives. 

He has led major studies to understand customer requirements 

for The National Map and for a national enhanced elevation 

program. Prior to joining the USGS in 2007, Larry was the 

vice president and chief information officer for NatureServe, 

an international nonprofit conservation organization. Mr. 

Sugarbaker worked for the State of Washington, Department 

of Natural Resources for 22 years, where he managed the 

geographic information system and supported remote sensing, 

and forest inventory functions. He has gained worldwide 

recognition as a leader and expert in geographic information 

systems. Larry is a past chair of the National Research 

Council, Mapping Science Committee. He graduated from the 

University of Michigan, School of Natural Resources, with 

a B.S. degree in forestry in 1977. Larry completed an M.S. 

degree in remote sensing and wildlife management from the 

University of Michigan in 1979.

Camille Touton

Camille Touton is Counselor to the Assistant Secretary 

for Water & Science at the Department of the Interior, 

Government Relations. Since August 2013, she has been 

senior policy advisor for water and power to ranking member 

Peter DeFazio, U.S. House of Representatives, Natural 

resources committee. She graduated from the University 

of Nevada Las Vegas in 2006, and attended George Mason 

University School of Public Policy during 2012–14.

Bridgette Wessels 

Bridgette Wessels is director of the Centre of 

Interdisciplinary Research in Socio-digital Worlds (IRiS) and 
36 Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact and Value of Open Geospatial Information

senior lecturer in sociology at Sheffield University, U.K. Her 

research focuses on the innovation and use of digital services 

including the development of public sector e-services and 

the development of e-Government and telehealth services. 

Her projects include the following: European Commission’s 

Advanced TransEuropean Telematics for Community Help 

(ATTACH) project; the Engineering and Physical Sciences 

Research Council (EPSRC)-funded project Advanced Multi 

Agency Service Environments (AMASE), which addressed 

the development of new e-services and in particular focused 

on the design and takeup of advanced information and 

communications technology (ICT) in multi-agency health and 

social care services. She undertook a “Process Evaluation of 

National E-Government,” funded by the Office of Deputy 

Prime Minister (U.K.) that addressed the implementation 

of innovative e-Government services. She has undertaken 

research that looked at the development and sustainability 

of portal e-services involving e@syconnects, (South 

Yorkshire), London Connects, and Digital City Ronneby 

(Sweden)(KTOF–HEIF 2 project). She has been involved 

in policy making innovative e-services through sitting on 

the South Yorkshire Digital policy group between 2004 

and 2012. She has experience in the implementation of 

innovative e-services through her time on the e@syconnects 

(https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/community/epractice/case/

esyconnects) management board (2002–13).

She also has experience in the emerging field of open 

data and currently leads WP1 in the FP7 project, Policy 

RECommendations for Open Access to Research Data in 

Europe (RECODE). She is on the University Strategy Group 

on data management and open access. She has been expert for 

E.U., the U.K. Office of Science and Technology, Department 

of Trade and Industry, Royal Society, and European 

Parliament. Current projects focus on mainstreaming and 

implementing telehealth (Economic and Social Research 

Council and Technology Strategy Board [ESRC–TSB]); and a 

participatory design and co-production project on improving 

search and data management in research methodology (Arts 

and Humanities Research Council [AHRC]). She is evaluating 

the ESRC’s National Digital Social Research Methods 

Programme, which covers a range of innovative projects that 

sought to understand how to use data including open data in 

research, which includes research in services and community 

settings. Her books have addressed many aspects of the 

innovation and development of e-services, for example “Inside 

the digital revolution: Policing and changing communication 

with the public” (Wessels, 2007),“The cultural dynamics of 

the innovation of new media: A case of telematics” (Wessels, 

2010a), “Information and joining up services: The case of an 

information guide for parents of disabled children” (Wessels 

and Bagnall, 2002), “Understanding the Internet: A sociocultural perspective” (Wessels, 2010b), and “Exploring social 

change: Process and context” (Wessels, 2014).

Sally Wyatt 

Sally Wyatt originally studied economics at McGill 

University, Canada (B.A., 1976) and Sussex University, 

England (M.A., 1979). She received her Ph.D. in science and 

technology studies from Maastricht University in 1998. Sally 

has more than 30 years of experience in teaching and research 

about technology policy and about the relationship between 

technological and social change, focusing particularly on 

issues of social exclusion and inequality. She worked at the 

Universities of Sussex (1980–86), Brighton (1988–90), East 

London (1990–99) and Amsterdam (1999–2006), as well as 

at the British Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) 

(1986–88). Since 2006, Sally has been working for the Royal 

Netherlands Academy of Arts & Sciences (KNAW), and 

since 2011, she has been the Program Leader of the KNAW’s 

eHumanities Group.

Sally has played a central role in the international 

Science and Technology Studies (STS) community in 

different capacities. She was the international coordinator for 

the European Master’s Programme on Society, Science and 

Technology (ESST) during 1996–99 and its president during 

2008–11. She was president of the European Association 

for the Study of Science and Technology (EASST) during 

2001–2004. Since 2011, Sally has been the director of 

the Netherlands Graduate Research School for Science, 

Technology and Modern Culture (WTMC).

Sally has received major research grants from the U.K. 

Economic and Social Research Council and the Canadian 

Social Science and Humanities Research Council. She 

has acted as an adviser to the European Commission’s 

Science in Society program, as well as to several national 

European research councils interested in establishing and 

(or) evaluating social science research about new information 

and communication technologies. Her most recent book is an 

edited collection titled, “Virtual Knowledge. Experimenting in 

the Humanities and the Social Science,” co-edited with Paul 

Wouters, Anne Beaulieu, and Andrea Scharnhorst (Wouthers 

and others, 2013).

Pearlman and others—Assessing the Socioeconomic Impact and Value of Open Geospatial Information—Open-File Report 2016–1036 

ISSN 2331-1258 (online)

http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161036