1
org
Prepared for LINZ
I-SEC: All-of-Government Imagery
Stock-take, Economic Analysis,
and Coordination Models
BERL:
Dr Adrian Slack
Kelly Dustow
Dr Ganesh Nana
Eagle Technology:
Nathan Heazlewood
Matt Lythe
Opus:
Mike Ladd
Dr Abigail Harding
April 2012
i
Executive summary
This report addresses a perceived lack of information on the extent to which imagery is purchased and
used in New Zealand. This knowledge gap is a particular issue for the public sector, in spite of it being
the largest procurer of visual imagery.
Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) commissioned a consortium comprised of BERL, Eagle
Technology and OPUS to inform LINZ on:

the extent of planned public sector imagery procurement in New Zealand;

the value of improved procurement and open access to government imagery; and,

options for coordinating imagery acquisition and dissemination.
Below we outline the key findings and key recommendations based on the research completed for
LINZ. The main report elaborates on the key findings and the evidence base that underpin the
consortium’s recommendations.
Key findings

There is a high level of coordination in the procurement of imagery between local and regional
authorities. However, there is less coordination of procurement at a central government level or
between local and central government.

At present, most imagery users do not have the right to share imagery. Amongst the minority of
organisations that have the right to share imagery, most are local government agencies.

Improving the coordination of procurement of imagery by Government would add an estimated
$4.2 million to GDP in 2021.

Open access to public sector imagery would add an estimated $3.5 million to GDP in 2021. This
figure is likely to underestimate the potential that imagery has to stimulate innovation. Where open
access to imagery enables innovation the wider benefits to the economy would be greater:
the magnitude depends on whether it is niche-based or widespread, transformative innovation.

Improving open access to public sector imagery has the potential to provide greater benefit for
New Zealand than improving the coordination of procurement of imagery by Government.
The report illustrates potential impacts for various scales of innovation enabled by open access.

The Government should concentrate efforts on improving access to public sector imagery.

Based on national and international models of coordinated procurement of geospatial data, the
greater centralised coordination of imagery is generally preferred. More coordination provides the
highest optimisation of public funds, makes imagery easier to discover, makes imagery easier to
access, helps standardise imagery, and enables imagery to be open access to the public.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
ii
Key recommendations
1. The consortium recommends that LINZ take a greater role in the coordination of imagery
acquisition and dissemination.
Centralised coordination should be structured with one or more central agencies being governed by a
National Board. Better coordination should build on existing coordination patterns rather than replacing
them, for example by reinforcing and federating regional imagery initiatives and by continuing to work
closely with private sector providers.
2. The consortium recommends that LINZ should increase its role using a staged approach.
The first stage is to strengthen LINZs current imagery stewardship role by:

enhancing imagery discoverability, storage, and distribution to promote open access;

developing standards, guidelines and templates to be used in imagery acquisition;

improving relationships with imagery users, organisations with existing coordination arrangements,
and imagery suppliers in New Zealand;

establishing a specific role within LINZ or the NZGO to implementing the above tasks.
A second stage should thoroughly assess the advantages, disadvantages, costs, and benefits of the
best representatives of various coordination examples identified in this report. There are many
approaches that are being taken overseas. Based on our assessment, the best examples for
consideration in the New Zealand context are:

Optical, Geospatial, Radar and Elevation Supplies and Services (OGRE) and the Coordinated
Imagery Program (CIP) in Australia;

Geobase and IAP in Canada; and,

Imagery for the Nation (IFTN) in the USA.
In most of the foreign examples, imagery coordination is managed as a component of Spatial Data
Infrastructure programmes. Therefore, it is recommended that this arrangement is reflected within New
Zealand.
The KiwImage initiative within New Zealand should also be examined in order to determine what has
worked well and what could be improved upon.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
iii
All-of-Government Imagery Stock-take, Economic Analysis,
and Coordination Models
Executive summary .......................................................................................... i
1 Introduction ................................................................................................. 1
2 Stock-take of public sector imagery programme ...................................... 3
2.1 Stock-take key findings ........................................................................................ 3
2.2 Approach used for the stock-take ........................................................................ 3
2.3 Survey demographics and spend on imagery procurement ................................ 4
2.4 Business needs that imagery is purchased to meet ............................................ 7
2.5 The nature of imagery products/services purchased ........................................... 8
2.6 Geographic coverage and frequency of imagery acquisition ............................. 10
2.7 Imagery users and suppliers .............................................................................. 12
2.8 Licensing restrictions and external access to imagery ....................................... 14
2.9 Procurement coordination .................................................................................. 17
2.10 Use of other types of imagery ............................................................................ 18
3 The value of public sector imagery.......................................................... 20
3.1 Economic analysis key findings ......................................................................... 20
3.2 Expenditure Analysis .......................................................................................... 21
3.3 Modelling of the expected benefits of coordination and open access ............... 27
3.4 Summary of findings........................................................................................... 37
4 Imagery coordination options .................................................................. 40
4.1 Coordination option key findings ........................................................................ 40
4.2 Background ........................................................................................................ 40
4.3 Method for assessing coordination options ........................................................ 41
4.4 Existing coordination arrangements ................................................................... 43
4.5 Performance indicators ...................................................................................... 49
4.6 Assessment of coordination approaches ........................................................... 50
4.7 Centralised coordination within the New Zealand context ................................. 58
4.8 Recommended short-term actions for LINZ ....................................................... 60
5 Conclusions and recommendations ........................................................ 63
6 Definitions ................................................................................................. 66
7 References................................................................................................. 67
8 Appendix A: Survey and interview participation .................................... 68
9 Appendix B: CGE model and what it does .............................................. 69
10 Appendix C: PEST analysis ...................................................................... 72
11 Appendix D: Summary of existing coordination arrangements............. 77
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
iv
Tables
Table 2.1 Geographic coverage of imagery procurements ........................................................... 10
Table 2.2 Reasons given for adopting particular licensing restrictions ......................................... 15
Table 3.1 Summary of scenario productivity shocks on BAU 2021 level ...................................... 33
Table 3.2 Projected wider benefits of coordination and open access, 2010-2021 ........................ 34
Table 3.3 Summary of Illustration productivity shocks on BAU 2021 level ................................... 36
Table 3.4 Illustrative impacts at various scales of open access-enabled innovation, 2010-2021 . 36
Table 4.1 Overseas imagery coordination arrangements reviewed .............................................. 44
Table 4.2 Key approaches to elements of coordination options ................................................... 46
Table 4.3 Performance indicators to rate potential coordination approaches ............................... 49
Table 4.4 Assessment of coordination models against performance indicators ........................... 51
Table 4.5: Summary of assessment results .................................................................................. 57
Table 8.1 Break-down of survey and interview targets and participation ...................................... 68
Table 9.1 Average annual impact of broadband on productivity ................................................... 71
Figures
Figure 2.1 Main industry that respondent organisations belong to (N=61) ..................................... 4
Figure 2.2 Annual spend on imagery by industry group (N=50)...................................................... 5
Figure 2.3 Total spend by imagery type (N=70 procurements) ....................................................... 6
Figure 2.4 Break-down of spend by imagery type (N=69 procurements*) ...................................... 6
Figure 2.5 Break-down of the business needs met by procurements (N=111 procurements) ........ 7
Figure 2.6 Number of procurements since 1 January 2009 (N=48) ................................................ 8
Figure 2.7 Number of procurements anticipated to 1 Jan 2014 (N=50) .......................................... 8
Figure 2.8 Type of procurement (N=109 procurements) ................................................................. 9
Figure 2.9 Procurement resolution (N=105 procurements) ............................................................. 9
Figure 2.10 Type of purchasing arrangement (N=109 procurements) .......................................... 10
Figure 2.11 Purchasing arrangement type and organisation type (N=109 procurements) ............ 11
Figure 2.12 Frequency of regular procurements (N=47) ............................................................... 12
Figure 2.13 Industries that benefit from imagery (percent of respondents; N=53) ........................ 12
Figure 2.14 Supplier and procurement type (N=96 procurements) ............................................... 13
Figure 2.15 The types of licensing restrictions adopted (N=106 procurements) ........................... 14
Figure 2.16 Licensing restrictions and industry type (N=106 procurements) ................................ 14
Figure 2.17 Proportion of organisations allowing external users access to imagery (N=61) ......... 16
Figure 2.18 Proportion of organisations that use metadata (N=61) .............................................. 16
Figure 2.19 Involvement in coordinated imagery procurement arrangements (N=61) .................. 17
Figure 2.20 Anticipated implications from imagery co-ordination (N=56) ...................................... 18
Figure 2.21 Proportion of organisations that use oblique imagery (N-61) ..................................... 18
Figure 2.22 Proportion of organisations using open access imagery for their needs (N=61) ........ 19
Figure 3.1 Industries that use imagery (percent of expenditure) and the relative size of the industry
in the New Zealand economy (percent of GDP) ........................................................................... 21
Figure 3.2 Number of staff days per annum spent on imagery-related processes/activities ......... 25
Figure 3.3 Breakdown of imagery procurement by type of procurer ............................................. 26
Figure 3.4 Factors supporting economic growth ........................................................................... 27
Figure 3.5 Illustration of scenario (shock) versus business-as-usual growth ................................ 29
Figure 3.6 The relative economic impact by industry in 2021 (2iii vs BAU) .................................. 37
Figure 4.1 Visual representation of methodology.......................................................................... 42
Figure 4.2 An example of an ‘open access’ web service .............................................................. 59
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
1
1
Introduction
Many local, regional, and central government agencies purchase imagery to enable them to carry out
their essential business functions. Imagery informs and improves the quality of decisions. In addition,
private organisations also use imagery to carry out essential business functions. Therefore, imagery is
used by a wide variety of settings, from helping a private organisation monitor plant health, to deciding
where to locate a school.
As many organisations – public and private – procure, purchase, and use imagery, there may be
scope to coordinate and combine their acquisition of imagery, and/or prevent the purchase of the
same imagery by multiple agencies.
Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) has engaged a consortium led by BERL, along with Eagle
Technology and Opus, to identify opportunities around coordinated imagery procurement by public
sector agencies across New Zealand, and to quantify the associated potential economic benefits.
Specifically, this report informs LINZ on the extent of planned public sector imagery procurement in
New Zealand, the value of all-of-government imagery and options for improving the efficiency of
imagery procurement.
The information gathered in this report reflects the views of a range of public and private sector
agencies that are involved in the supply, purchasing, and use of imagery. A representative selection
of agencies were surveyed and/or interviewed to provide information on current imagery stock and
procurement practices. Follow-up interviews of selected agencies were conducted to provide more
details on the potential benefits from government providing better procurement of imagery or
providing open access to imagery.
There are many types of imagery. For this research, the imagery covered in this report includes
vertical and oblique aerial photography, visible spectrum satellite imagery, orthophotography, and
LiDAR. Multispectral imagery as directed by LINZ is not within scope of this research.
The following report comprises three main sections: stock take, economic analysis and coordination
options. Section 2 presents the results of the imagery stock-take and covers:

