• Journal of the Korean Society of Surveying, Geodesy, Photogrammetry and Cartography
• /
• v.35 no.5
• /
• pp.375-388
• /
• 2017

United States of America started NSDI in 1994 for the first time in the world. EU and other many countries invested lots of budget on NSDI due to necessity to manage countries and social economy. As skepticism for effect of such investment has risen, developed countries predicted higher effect compared to investment using ROI and other methods. FGDC clarified that geospatial information is a critical national assets. USA has managed NSDI by introducing portfolio concept for it recognizing NSDI as financial assets from fixed assets. Currently directions of NSDI and its advancement has been proceeded variably depending on corresponding organizations, human resources, budget and national policies. This study analyzed recent trends regarding NSDI assessment methods from developed countries and researchers. Assessment of NSDI is introduced only by some countries such as EU, USA and Canada. This study analyzed USA's assessment model and indicator that assess NSDI in a way that various external organizations (COGO, URISA) participate, EU INSPIRE Directives, monitoring and Canada's CGDI assessment methods. Besides these, this study analyzed STIG that adopted Financial Infrastructure from European studies and Korea's NSDI monitoring assessment indicator research. Further this study suggested assessment directions for future NSDI through implications of NSDI assessment method analysis.

• Spatial Information Research
• /
• v.19 no.6
• /
• pp.1-10
• /
• 2011

The evaluation systems on the National Spatial Information Policy(NSIP) has been changed, since the Establishment and Use of the National Geographic Information System Act(NGIS Act, 2000) was abolished and the National Spatial Data Infrastructure Act(NSDI Act, 2009) was enacted. As compared to the NGIS Act, the policy evaluation systems for National Spatial Information are regarded as unified and centralized. However, some argue that the claim of budget and the legal feasibility of the NSIP was weakened. Given the different views on the two laws, this study aims at analyzing the changes in the evaluation system by comparing the NGIS Act and the NSDI Act. A Comparative Analysis framework is employed. The subjects of the comparative analysis are evaluation mechanism, evaluator, evaluation target and range, after-assessment utilization, and agent. In order to improve the effectiveness of the evaluation system, it is recommended that the clarification of evaluation purposes, institutional enhancement for evaluation agency, the development of evaluation indexes, the combination of top-down approach and bottom -up approach, and the increased linkage between budget and evaluation result.