From above figure it is concluded
that the overall trajectory of Indian
NSDI development has been:
Launch of Indian NSDI by national
mapping organizations (NMOs) along
vertical hierarchy axis (authority)
instead of floating it from horizontal
axis (ground realities) gave it power of
minorities (officials) and not power of
the majority (masses). Consequently,
it started to decline soon after wards.
Initial focus on technology instead of
beneficiaries of this technology such as
citizens further brought the projectile
(Indian NSDI) down to the ground.
Non-involvement of private sector
thought it was realized strongly
in the recommendations of 2nd
NSDI workshop added to the
inertia faced by Indian NSDI
National map policy constraints
played its role to pull the projectile
down to hit the ground
Neglecting role of NGOs hindered
to bring local knowledge and
community support to the initiative
Lack of partnerships such as Public-
Private Partnership (PPP) gave
monopoly to national mapping
organizations (NMOs) which are
usually good in making policies but
lack in implementation of policies
Top down approach instead of bottom
up approach to implementation NSDI
due to noninvolvement of end users
such as citizens caused the Indian NSDI
move partially failure if not totally.
Conclusion
The overall trajectory of Indian NSDI
development has been, initial focus on
technology instead of beneficiaries of
this technology such as citizens, noninvolvement
of private sector, outdated
national map policy, neglecting role
of NGOs, lack of partnerships such
as PPP and top down approach.
Recommendations
Countries such as Pakistan which are
in the processing of initiating NSDI
move, should not follow exactly the
same trajectory as of Indian NSDI but
floating it with the inclusion of all key
players of NSDI such as private sector,
public sector, NGOs, research and
teaching institutions, and media etc.
Reference:
Georgiadou, P. Y. (2003). Reflections
on the Indian NSDI National Spatial
Data Infrastructure. Geospatial today :
strategic renewal to geospatial world.
Georgiadou, P. Y. (2006). SDI
ontology and implications for research
in the developing world : editorial.
International journal of spatial data
infrastructures research,1, pp.51-64
Georgiadou, P. Y. and R. Groot (2002).
Capacity building for geo - information
provision : a public goods perspective.
In: GISDECO 2002 proceedings :
Governance and the use of GIS in
developing countries, ITC, Enschede,
15-18 May 2002. pp. 11-1.11-13.
Georgiadou, P. Y., S. K. Puri, et al.
(2005). Towards a potential research
agenda to guide the implementation
of spatial data infrastructures : a
case study from India. International
Journal of Geographical Information
Science, 19(10), pp.1113-1130.
Georgiadou, P. Y., S. K. Puri, et al.
(2006). "rainbow metaphor : spatial
data infrastructure organization
and implementation in India." In:
International studies of management
and organization, 35(2006)4, pp. 48-71.
Georgiadou, P. Y., O. Rodriquez-
PabĂłn, et al. (2006). SDI and e -
governance: a quest for appropriate
evaluation approaches. URISA journal:
journal of the Urban and Regional
Information Systems Association.
Katleen Janssen and Jos Dumortier •
(2006). The Legal Framework
for a European Spatial Data
Infrastructure–Uncrossing the Wires.
GSDI-9. GSDI, Santiago, Chile.
Masser, I. (2005). GIS
worlds : creating spatial data
infrastructures. Redlands, ESRI.
National Spatial Data Infrastructure
(NSDI) Strategy And Action
Plan: Government of India.
.gif)