What business need is imagery being purchased to meet?

What imagery products/services are purchased (type, scale, resolution)?

How much is spent on imagery acquisition and processing?

Where and how frequently is imagery acquired?

For each agency, who purchases imagery, who provides imagery acquisition services, and who
uses the acquired imagery?

What licensing restrictions are attached to the use of purchased imagery and why were these
restrictions accepted?
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
2
Section 3 estimates the economic value of imagery to the New Zealand economy. It addresses:

What is the estimated total cost of purchasing imagery across New Zealand?

How much duplication of spending on imagery occurs across public sector agencies?

What are the expected benefits and disadvantages to individual purchasers from coordinated
purchasing of imagery?

What are the expected benefits to the New Zealand economy from securing open access to
public sector imagery?
Section 4 assesses international and New Zealand models used for coordination of imagery
acquisition. We seek to answer the following questions:

What coordination activities exist in New Zealand and overseas?

What are the key elements and approaches that define most of these activities?

What performance indicators can we use to measure these activities against each other?

How does the current situation for the imagery industry in New Zealand affect any future
decisions?

By evaluating these models in the New Zealand context, what can we recommend to LINZ?
This section also provides the consortium’s recommendation on LINZ's future role in the coordination
of imagery acquisition and dissemination, and actions that may be taken in the short-term towards
achieving this.
Section 5 presents our conclusions about the landscape of New Zealand’s imagery industry, the
quantum of benefits from better coordination and open access to government imagery, and the
options to secure these benefits.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
3
2
Stock-take of public sector imagery programme
The purpose of this section is to quantify the magnitude and purpose of current imagery programmes
across the New Zealand public sector. This section reports on:

business need that imagery is used for;

the characteristics of that imagery;

the process and resources used in its procurement; and,

the ownership of and licensing restrictions on imagery.
2.1
Stock-take key findings
Expenditure on imagery by the 58 organisations surveyed to date totalled $5.7 million per year on

procurements in the past two years. This includes central and local government organisations,
and private enterprises.
There are many positive examples of coordination occurring at multiple levels of government and

by different coordination methods in New Zealand.
Examples at a national level include shared procurements by KiwImage, Terralink, the

Emergency Management Services (EMS) syndication, and the Ministry for the Environment.
There are many shared services examples at a local level, such as BOPLASS.
1
Although some coordination occurs at a central government level, the evidence indicates there is

scope for savings in time and expenditure through greater coordination.
Local government (30 percent) and central government (23 percent) account for more than half of

the imagery procured by organisations surveyed. Other industries that are major procurers
include Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing (10 percent), Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services
(10 percent) and, Defence, Public Order and Safety (10 percent).
Many organisations, particularly local authorities, are providing open or ‘free’ access to imagery,

