The development of geographic information systems ...

Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 1988, volume 15, pages 489-494

The development of geographic information systems in Britain: the Chorley Report1 in perspective I Masser Department of Town and Regional Planning, University of Sheffield, Sheffield S10 2TN, England Received 30 June 1988

Abstract. The publication in May 1987 of the Chorley Report on Handling Geographic Information must be regarded as a milestone in the discussion of geographic information systems (GIS) in Britain. The basic arguments underlying the Report are reviewed in relation to the events leading up to the establishment of the Committee of Enquiry chaired by Lord Chorley and the Government's response to the Report's recommendations. 1 Introduction By any standards, the publication of the Chorley Report (1987) must be regarded as an event of major importance in the discussion of geographic information systems in Britain. To appreciate its full significance, it is necessary to consider the events that led up to the establishment of the Committee of Enquiry in April 1985 and also to take account of the views expressed in the Government's response to the recommendations which was published in February 1988 (DoE, 1988). 2 Background The immediate origins of the Chorley Report lie in the recommendation made in the report of the House of Lords Select Committee on Remote Sensing and Digital Mapping (1984) for the establishment of a high-level committee of enquiry into the handling of geographical information. In its response to the Report, the Government (DTI, 1984) accepted that a more general discussion of these issues was required and it also recognised the need for a forum of users to be established to coordinate their mutual interests. Consequently, it was argued that, "Only with the private and public user's standpoint clearly represented will it be possible to achieve a practicable programme which ensures that the potential of the data is realised, and that the costs of the programme are in step with the expected benefits" (paragraph 37). As a result, an eleven-person committee was appointed in April 1985 "to advise the Secretary of State for the Environment within two years on the future handling of geographic information in the United Kingdom, taking account of modern developments in information technology and of market need." The Chairman of the Committee, Lord Chorley, is a partner in Coopers and Lybrand, the accountants and management consultants. His prior experience in this field included memberships of the Ordnance Survey Review Committee (1979) and the House of Lords Select Committee on Remote Sensing and Digital Mapping (1983). In its call for evidence the Committee invited views on a wide range of issues relating to the current state of the art and future developments. These included questions associated with the collection and handling of information, the release of

t Handling Geographic Information Report to the Secretary of State for the Environment of the Committee of Enquiry into the Handling of Geographic Information, Chairman Lord Chorley, 1987 (HMSO, London).

490

I Masser

this information to other users, and anticipated changes in technology. The Committee also asked for views on the nature of research and development work being carried out on geographic information handling and the organisational arrangements required to coordinate development in the field. The extent of public interest in these issues is evident in the 400 submissions that the Committee received from organisations and individuals. In addition, the Committee took oral evidence from twenty-six organisations and commissioned a number of reviews of specific topics. Over thirty pages of the published report are devoted to a very interesting summary of this evidence and the papers commissioned from Dr Openshaw on spatial units and locational referencing and from Thomlinson Associates on the North American experience are also published as separate appendices. 3 The Report The main body of the Report is divided into two more or less equal parts. The first part consists of three chapters reviewing recent developments in geographic information handling in general terms, whereas the second deals in more detail with the specific issues involved. As might be expected, the reasoning behind the Report's sixty-four recommendations is to be found in the second part. The opening chapters of the Report highlight the significance that is attached to recent developments in geographic information handling technology by a wide variety of users, while drawing attention to the obstacles that inhibit its take-up. The Committee makes no bones about its enthusiasm for the new technology. In its view the development of geographic information systems (GIS) is "the biggest step forward in the handling of geographic information since the invention of the map" (paragraph 1.7). The importance it attaches to GIS technology is a result of the degree to which it facilitates the convergence of three previously largely separate fields of applications. The first of these fields involves the development of spatial data bases in digital form to enable quick and easy access to large volumes of data. Ordnance Survey topographic information is an example of data currently undergoing a massive conversion process from paper map to digital format. The second field is associated with the relational data-base-management technology that enables the integration of spatially referenced socioeconomic and environmental data drawn from different sources and their manipulation by a variety of users. The opportunities opened up by these means are reflected in the growing commodification of information in the economy which can be seen in the marketing of specialised services by both public and private sector agencies (Openshaw and Goddard, 1987). The last application field relates to the new and flexible forms of output produced by computers in the form of maps, graphs, address lists, and summary statistics, which can be tailored to meet particular kinds of user requirement. These have had profound effects on the display of spatial information. In looking to the future, the Committee expects rapid developments on all three fronts. However, it regards this as "a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for the take-up of geographic information systems to increase rapidly" (paragraph 1.22). For a rapid take-up to occur it will also be necessary to overcome a number of important barriers to development. These include the need for greater user awareness of technological change and the extent to which data collectors and holders can be persuaded to provide data in digital form. The Committee also recognises that the diversity of users with very different technical needs makes it difficult to develop a consistent view of priorities.