suggesting that some data sharing is already occurring. Nonetheless, only a minority (46 percent)
of organisations own or share the rights to distribute imagery.
2.2
Approach used for the stock-take
An online questionnaire survey was conducted in February 2012 to quantify the magnitude and
purpose of current imagery programmes across the New Zealand public sector. The results of the
survey were also informed by interviews with selected organisations, particularly those that reported a
high number of imagery procurements. The sample contains more local councils than central
government and private organisations. The results are weighted towards local government and should
be viewed in that light (refer to Appendix A for further information).
1
These types of coordination are outlined in Section 4 when discussing coordination options.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
4
In the following graphs, the number of responses is annotated as N=number of responses from
individual organisations. The annotation in the graph title notes where descriptive statistics are based
on a sample of procurements rather than the number of respondent organisations.
2.3
Survey demographics and spend on imagery procurement
The proportion of respondent organisations belonging to different industry types is presented in Figure
2.1. The largest group of respondents belong to local government (54 percent), followed by central
government agencies/departments (15 percent), professional, scientific and technical services (10
percent), and those belonging to the electricity, gas, water and waste services industry (8 percent).
Figure 2.1 Main industry that respondent organisations belong to (N=61)
1%
2%
Agriculture, Forestry and
Fishing
Education and Training
5% 3%
2%
8%
10%
15%
Electricity, Gas, Water and
Waste Services
Government
Agency/Department
Local Government
Mining
54%
Professional, Scientific and
Technical Services
Public Administration and
Safety
Transport, Postal and
Warehousing
Total annual expenditure on imagery was $5.7 million based on procurements in the past two years. A
break-down of typical annual spend on imagery procurement for each of the aforementioned industry
groups is provided as box and whisker plots in Figure 2.2. It can clearly be seen that government
departments are the biggest spenders on imagery, with the range in spending for this group
equivalent to the upper quartile in spend across all industry groups. Local government accounts for
the lowest median annual spend and lowest inter-quartile range. Whilst Electricity, Gas, Water and
Waste Services, and Professional, Scientific and Technical Services have higher medians and interquartile ranges, the maximum these groups spend per annum is $100,000.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
5
Figure 2.2 Annual spend on imagery by industry group (N=50)
$800,000
Typical spend on imagery per annum
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$All Industry Electricity, Gas, Government
Groups (N=50) Water and
Agency/
Waste Services Department
(N=4)
(N=6)
Local
Government
(N=32)
Professional,
Scientific and
Technical
Services (N=4)
Industry Group
Survey respondents were asked how much each of their organisation’s imagery procurement since 1
Jan 2009 cost. Total spend by imagery type is presented in Figure 2.3 below.
Satellite imagery cost $2,004,677 for 23 procurements and spending on Aerial and LiDAR
procurements combined cost $5,805,231 for 47 procurements. Spending on LiDAR imagery is
skewed by one procurement that cost $2,000,000. A further break-down of spend by imagery type is
provided in Figure 2.4, which excludes this one outlying procurement to provide a better indication of
the spread of cost per procurement.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
6
Total spend on procurements
since 1 Jan 2009
Figure 2.3 Total spend by imagery type (N=70 procurements)
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000
$1,000,000
$500,000
$Aerial (N=36) Combination LiDAR (N=5)
Aerial & LiDAR
(N=6)
Satellite
(N=23)
Whilst one procurement of satellite imagery is reported as costing over $620,000, the majority of
aerial and satellite imagery procurements cost less than $100,000. Most LiDAR procurements cost
less than $200,000. Procurements that were a combination of both LiDAR and aerial imagery cost
less than $300,000.
Figure 2.4 Break-down of spend by imagery type (N=69 procurements*)
$700,000
$600,000
Cost per procurement
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$Aerial (N=36)
Combination Aerial
& LiDAR (N=6)
LiDAR (N=4)
Satellite (N=23)
*This figure excludes one LiDAR procurement of $2,000,000
Section 4 discusses expenditure on imagery acquisition and processing further.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
7
2.4
Business needs that imagery is purchased to meet
Respondents were asked about the types of business activity each imagery procurement is used to
support. Figure 2.5 shows that procurements by the survey respondents are most often used for
regulatory functions and resource consents, followed by asset development/planning and asset
management/maintenance. These results reflect the industry group that the respondent organisations
belong to, as local government organisations account for over 50 percent of survey respondents and
these organisations are charged with regulatory and asset-related governance.
Figure 2.5 Break-down of the business needs met by procurements (N=111 procurements)
Regulatory functions and resource consents
Asset development/planning
Asset management/maintenance
Updating GIS Vector Datasets
Disaster and emergency planning or response
Research
Determining elevation
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100%
Used often
Used sometimes
Used seldom
Never used
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
8
2.5
The nature of imagery products/services purchased
Respondents were asked how many imagery procurements they have made since 1 January 2009
(Figure 2.6) and how many procurements they intend to make between the time of the survey and 1
January 2014 (Figure 2.7). In general, government departments and other organisations make a
greater number of procurements than local government organisations.
Number of procurements
Figure 2.6 Number of procurements since 1 January 2009 (N=48)
10+
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Number of organisations
Local Government
Government Departments
Other
Number of procurements
Figure 2.7 Number of procurements anticipated to 1 Jan 2014 (N=50)
10+
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
5
10
15
20
25
Number of organisations
Local Government
Government Departments
Other
As can be seen in Figure 2.8, aerial photography accounts for over 50% of imagery procurements,
and local government organisations are responsible for over half of these procurements. Local
government organisations are also more likely than the other respondent organisations to procure a
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
9
combination aerial and satellite or LiDAR imagery. However, government departments are the largest
users of satellite imagery.
Figure 2.8 Type of procurement (N=109 procurements)
Type of imgery
Aerial
Satellite
LiDAR
Combination of Aerial & LiDAR
Combination of Aerial & Satellite
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Proportion of procurements
Local Government
Government Agency/Department
Other organisations
Imagery resolution reflects the types of imagery procured, with over 70 percent of imagery
procurements at scales less than 1m in resolution. In comparison only 10 percent of procurements
are at the largest resolution of a kilometre or greater. Figure 2.9 indicates that procurements tend to
be for higher resolution imagery. As noted, above, however, this finding is likely to reflect the sample
demographics, which are weighted towards local government.
Figure 2.9 Procurement resolution (N=105 procurements)
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
> 0 metre ≥ 0.25 metre ≥ 0.5 metre ≥ 1 metre ≥ 10 metres ≥1 kilometre
and <0.25
and <0.5
and < 1
and < 10
and < 100
metre
metre
metre
metres
metres
Local Government
Government Agency/Department
Other organisations
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
10
2.6
Geographic coverage and frequency of imagery acquisition
Table 2.1 provides an indication of the geographic regions within which imagery procurements were
located, along with the earliest and latest year stated for that region, and the number of procurements
indicated for that region within that date range.
Table 2.1 Geographic coverage of imagery procurements
Earliest year
stated in
response
2009
Region*
Auckland
Latest year stated
in response
Number of
responses
2011
4
Bay of Plenty
2011
2011
2
Canterbury
2009
2011
7
Hawkes Bay
2008
2012
8
Manawatu-Whanganui
2009
2011
6
Nelson-Marlborough
2011
2011
1
Northland
2006
2012
5
Otago
2007
2011
4
Southland
2009
2011
6
Taranaki
2010
2012
6
Waikato
2009
2012
9
Wellington
2009
2011
10
Complete NZ or multiple areas
2009
2012
41
*Note: imagery may only cover part of stated region
As can be seen in Figure 2.10, 42 percent of the procurements are part of a planned acquisition
program. Just over a third of procurements are purchased as a one-off procurement, whilst 23 percent
are purchased and updated on a project-specific basis following changes on the ground.
Figure 2.10 Type of purchasing arrangement (N=109 procurements)
23%
35%
A 'one off' purchase to cover a
defined area, where updating
this coverage will occur as a
separate exercise in the future
Part of a planned 'cycle' or
'subscription' to regularly
cover a defined area
42%
Purchased on a 'project
specific' basis as the result of
proposed or recent changes
on the ground
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
11
These purchasing arrangements are further broken down by purchasing organisation type in Figure
2.11. Procurements by Local Authorities are more likely to be part of a regular planned ‘cycle’ or
‘subscription’. Government Agencies adopt a fairly even spread of purchasing arrangements, whilst
other organisations tend to make ‘one off’ procurements.
Of those procurements that are part of a planned ‘cycle’ or ‘subscription’, the majority are acquired
biannually or on a 5-yearly cycle (Figure 2.12). In the figure, "as available" refers to subscriptions or
memberships where imagery is provided once flown. For those that indicated a range of years, the
shortest cycle is reported (e.g. every 2-3 years reported as 2 yearly). The daily, biannual, annual, and
“as available” procurements are all made by government departments, which account for 40 percent
of responses to this question. Local government accounts for 49 percent of the sample, and
dominates the two- to five- yearly categories, as well as the “other” category. A number of local
government respondents commented that they update urban areas more frequently than rural areas,
due to the rate at which urban areas change, and that these partial updates may be undertaken out of
cycle, as required.
Figure 2.11 Purchasing arrangement type and organisation type (N=109 procurements)
Local Government (N=39)
Government Agency/Department (N=47)
Other organisations (N=23)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
A 'one off' purchase to cover a defined area, where updating this coverage will occur as a separate
exercise in the future
Part of a planned 'cycle' or 'subscription' to regularly cover a defined area
Purchased on a 'project specific' basis as the result of proposed or recent changes on the ground
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
12
Figure 2.12 Frequency of regular procurements (N=47)
12
Number of procurements
10
8
6
4
2
0
2.7
Imagery users and suppliers
Figure 2.13 shows which industries benefit either directly or indirectly from the imagery used by their
organisation to provide goods and services (respondents could identify more than one industry).
Figure 2.13 Industries that benefit from imagery (percent of respondents; N=53)
Central Government Agency/Department
Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing
Professional, Scientific and Technical Services
Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services
Construction
Public Administration and Safety
Education and Training
Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services
Transport, Postal and Warehousing
Information Media and Telecommunications
Administrative and Support Services
Mining
Arts and Recreation Services
Financial and Insurance Services
Health Care and Social Assistance
Retail Trade
Accommodation and Food Services
Manufacturing
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
13
The main beneficiaries have distinct responsibilities relating to natural resource management, whilst
those sectors gaining the least benefit from imagery have less of a geospatial element to their day-today operations. Central government is the greatest beneficiary, followed by the primary sector
(Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing), scientific sector (Professional, Scientific and Technical Services),
and utility sector (Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services). Those sectors gaining the least benefit
include Manufacturing, Accommodation and Food Services, Retail Trade, and Health Care and Social
Assistance.
For each procurement, respondents were asked who they purchased the imagery from. As can be
seen in Figure 2.14, New Zealand Aerial Mapping provides the greatest proportion of imagery, and is
the main supplier of both Aerial and LiDAR imagery. Terralink International Limited provides the
second greatest proportion of aerial imagery. The USGS supplies the greatest proportion of satellite
imagery, but satellite imagery is procured from other suppliers including DigitalGlobe, Spot and RSI,
as well as others. Respondents that indicated “other suppliers” specified KiwImage, AAM Pty Ltd,
GeoSmart and Hawkeye.
Figure 2.14 Supplier and procurement type (N=96 procurements)
NZAM
Terralink International Limited
Other
Aerial Surveys
USGS
A Local Authority
DigitalGlobe
Spot
Precision Aerial Surveys
RSI
0%
5%
Combination Aerial & LiDAR (N=5)
10%
15%
LiDAR (N=8)
20%
25%
Satellite (N=32)
30%
35%
Aerial (N=51)
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
14
2.8
Licensing restrictions and external access to imagery
The types of license option obtained for procurements are shown in Figure 2.15 and further breakdown of licensing restrictions by industry type are shown in Figure 2.16. The reasons given for
adopting particular licensing restrictions are detailed in Table 2.2.
Figure 2.15 The types of licensing restrictions adopted (N=106 procurements)
Internal use only is
permitted
30%
Rights to distribute are
'owned' by my
organisation
54%
Rights to distribute are
'shared' with the imagery
supplier
16%
Figure 2.16 Licensing restrictions and industry type (N=106 procurements)
Local Government (N=40)
Government Agency/Department
(N=46)
Other organisations (N=20)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Internal use only is permitted
Rights to distribute are 'owned' by my organisation
Rights to distribute are 'shared' with the imagery supplier
Over half of the procurements are part of a licence agreement that permits internal use only.
Government departments are the highest users of this license type, with 87 percent of procurements
by government departments allowing internal access only. Reasons for this include cost reduction and
this being the only license offered by the supplier. Some respondents noted that an internal use only
license allowed data sharing with contractors supporting their primary business purpose.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
15
Local Authorities, on the other hand, are most likely to adopt licensing restrictions that involve ‘shared’
rights with the imagery supplier or full ownership allowing them to distribute imagery to other users.
Comments made about adopting a license where rights to distribute imagery are shared with the
imagery supplier related to the trade-off between keeping costs down and freeing up geospatial data
dissemination. One respondent noted that their organisation could not handle all the external data
requests and that this license type allowed the supplier to meet those needs.
Those that adopted a license allowing them full rights to distribute the imagery (only 16 percent) noted
that this license type gives them flexibility in use and meets the need to share data across other
government agencies.
Table 2.2 Reasons given for adopting particular licensing restrictions
Licensing
restriction
adopted
Reason by main industry type
Government
Local Government
Agency/Department
Other
organisations
Internal use only
Restricted by supplier
Standard license
Standard MOU for this
product
To reduce cost
All that’s needed,
reduce cost, still
allows us to share
with our
contractors
Rights to
distribute are
'owned' by my
organisation
None given
Rights to
distribute are
'shared' with the
imagery supplier
All-of-Government
licensing chosen to
allow other
organisations to
benefit from imagery
License type restricted
by supplier
Part of end-user
agreement that allows
distribution to third
party contractors/
consultants
To reduce cost
Only license type
offered by the supplier
Flexibility in use
Allows distribution as
required
Need to share data
across agencies
To reduce cost
So both organisations
can distribute as they
see fit
Council did not have
resources to handle all
external requests and
that a supplier could
usefully do that.
Not to be bound in
distribution of imagery,
and still give to supplier
the opportunity to on
sell it
None given
So we are able to
distribute our
imagery to our
consultants and
use it how we
wish
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
16
Just over 60 percent of respondent organisations allow external users to access to their imagery
(Figure 2.17). Less than half of the government departments and the majority of Local Authorities (79
percent) allow external access to imagery.
The 37 organisations that allow external access to their imagery were asked if they charge for access
and the revenue made in the last year. Only seven of these organisations charge for access. One
government department averaged $785,500 per year over the past five years from imagery sales. The
other six organisations were Local Authorities. One charged users for the time to export images, and
the others earned less than $10,000 each, except one that earned between $40,000-50,000.
Seventy percent of respondents indicated that they use metadata (Figure 2.18). Few government
departments use metadata (33 percent), whilst Local Authorities’ use of metadata is high (88 percent).
Figure 2.17 Proportion of organisations allowing external users access to imagery (N=61)
Total sample (N=61)
Local Government (N=33)
Government Department (N=9)
Other organisations (N=19)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Figure 2.18 Proportion of organisations that use metadata (N=61)
Total sample (N=61)
Local Government (N=33)
Government Department (N=9)
Other organisations (N=19)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
17
2.9
Procurement coordination
Respondents were asked if they have been involved in a procurement coordination arrangement, with
72 percent indicating that they have. These arrangements include: ALGGI, BOPLASS, the CRAPC,
Emergency Services Syndicated Procurement, Hawkes Bay Regional Local Authority GIS Group,
KiwImage (often sharing with other local government organisations or government departments),
Manawatu Wanganui LASS, Otago Rural Orthophotography, the Southland Consortium, TRAPP,
WAGGIS, WRAPS and one-off shared purchasing amongst a group of TLAs or a particular
2
government agency. Figure 2.19 shows that 91 percent of Local Authority respondents have been
part of a coordinated imagery procurement arrangement, as have 66% of government departments. A
smaller proportion of other types of organisations have been part of such arrangements (42 percent).
Figure 2.19 Involvement in coordinated imagery procurement arrangements (N=61)
Total sample (N=61)
Local Government (N=33)
Government Department (N=9)
Other organisations (N=19)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All survey respondents, regardless of whether they have been involved in an imagery coordination
arrangement or not, were asked what they think the implications will be for their organisation from
involvement in an imagery co-ordination arrangement to share 'procurement' with other organisations.
As can be seen in Figure 2.20, the majority of respondents anticipate that staff time on
maintenance/IT and imagery use/analysis with stay ‘about the same’. Over half of respondents
anticipate that imagery co-ordination will result in increased potential to generate new products or
services within existing budgets.
2
Abbreviations: Auckland Local Government Geospatial Initiative (ALGGI), Bay of Plenty Local Authority Shared Services Ltd
(BOPLASS), the Canterbury Region Aerial Photography Consortium (CRAPC), Manawatu Wanganui Local Authority Shared
Services Ltd (MW-LASS), Taranaki Regional Aerial Photography Project (TRAPP), Wellington Area Government Geographic
Information Systems (WAGGIS), Waikato Regional Aerial Photography Service (WRAPS).
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
18
Figure 2.20 Anticipated implications from imagery co-ordination (N=56)
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Budget spend on
imagery
procurement
Staff time on
imagery
procurement
Increased
2.10
Staff time on
maintenance/IT
About the same
Staff time on
imagery
use/analysis
Decreased
Sharing of imagery Potential to
with other
generate new
organisations products/services
within existing
budgets
I don’t know
Use of other types of imagery
Almost a third of respondents indicated that they use oblique aerial imagery (Figure 2.21). Only one
government department and twelve local government organisations use oblique imagery.
Figure 2.21 Proportion of organisations that use oblique imagery (N-61)
Total sample (N=61)
Local Government (N=33)
Government Department (N=9)
Other organisations (N=19)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
19
Just under half of all respondents use open access imagery datasets for business purposes.
However, less than 40 percent of local government respondents use open access data for their own
business purposes (Figure 2.22).
Figure 2.22 Proportion of organisations using open access imagery for their needs (N=61)
Total sample (N=61)
Local Government (N=33)
Government Department (N=9)
Other organisations (N=19)
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
The open-access imagery data sources used by respondent organisations include:

ArcGIS online

Base Map

Bing Maps

Environment Canterbury

GNS

Google Earth

Google Maps and street view

Koordinates.com

Landcare Research

LINZ aerial images

Māori online

Metservice

Microsoft Bing Maps

Spot imagery from MfE

US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Wellington City Council
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
20
3
The value of public sector imagery
The purpose of this section is to estimate the value of public sector imagery to the public sector and to
the wider New Zealand economy.
This section reports on:

the estimated current cost of imagery procured by public sector agencies;

the investigation of whether there are instances of duplication of time and money spent on
procuring imagery;

the potential benefits to the New Zealand economy from improved coordination of public sector
imagery procurement; and,

the potential benefits from open access to public sector imagery.
We begin by examining public sector imagery expenditure and then model the expected benefits of
coordination and open access using BERL’s Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model.
3.1

Economic analysis key findings
The imagery market appears to work well: prices adjust where Intellectual Property rights are
shared and there are opportunities for the resale of imagery; there are examples of supplier-led
and purchaser-led coordination such as regional consortia or shared service agencies to save on
purchase and staff costs; there are some economies of scale from syndicated access/purchase.

Potential overlaps in imagery procurement exist between local and central government.

The greatest gains from improved procurement are likely to by central government agencies.

There could be potential expenditure savings to government agencies of $130,000 to $532,000.

Staff employed to provide geospatial services comprise a small component of the overall activities
of the organisations surveyed (approximately 2 percent of an organisation’s employees).

Better procurement of imagery could save staff time in the 33 local government agencies
surveyed of between $4,000 and $60,000. The saving for the 9 central government departments
and agencies could be between $4,000 and $12,500.

Quantifying the wider benefits of coordination and open access imagery is a challenge for industry
participants. Better coordination would add an estimated $4.2 million to GDP in 2021, while open
access to public sector imagery would add an estimated $3.5 million to GDP in 2021.