The development of geographic information systems in Britain

491

These issues are explored in greater depth in the seven chapters that make up the second part of the Report. These cover digital topographic mapping, availability of data, linking data, awareness, education and training, research and development (R&D), and the role of government, respectively. The Committee's most important recommendations are those relating to digital topographic mapping, the linking and availability of data, and the role of government. The Ordnance Survey is singled out for particular attention because of its role in the establishment of a national topographic data base, and twenty four of the sixty-four recommendations relate to its activities. The Committee expresses its concern about the slow pace of digital conversion and recommends a much accelerated programme, using a simplified specification for conversion purposes. With respect to data linking and availability, the Committee calls for the release of unaggregated data held by government departments, provided that the users are willing to bear the costs and there are no overriding security considerations. It is also in favour of an increased use of franchising arrangements to enable outsiders to act as distributors of government data. To facilitate the linking of data sets, the Committee recommends that address and unit post codes should be utilised wherever possible, and it suggests that the findings of major public data-collection exercises such as the 1991 Census of Population should be made available in this form, subject to the need to preserve confidentiality. In the light of the issues raised by the House of Lords Select Committee on Remote Sensing and Digital Mapping and the Government response to them, the discussion of the role of government in the Chorley Report is of particular importance. The Committee recommends that a Centre for Geographic Information should be set up with a clear remit to carry out the following functions: "1. to provide a focus and forum for common interest groups, or clubs; 2. to carry out and provide support for promotion of the use of geographic information technology, including promotional activities carried out within and outside the general education and training process; 3. to oversee progress and to submit proposals for developing national policy in the following areas: —the availability of government spatial data, the operation of data registers and arrangements for archiving of permanent data; —the development of locational referencing, standard spatial units for holding and releasing data, the operation of the postcode system and the development of data exchange standards (cartographic and non-cartographic); —the assessment of education and training needs and provision of opportunities to meet them; —the identification of R & D needs and priorities, including advice to government on bids for R & D funds" (paragraph 10.2). In the view of the Committee, the Centre for Geographic Information should be independent of government but should be closely linked to it through member-ship and funding arrangements. This reflects the Committee's view that developments in this area will be primarily determined by user demands. Like its immediate predecessor, the House of Lords Select Committee on Remote Sensing and Digital Mapping (see Rhind, 1986) the Chorley Report tends to play down the cost implications of its recommendations. It argues, for example, that any short-term increase in costs resulting from the implementation of its recommendations on the conversion of Ordnance Survey data should be more than outweighed by the subsequent increase in revenue. In the case of education and training provision, the Committee argues that no additional funding will be required

492

I Masser

"if the money can be found by some modest redirection of funds in existing programmes" (page 124). The only case where extra funding will be needed is for the launch of the Centre for Geographic Information. Even in this case, however, it is argued that, although the Centre would initially require £250000 a year from membership subscriptions, income-generating activities, and launch finance from the government, the launch-finance element should taper to zero after five years. 4 The Government response The Government's response to the Chorley Report was published in February 1988 (DoE, 1988). It consists of a detailed response to each of the Report's sixty-four recommendations prefaced by an introductory section outlining the broader issues involved. In its response the Government indicates that it shares the Committee's view of the potential that exists for the rapid spread of technological applications of geographic information handling and agrees that they offer very considerable benefits. The Government also makes it clear that it regards the Chorley Committee's Report as a major step in drawing attention to its potential and raising overall levels of user awareness. The Government's response is most positive in respect of the activities of the Ordnance Survey. It points to the progress that has been made in producing a new specification for conversion purposes and notes that plans to speed up the conversion programme are already at an advanced stage. These are likely to be facilitated by the agreements that have been reached between the Ordnance Survey and British Telecom and British Gas whereby the latter agencies will digitise sections of their areas to an agreed standard, and the data that are obtained by these means will be incorporated into the Ordnance Survey data base. The Government is less forthcoming on the subject of data linking and availability, although it accepts the spirit of the Committee's recommendations regarding the release of government-held data. In this respect it merely draws attention to the role that its Tradeable Information Initiative (DTI, 1986) is likely to play in making government data holdings accessible to commercial users who are willing to pay the full market rate for the privilege. On the subject of unit post codes the Government's response is also cautious. It is only willing to consider producing results for future censuses of England and Wales in combinations of post codes if it can be demonstrated that there is a clear need for results, even though the results of the 1981 Census of Scotland are already available in this format. Predictably, the most disappointing feature of the Government's response is its rejection of the proposal to set up a Centre for Geographic Information. The Government argues that it is important to build upon the strengths of existing organisations in this field and cites as examples the efforts of the European Division of Automated Mapping and Facilities Management (AM/FM) International in bringing together users and suppliers over the last few years. It also expresses the view that the Economic and Social Research Council's (ESRC) Regional Research Laboratories (RRLs) have the potential to develop into highly effective and locally based resources which users can draw upon for advice and consultancy work. In the light of these developments, the Government argues that "it is therefore unnecessary, and indeed could be harmful, to use public funds to set up an additional organisation which would compete with these developing organisations"