Productivity benefits are anticipated across a wide range of organisations and industries as a
result of coordinated procurement. The study’s interviews suggest that the largest productivity
gains are likely to be experienced by imagery purchasers, particularly in the Agriculture, Forestry
and Fishing industry (the third largest user of imagery).

Open access is likely to deliver both efficiency and innovation benefits.

If open access to imagery enables innovation, the wider benefits could be substantially greater
than estimated level. Impacts at various scales of innovation are illustrated.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
21
3.2
Expenditure Analysis
In this section, we describe the use of imagery, the cost to the public sector of procuring imagery, and
indicate the value of potential duplication of planned imagery procurement by the public sector based
on recent instances of duplicated procurement.
In order to understand how coordination and open access may impact on organisations that use
imagery and the wider economy, we begin by considering which industries use imagery, and the
relative importance of these industries to the economy.
Imagery suppliers interviewed for this research were asked to indicate what industries they supply to.
3
The industries that they supplied to are presented in Figure 3.1 below. To provide a sense of context,
the Figure also shows the relative size of each industry in terms of its contribution to New Zealand’s
Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
Figure 3.1 Industries that use imagery (percent of expenditure) and the relative size of the
industry in the New Zealand economy (percent of GDP)
30%
25%
20%
Percent use of imagery by industry
Industry contribution to NZ GDP (%)
15%
10%
5%
0%
Local government (30 percent) and central government (23 percent) account for more than half of the
imagery procured in New Zealand, based on the industry size estimated from the interviews with the
main imagery suppliers. Other industries that are major procurers of imagery include Agriculture,
Forestry and Fishing (10 percent), Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste Services (10 percent) and,
Defence, Public Order and Safety (10 percent).
3
The industries and industry groups are categorised using the Australia New Zealand Standard Industrial Classification 2006.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
22
To put the potential benefits from imagery-related productivity gains and innovation into perspective,
we examine the contribution that each industry makes to New Zealand’s GDP. New Zealand’s GDP in
2011 was $194 billion (BERL Regional Database). Of this, around 2.4 percent of GDP is generated by
core central government and 0.9 percent by local government. Of the three next largest imagery
users, Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing accounted for around 7 percent of GDP, Electricity, Gas,
Water and Waste Services 2 percent and, Defence, Public Order and Safety 2 percent.
4
This highlights that:

although 30 percent of imagery is used by local government, local government contributes a small
proportion to New Zealand’s overall GDP (less than 1 percent). The services provided by local
government, however, are an important platform for the private sector to conduct its activities.
Better value-for-money government services increase New Zealand firms’ international
competitiveness and ability to innovate, and thus contribute indirectly to New Zealand’s GDP.

the core central government, although a slightly smaller imagery user, generates more than twice
the output of local government. Hence, the potential gains may be greater in central government
than in local government.

the third largest user of imagery - the Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing Industry – is a relatively
large sector in New Zealand’s economy, so there is a wide base that may secure benefits from
public sector coordination and open access.
3.2.1
Costs of procuring imagery
We examine two types of cost involved with procuring imagery. The first is the monetary cost of
purchasing the imagery. The second, reported in section 3.2.3 below, is the value of staff time and
resources applied to process of procuring imagery from data suppliers.
In total, the 58 organisations surveyed spent $5.7 million per year on purchasing imagery over the two
years 2009-2010. These organisations included central and local government agencies and private
enterprises.
3.2.2
Potential savings from reducing duplication of expenditure
Coordination may potentially deliver savings by reducing duplication of expenditure by public sector
agencies on imagery. Savings across all public sector agencies, however, depends on the purchasing
arrangements and business models that suppliers use. Therefore, it is important to distinguish
between two types of duplication: procurements where aggregate expenditure could be reduced, and
where aggregate expenditure is unlikely to change substantially as imagery suppliers adapt.
4
Some of the economy’s largest industries or industry groups in GDP terms in 2011 were the Rental, Hiring and Real Estate
Services Industry (15%) followed by Manufacturing (12%) and Professional, Scientific and Technical Services (9%).
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
23
While we have identified some examples where different government agencies have procured the
same product, the pricing of these products allows – to some degree – for the possibility of multiple
purchases. That is, prices currently appear to reflect if Intellectual Property (IP) rights are shared and
that there are opportunities for the resale of imagery. Were a single purchase to be made for use by
multiple agencies, the price of that purchase may be re-set to reflect this. As such, the potential
saving is not simply reducible to total current expenditure minus the price paid by one organisation.
However, in the case of an ‘accidental’ duplicate procurement, the saving may be greater as the
supplier has already factored in routine procurements by multiple agencies into its pricing strategy.
A variety of methods were used to check for duplication in imagery procurement, namely:

the analysis of the online questionnaire results;

follow up interviews with imagery purchasers and imagery suppliers; and,

a brief examination of metadata provided by purchasers and suppliers.
Online questionnaire results
To identify duplication of procurement, the online questionnaire asked the following key questions
about the procurements of each organisation surveyed:

In which year was/is the imagery acquired?

What resolution is the imagery?

Which geographic areas are covered by this procurement?
We found several instances where imagery of the same or similar year, resolution and geographic
area was purchased by different organisations. While these represent potential duplicates, further
investigation would be required to confirm whether or not the differences were trivial in terms of
geographic coverage, date, imagery type (including differences in multi-spectral imagery).
To put the significance of this issue into perspective, we examine the potential duplicates to indicate
the likely magnitude of duplication. To do this, we assume that for the identified potential duplicates,
there are either no or trivial differences in date, that the imagery is visible spectrum or LiDAR, and that
pricing would not change as a result of a combined purchase, i.e. aggregate expenditure would fall.
Based on these assumptions, there could be potential savings in the order of $130,000 to $532,000.
If there was open access to a suitable national imagery data set there could be savings in the range
of $130,000 to $3,400,000 over a four year period. However, this assessment is based on existing
supply arrangements. As supplier’s revenue is dependent on the re-sale of imagery, the price of
imagery may differ with the type of supply arrangement, thus affecting the net aggregate saving to the
parties involved. Further investigation is needed to robustly quantify potential net savings in aggregate
expenditure under alternative models or supply arrangements.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
24
Follow-up interviews with suppliers
In the follow-up interviews, we asked whether organisations are aware of any potential or actual
instances of duplication of imagery procurement by different government organisations. Few
instances were identified, and suppliers noted that they often endeavoured to coordinate purchases.
There is also a trend for local government forming consortiums or what is termed ‘local authority
shared services’ in order to procure imagery as well as other geospatial data and other services.
Examples of these groups are BOPLASS, and WAGGIS. These shared service groups were formed
with local government (both district and regional councils) and in some cases with private enterprises
to acquire geospatial data more efficiently. These groups have found such arrangements beneficial in
that: it reduces staff time spent acquiring imagery and reduces the cost of purchasing imagery as
there is shared funding.
Joint purchasing arrangements tend to occur amongst local government agencies rather than
between local and central government agencies. In some instances, central government agencies
have been approached to contribute to a joint purchase. However, the local government agencies
interviewed indicated that central government agencies did not tend to participate on the basis that
they did not have the budget to contribute to such arrangements.
In addition, for coordination across local government, aerial companies and imagery providers will
identify and inform possible interested parties, if imagery is being flown for a certain project or
organisation. The imagery providers and suppliers will inform the clients with possible interest and
enquire whether they would like to contribute to the funding of the imagery.
In some cases, imagery suppliers will invest in the imagery that is flown by co-funding the collection of
the imagery if one client cannot afford it, with the imagery supplier on-selling it later. Therefore some
suppliers facilitate the use of imagery and provide opportunities to users that - without suppliers taking
the initial investment or business risk in purchasing that imagery - would not have existed.
Metadata from suppliers
We received metadata from New Zealand Aerial Mapping (NZAM) that displays their imagery
holdings. There are no obvious overlaps that we can identify from this metadata. However, a detailed
analysis of metadata is beyond the scope of this project.
3.2.3
Staff time spent procuring imagery
Where duplication exists, there is potential to implement procurement processes that reduce the total
amount of staff time required to purchase imagery, i.e. procurement processes.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
25
Figure 3.2 shows a break-down of the time spent by dedicated users of GIS by activity, based on the
online survey results. It shows the proportion of time that is spent procuring imagery and other
activities related to its use and maintenance.
Figure 3.2 Number of staff days per annum spent on imagery-related processes/activities
2%
4% 2% 3%
Imagery Procurement
Imagery Maintenance/IT
Imagery Use or Analysis
Imagery Distribution (to
external parties)
Other imagery related
process/activity
89%
Figure 3.2 shows that the majority of staff time (89 percent) is spent using or analysing data.
Procuring imagery accounted for only 2 percent of staff time. This suggests that savings from
improved procurement may be modest, at least in relative terms, while the potential benefits from
greater use may be relatively more important.
Of the organisations surveyed, people employed in geospatial services comprise a small component
of an organisation’s overall activities. Approximately 2 percent of an organisation’s employees are
dedicated users of GIS. This differs from the number of people that use geospatial information and
imagery as part of their broader work.
5
Figure 3.3 breaks down the 2 percent of staff time spent on procurement (shown in Figure 3.2) by the
type of agency procuring imagery. These agencies are grouped into local government, central
government, or, SOEs and other industries that use imagery.
5
A number of Territorial Local Authorities and Regional Councils are working to implement GIS viewer applications (a webbased service). This will allow all council staff and contractors to view and analyse geospatial data on a day to day basis, and
will thus likely support more widespread use of imagery. Although these staff will not be dedicated GIS users, a greater
proportion of their work will be supported or informed by this resource.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
26
Figure 3.3 Breakdown of imagery procurement by type of procurer
21%
Local Government
Central Government
17%
SOE and Other
62%
Local government reported the most time spent on imagery procurement (62 percent by 33
organisations), followed by SOEs and other organisations (21 percent by 18 organisations), and
central government departments and agencies (17 percent by 9 organisations). These figures should
be interpreted cautiously, as the survey was intentionally over-weighted towards local government
agencies (as noted in section 2.3).
On average, central government spend the fewest days per procurement, at around 3 days. Local
government organisations spent 13 days per procurement on average, while SOEs and other
industries spent around 4 days on average per procurement. This shows that on average, local
government spends more time procuring imagery than any other organisation, despite local
governments forming consortiums or ‘local authority shared services’ such as BOPLASS and
WAGGIS to economise procurement costs. This, however, does not take into account the type of
imagery being sourced, as some types require more time than others.
It is worth reiterating that any estimates of potential savings from improved procurement will be biased
towards local government due to the structure of the survey sample. Acknowledging this, as an initial
estimate, we provide upper and lower limits from the time that might be saved as a result of
eliminating duplication of staff time spent on procurement. These limits are intended to be indicative
using our current, but incomplete information base, and reflecting that we have identified few if any
6
specific instances of duplicated procurement from this base. With these caveats in mind, based on
the 33 local government agencies surveyed, savings related to staff time could be between $5,500
6
The lower limit represents the time saved if a single organisation were to reduce the time staff spent on procurement as a
result of coordinating its procurement with another organisation (or group). The upper limit is based on saving one third of the
current procurement time, which broadly accords with the findings from the interviews and indications of potential savings from
Terralink’s Emergency Services Syndicated Procurement Agreement.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
27
and $60,000, while the 9 central government departments and agencies could save staff time valued
at between $4,000 and $12,500.
These estimates are based on the number of organisations that responded to the survey, and do not
reflect the total size of local and central government. Scaling up these survey-based estimates to
reflect potential savings across all local government and central government agencies would increase
the magnitude of the savings. For example, scaling the sample estimates to allow for the 53 percent
of local government agencies plus those central government agencies not included in this survey, the
staff time savings could be three to four times greater than the estimated savings above.
3.3
Modelling of the expected benefits of coordination and open access
This section quantifies the potential wider economic benefits of better coordination of public sector
imagery procurement and open access to this imagery. Here, the term ‘wider benefits’ is used to refer
to the impacts on productivity and innovation as a result of better coordination of imagery
procurement and greater access to imagery. These benefits may accrue to imagery suppliers, public
sector agencies purchasing imagery or to the range of public and private organisations that might
harness imagery for their current business needs or deploy it in some innovative application.
This analysis draws on information gathered through the project’s online survey and telephone or
face-to-face interviews with specific organisations. This information was summarised and translated
for use in BERL’s CGE model to quantify the potential wider benefits of coordination and open
access. The modelling approach is described below.
3.3.1
Conceptualising imagery and its wider economic benefits
To help think about how imagery may generate benefits across the economy, below we consider the
relationship between inputs, productivity and output. Figure 3.4 illustrates this relationship.
7
Figure 3.4 Factors supporting economic growth
7
This figure is a reproduction of Figure 7 in Janssen and McLoughlin (2008).
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
28
Output might grow as new jobs are created (increases in ‘labour input’) or as people ‘work smarter’
(increases in ‘labour productivity’). Labour productivity measures the amount of output generated per
unit of labour input, such as hours worked. In turn, labour productivity is influenced by the amount of
capital a worker employs and the knowledge or technology used (“multifactor productivity” or MFP).
Pictured this way, spatial imagery can lift labour productivity and – where new products are developed
– it can also increase employment (labour input). Both of these outcomes deliver wider benefits to the
New Zealand economy. The first increases the quality of, or return to, a particular job. The second
affects the volume of employment. In turn, these impacts can spread across the economy, as more
productive workers and more employed people spend their wages.
It is important not to recognise the major role that productivity and innovation have played in recent
economic growth. Analyses of economic growth since the 1950s, have found that much of this growth
is driven by productivity rather than changes in inputs such as labour or capital. In turn, the source of
productivity growth is innovation.
3.3.2
Modelling approach
To model the wider benefits related to the spatial imagery industry, we constructed two scenarios,
which we refer to as ‘study scenarios’. We also construct a business-as-usual (BAU) scenario as a
backdrop against which we assess the impacts of the study scenarios.
The study scenarios aim to separately illustrate the order of magnitude of the potential economic
gains to the national economy resulting from:
1. better coordination of imagery procurement by all government departments/agencies (Scenario 1)
2. open access to all-of-government imagery (Scenario 2).
We complement Scenario 2 to explore ‘what if’ imagery enabled widespread innovation. These
results are reported in section Illustration of the impacts of innovation enabled by open access .
The impacts of the two scenarios on the New Zealand economy are quantified using BERL’s
Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) model. The CGE model is a representation of the New
Zealand economy. It quantifies the inputs, outputs and value created by the set of industries that
make it up. The CGE model allows us to conduct ‘experiments’ to estimate the direct and flow-on
changes in major economic variables (e.g. GDP or employment) resulting from some ‘shock’ to the
economy, for example increased productivity in a particular industry (or a group of industries). For this
project, each of the scenarios is modelled as an ‘economic shock’ to the different sectors of the
economy that use imagery.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
29
Figure 3.5 illustrates how a shock affects the growth path of the economy versus business-as-usual
growth, and what the impact of this shock that CGE model measures (here in terms of real GDP).
Figure 3.5 Illustration of scenario (shock) versus business-as-usual growth
The impacts of each scenario are assessed by projecting the growth path that the economy takes
W
from the benchmark in the base year (Y0 in year t0) out to the horizon year under that scenario (Y1 in
year t1). This projection is then compared to the level the New Zealand economy would reach in 2021
under the BAU scenario (Y1
WO
W
WO
) to estimate the additional (or lower) GDP and employment (Y1 -Y1
).
In the scenarios below, we allow for an innovation and product development cycle and uptake over a
ten year period. This is similar to the ten-year life cycle used in the cost benefit analysis of the US
Imagery for the Nation programme (USGS 2007) and the ten year horizon that Fornefeld et al (2008)
used in the their analysis of the impact of broadband on growth and productivity.
For each scenario, we investigated the potential impacts from three points of view:
1. Imagery suppliers/imagery acquisition services
8
2. Imagery purchasers
3. Imagery end users
To establish the likely impacts under each scenario and for each point of view, the consortium
conducted interviews with a subset of key contacts that were identified as being either a dominant
organisation or representative of similar organisations. As the impacts might be dependent on the
8
This analysis includes organisations such as NZAM, Aerial Mapping, Precision Aerial, satellite imagery providers and
Terralink as suppliers. These organisations may acquire imagery or supply imagery-based products.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
30
industry in which imagery is used, several imagery end users were interviewed. Representative
organisations were selected for different industries, such as agriculture, forestry, or energy networks.
In the interviews, open scripted questions were used to elicit information that described the potential
savings or uses of imagery under each scenario and the potential quantum of these impacts. BERL
then summarised these impacts in terms of:
1. cost savings (i.e. increased productivity)
2. increased revenues from new products/services enabled by imagery (i.e. innovation).
3.3.3
Business as usual scenario