The development of geographic information systems in Britain

493

(paragraph 14). Consequently it wishes to "encourage such organisations to continue to develop their roles in this field" and hopes that they will "expand to cover the full range of applications" (paragraph 15). 5 Discussion There can be little doubt that the Chorley Report will be of considerable value in raising the overall level of awareness of the potential opened up by information technology in the geographic information handling field. There are also encouraging signs in the Government's detailed response to its recommendations that some of the obstacles inhibiting the take-up of the new technology are being removed. However, these positive features cannot offset the negative impression that is given by its rejection of the proposal to establish a Centre for Geographic Information. As noted at the outset of this paper, the need for a forum of users to be established which would coordinate their interests was recognised by the House of Lords Select Committee on Remote Sensing and Digital Mapping and their case was accepted in the Government's response to that report. The case for a Centre for Geographic Information that is put forward in the Chorley Report goes a considerable way beyond this initial recommendation. It sees the proposed Centre as not only providing a forum for users but also as a way of giving the sharp boost to existing efforts that is required to overcome the barriers to the rapid takeup of the new technology which were identified by the Committee. In simple terms, then, although the development of the field is likely to be determined largely by users, a clear lead from Government is also required to raise general levels of awareness and set in motion the massive education and training programme that is neeed to enable a rapid take-up of the new technology. Most of the crucial decisions in these respects lie in Government hands. They alone can ensure, for example, that the ESRC and the Natural Environment Research Council are given the additional resources they will require to set up their activities related to training and research on geographic information handling to meet the growing demands from users. Questions such as these appear to be largely ignored in the Government's response to the Chorley Report. For this reason it must be recognised that the Government's favoured option, the establishment of the Association for Geographic Information (AM/FM UK), although providing a useful forum for users, is unlikely, in the short term at least, to have more than a very limited effect on increasing the level of resourcing for training and research activities. In retrospect, it may turn out that the diagnosis of the problems and the proposed course of treatment that are contained in the Chorley Report will be admired despite the Government's failure to accept their full implications. However, the Committee's tendency to play down the costs involved must also be seen as contributing to the Government's attitude to the Report's recommendations. There can be little doubt that substantial investment is taking place in this field at the present time and it is also clear that there are considerable benefits to be obtained by exploiting the new technology. Given the scale of current operations, something more than a modest redirection of resources is required on the part of Government if it is to ensure that adequate provision is made for training and research in the geographic information handling field. On this count, then, the Chorley Report may come to be regarded as a missed opportunity which may make things even harder for those involved to secure the level of resources they will need to satisfy the demands of users.

494

I Masser

References Chorley Report, 1987 Handling Geographic Information Report to the Secretary of State for the Environment of the Committee of Enquiry into the Handling of Geographic Information, Chairman Lord Chorley (HMSO, London) DoE, 1988 Handling of Geographic Information: The Government's Response Department of the Environment (HMSO, London) DTI, 1984 Remote Sensing and Digital Mapping: The Government's Reply Cmnd 9320, Department of Trade and Industry (HMSO, London) DTI, 1986, "Government held tradeable information: guidelines for government departments in dealing with the private sector" Department of Trade and Industry, 1-19 Victoria Street, London SW1 House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology, 1984 Remote Sensing and Digital Mapping Reports [1983-84] (HMSO, London) Openshaw S, Goddard J, 1987, "Some implications of the commodification of information and the emerging information economy for applied geographical analysis in the United Kingdom" Environment and Planning A 19 1423-1439 Rhind D W, 1986, "Remote sensing, digital mapping, and geographical information systems: the creation of national policy in the United Kingdom" Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 4 9 1 - 1 0 2

p

© 1988 a Pion publication printed in Great Britain