In order to measure the effect of the coordination and open access over time, we set a baseline
(2010) and determine a ‘business as usual’ growth scenario. This scenario is a comparator and is the
outcome against which we compare the changes in behaviour or economic activity projected to occur
under the study scenarios. That is, without imagery coordination or open access, i.e. business as
usual, the economy will continue to grow. We can then isolate this growth from that under the study
scenarios to identify the extra or ‘marginal’ impacts due to coordination or open access.
9
In the business as usual situation, national GDP increases from a baseline level in 2010 to 2021.
During this time, output and employment growth will be projected by industry (and at a national level)
and by occupation group, to allow for resource and skill constraints across the economy. A ten year
time period is sufficient time to look at changes in the economy.
The BAU projection also draws on assumptions about world growth. It assumes that demand for New
Zealand exports and productivity across New Zealand’s industries continues to expand at historic
averages.
3.3.4
Scenario 1: Improved coordination of government imagery procurement
This scenario models the impact of improved coordination of government imagery procurement. We
investigated the potential for suppliers, purchasers and end users to achieve cost savings (increased
productivity) or revenue (innovation) increases as a result.
The surveys and interviews were used to estimate the likely productivity impact on the New Zealand
economy under this scenario. The estimated productivity shocks were: 0.8 percent for imagery
suppliers, 7.0 percent for imagery purchasers and 3.8 percent for imagery end users.
None of the interview participants identified revenue or innovation implications as a result of improved
coordination. Therefore, this scenario is modelled with a zero impact on revenue.
9
Isolating the BAU growth means we can separate background growth from the extra impact of the study scenario.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
31
Cost savings/increased productivity
The flyers of aerial imagery interviewed for this research indicated there will be little direct benefit to
them from the improved coordination of public sector imagery procurement. In particular, it would be
unlikely to reduce the number of flights or to create substantial additional value from coordinating
specific acquisitions. This assessment partly reflects their perception that there is currently a
reasonably high level of coordination by local government agencies, which constitute a relatively large
proportion of the flyers’ total acquisitions for government agencies.
Two potential impacts for suppliers relate to being able to take better advantage of variations in
weather across the country, and greater confidence around investing in new/better equipment.
Weather is the biggest risk to whether flights can be completed. For example, better coordination may
result in a flying programme with broader geographic coverage. As such, a flight that might otherwise
be cancelled due to bad weather could be redirected to take advantage of good weather elsewhere.
Second, multi-year income projections allow businesses to be more confident in investing. Greater
investment may permit suppliers to improve the quality and types of imagery that can be flown.
According to purchasers of imagery in the public sector, such as government departments and local
authorities, the time savings from better coordination are likely to be minimal. Procurement is typically
a small part of a person’s job, with their main role being analysis of data rather than procurement.
Some purchasers did note, however, that having a joint process or standardised contract would
reduce the collective time spent on procurement processes. It may also speed up the procurement
process, that is, between initiation of the process and delivery of the imagery.
Imagery users may experience a reduction in costs from better coordination in procurement by public
sector agencies. Better coordination could allow government agencies, such as regional councils, to
make timely or better informed planning or emergency response decisions. This would yield benefits
to businesses and other end users in terms of lower compliance costs or less business interruption.
End users would also benefit should coordinated procurement also make a greater quantity, better
quality or more recent imagery available. In addition, some users noted that they would potentially
invest time or expenditure savings in acquiring imagery for areas that would not otherwise have been
flown, adding to the stock of imagery in New Zealand.
In summary, the estimated productivity shocks used in this analysis were: 0.8 percent for imagery
suppliers, 7.0 percent for imagery purchasers and 3.8 percent for imagery end users.
Revenue from new products or services
None of the interview participants identified revenue or innovation implications as a result of improved
coordination. Therefore, this scenario is modelled with a zero impact on revenue.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
32
3.3.5
Scenario 2: Open access to government imagery
Cost savings/increased productivity
It can be difficult to separate out the use and value of imagery from other geospatial data. This
reflects that imagery is typically a base to which other information can be added. For example, the
United States Geological Survey notes that “imagery is the foundation for most public and private
GIS, and these systems are routinely integrated as critical components of mainstream IT initiatives”
(United States Geological Survey 2007). Open access can also allow the development of new
products or new processes that ‘in turn, generate new economic activity, new business opportunities,
better informed and potentially better government and business decisions” (Houghton2011).
As such, in addition to the intrinsic informational benefit of imagery, imagery was often seen as a
facilitator by the participants in this research. That is, imagery can help improve understanding,
interpretation and uptake of the use of geospatial data, information and GIS tools. Respondents noted
that the benefits and costs would depend on the type of open access and that although open access
would likely increase use, it was unclear precisely what those uses and applications might be.
As a result, research participants often found it difficult to quantify the benefits or cost savings from
open access. Where quantification was difficult, interviewees were asked to estimate the potential
10
benefits in terms of staff time that might be saved in conducting their typical business processes.
In terms of the potential savings in expenditure due to open access to all-of-government imagery,
participants cautioned that relevance of this resource would depend on the resolution and currency of
the imagery, and whether it would meet their required standards and business needs. Furthermore, if
there were open access to unmodified imagery data, imagery users may continue to purchase valueadded imagery services and products, such as web-services and analysis tools. That is, for some end
users imagery data would be of little practical use, and they would continue to purchase imagery
parcelled as part of a value-added package of services or products.
Suppliers advise that the revenue from resale of newly acquired imagery is factored into the pricing to
both the procurer of the new imagery and subsequent purchasers of that imagery. At present, 80
percent of licenses are shared and for internal/client use only. Therefore, open access may reduce
the revenue to imagery suppliers from imagery re-sales. In response, suppliers would likely change
their pricing or business model, for example by setting a higher initial purchase price for imagery to be
made open access. As such, the net saving to government from open access would have to take into
account both the reduction in spend by government agencies on duplicated imagery purchases, and
the likely higher price of purchasing a similar set of imagery to be made open access.
10
Some participants noted that open access as part of an e-government initiative could also reduce the cost of answering
enquires from the general public. This benefit has not been quantified.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
33
End users indicated similar types of benefits as imagery purchasers, with the main savings relating to
the cost of purchasing imagery rather than procurement time savings. A risk of open access to end
users is the risk of not having control over imagery that is critical to their business operations and
being held accountable. In other words, end users need to have assurance that the imagery is
accurate and up-to-date, especially if the imagery is held or controlled by another agency.
End users also noted that open access could reduce the time spent on gathering imagery from
government agencies. For example, accessing imagery for the Auckland region now involves
engaging with a single local government contact point rather multiple contact points and systems.
Revenue from new products or services
The impacts on revenue in this scenario were also difficult for interviewees to quantify. This reflects
that it is difficult for most organisations to identify what new products they could develop and the value
of these. A further challenge is that widespread innovation and uptake may expand the range of use
and users that could benefit from imagery. However, the participants did recognise that imagery
facilitates the development of new products. This qualitative feedback affirms the innovation potential
of imagery and that open access would likely generate additional revenue.
The limited quantitative information gathered from the survey and interviews was used to estimate an
indicative set of impacts on the New Zealand economy. These impacts were estimated separately for
imagery suppliers, purchasers and users. The shocks to the New Zealand economy were estimated
at 3.3 percent for imagery purchasers and 5.2 percent for imagery end users, but with no quantifiable
impact for imagery suppliers from open access.
3.3.6
CGE analysis
The study scenarios described above outline impacts on the New Zealand economy that stakeholders
expect as a result of coordinated procurement or open access to public sector imagery. Each
scenario indicates how these ‘shocks’ would change the growth trajectory of the economy. This
analysis is done at an industry level, and takes into account the extent of imagery use in a given
industry and whether that industry is a supplier, purchaser/user or primarily end user of imagery. To
provide a sense of the magnitudes of the shocks applied Table 3.1 gives the weighted average
productivity shock, where each industry is weighted according to its size (value added).
Table 3.1 Summary of scenario productivity shocks on BAU 2021 level
Scenario
Scenario 1: Improved coordination
Scenario 2: Open access
* Economy-wide weighted average
Addition to
productivity*
0.0007%
0.0005%
Source: BERL
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
34
Table 3.2 quantifies the benefits of each scenario in terms of the impact on employment and GDP.
Table 3.2 Projected wider benefits of coordination and open access, 2010-2021
Indicator
2010
Employment
Business as usual (BAU) scenario
Scenario 1: Improved coordination
Scenario 2: Open access
People ('000s)
1,830 2,056.4
2,056.4
2,056.4
GDP
Business as usual (BAU) scenario
Scenario 1: Improved coordination
Scenario 2: Open access
2021
Change from BAU
Diff (#)
%
0.02
0.02
0.001%
0.001%
$m (real GDP, 2010 base)
187,302 250,809
250,813
4.2
250,812
3.5
0.002%
0.001%
Source: BERL
The first column reports the two main measures of the impacts under each scenario, which we relate
to the BAU scenario: employment and GDP. The second column shows the baseline situation in
2010: 1.8 million people employed and GDP was $187 billion.
If the economy grew along the BAU growth path, then employment would increase from
approximately 1.8 million to 2.0 million. That is, under BAU growth there would be 226,000 additional
jobs by 2021, which is a 12 percent increase in jobs, or the equivalent of employment growth of 1.07
percent per annum. Over the 11 year projection horizon, GDP would increase from $187.3 billion in
2010 to $250.8 billion in 2021 under the BAU scenario, a change of $63.5 billion (33.9 percent), or the
equivalent of 2.7 percent per annum on average.
Scenario 1 (improved coordination) and Scenario 2 (improved open access) have direct impacts for
the government agencies involved. However, they are projected to have minimal wider benefits. With
either improved coordination or open access, employment would still increase from approximately 1.8
million in 2010 to 2.0 million in 2021. The model does register a small positive increase in
employment at the economy level. However, this impact is arguably trivial when related to the overall
size of the economy and should be interpreted cautiously.
GDP growth under scenarios 1 and 2 would be modestly greater than under the BAU scenario.
Improved coordination would add $4.2 million to GDP in 2021, and open access would add an
estimated $3.5 million.
In summary, the wider benefits to the economy under scenarios 1 and 2 are projected to be relatively
modest in terms of value added output (GDP) and jobs. The greatest quantified wider benefit results
from better coordination. However, this result partly reflects the challenge facing research participants
in terms of specifying how these benefits would manifest and quantifying them. However, the
participants did affirm that benefits would flow from open access stimulating greater innovation.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
35
3.3.7
Illustration of the impacts of innovation enabled by open access imagery
As noted above in Scenario 2, however, interview participants found it difficult to quantify the benefits
of open access to all-of-government imagery. But imagery purchasers and imagery users confirmed
that open access would result in innovation, increased revenues and wider use as imagery is
combined with other geospatial data and geospatial information technologies. This highlights the role
that imagery has as an enabler, assisting in the development and up-take of new tools or applications
that aid decision making.
Below, we provide ‘what if’ illustrations to indicate the potential orders of magnitude of the innovation
benefits enabled by imagery. This analysis characterises the potential benefits of innovation resulting
from open access to imagery based on experiences with similar types of technology.
To anchor the ‘what if’ scenarios, we considered the types of impacts attributed to other technologies
that support decision making, enable product development and on-going innovation. Technologies
with such features have been described as a General Purpose Technology (GPT), and can be viewed
as an engine of growth (BERL 2011). That is, as GPTs improve they are adopted by an increasing
number of people over time, for example progressing from dial-up to broadband internet. The
combination of progress and dispersion supports complementary innovation, thereby increasing the
demand for and uptake of that GPT. In turn, this stimulates further GPT improvements and a new set
of complementary innovations.
We use the average annual impact of broadband on productivity estimated by ACIL Tasman (2004)
as a reference source for this analysis (see Table 9.1 in Appendix B). To allow for the uncertainty
around these impacts and decisions, we provide a set of illustrations. The productivity impacts in each
illustration are expressed as a proportion of the estimated impact of broadband (by industry).
The proportionate impact will depend on:

how widely imagery is used

whether open access to imagery supports incremental innovation within particular niches through
to ‘game changer’ type technological shock with widespread impacts

the extent to which open access reflects current government imagery procurements. If the
government procures more imagery, more frequently or of a better quality, the impact could be
towards the higher end of the scale.
The proportionate impacts may be interpreted as reflecting the degree of imagery-based innovation.
Although the proportions are arbitrary, they can be used as a basis for discussion depending on what
scale of impact is considered plausible or as – over time – these uncertainties are resolved.
We assume that innovation enabled by open access to all-of-government imagery:

will occur predominantly in industries that currently produce or use imagery.

is on-going so that there are cumulative productivity gains year-on-year.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
36

begins four years into the projection, that is from 2014, to allow for a lag between opening access
and innovation beginning.
Table 3.3 summarises the productivity impacts on the 2021 BAU level for each illustration as a
weighted average productivity shock across the economy.
11,12
Table 3.3 Summary of Illustration productivity shocks on BAU 2021 level
Addition to
productivity*
0.0996%
0.2489%
0.4978%
Illustration of innovation impact
Illustration 2i (open access, 10%)
Illustration 2ii (open access, 25%)
Illustration 2iii (open access, 50%)
* Economy-wide weighted average
Source: BERL
For example, in the construction industry broadband is estimated to add 0.12 percentage points to
productivity annually. In illustration 2i, the impact of innovation enabled by open access imagery is
assumed to be one tenth of the impact of broadband (i.e. 0.012 percentage points per annum). This
impact is cumulative so that by 2021 productivity in the construction industry would be almost 1
percentage point higher than it would be under the BAU scenario.
Table 3.4 illustrates the potential impact on employment and GDP, depending on whether the impact
of innovation enabled by open access imagery (in industries that currently have substantial
involvement with imagery) is between one tenth (10%) or half (50%) the impact of broadband.
13
Table 3.4 Illustrative impacts at various scales of open access-enabled innovation, 2010-2021
Indicator
Employment
Illustration 2i (10%)
Illustration 2ii (25%)
Illustration 2iii (50%)
GDP
Illustration 2i (10%)
Illustration 2ii (25%)
Illustration 2iii (50%)
2010
2021
People ('000s)
2,056.1
2,055.6
2,054.8
Change from BAU
Diff (#)
%
-0.31
-0.78
-1.56
-0.02%
-0.04%
-0.08%
$m (real GDP, 2010 base)
250,894
85
251,020
211
251,228
419
0.03%
0.08%
0.17%
Source: BERL
11
The CGE model applies shocks at an industry-level. Table 9.1 in Appendix B shows the annual impacts of broadband on
productivity by industry. These impacts are used as a reference point for the industry-level shocks.
12
It is coincidental, rather than directly by construction, that the listed proportions (e.g. 10%) and magnitudes of the productivity
shocks appear similar (e.g. 0.0996%, which is approximately 0.10%).
13
Note: the impacts in each Illustration are only assumed to occur in industries that currently have substantial involvement with
imagery as a supplier, purchaser or end user, not all industries across the entire economy. Were imagery use to spread across
a wider set of industries or is used economy-wide, the impacts could be greater.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
37
Under these innovation scenarios, some industries will benefit more than others due to these
industries having a greater capacities to benefit from GPT-type innovation. Figure 3.6 shows the
relative impacts on GDP for Illustration 2iii versus BAU in 2021.
Figure 3.6 The relative economic impact by industry in 2021 (2iii vs BAU)
%diff by industry
(vs 2021 BAU level)
0.50%
0.40%
0.30%
0.20%
0.10%
0.00%
While GDP overall would be just under 0.2 percent higher in 2021 (see Table 3.4), industries such as
Transport and Warehousing would add just under 0.5 percent (+$45 million in a $9 billion industry) to
value added output by that industry and the Professional, Scientific and Technical Services industry
would increase its value added output by just under 0.3 percent (+$68 million in a $25 billion industry).
Value added output by government agencies/departments would not substantially increase due to
open access to imagery, but public sector agencies/departments will benefit in other ways. We model
the private sector taking on the role of creating new products and services, while the public sector
experiences as efficiency gains. Such gains lower the cost of providing government services. These
efficiencies flow through to the rest of the economy via industries that draw on government services.
Increasing an industry’s international competitiveness yields a wider benefit by increasing exports. As
such, the model measures the value added output in export-oriented industries, rather than the public
sector. The private sector benefits from a platform of better value-for-money government services and
its own innovation.
3.4
Summary of findings
The economic analysis examines the direct benefits to public sector agencies and the wider benefits
to the New Zealand economy that may result from better coordination of imagery procurement or
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
38
open access to imagery. The first analysis focuses on the potential to reduce expenditure on imagery
and time savings from streamlined procurement processes. The wider benefits relate to the potential
changes across the economy resulting from greater productivity and new products or services.
3.4.1
Duplication of procurement expenditure
We found several examples of potential overlaps in imagery procurements, particularly between local
and central government. It is important, however, to distinguish between two types of duplication:
procurements where aggregate expenditure by the public sector could be reduced versus where
aggregate expenditure is unlikely to change substantially as imagery suppliers’ business models
adapt to a coordinated procurement approach with an associated change in product pricing.
We conclude that in most instances, the market appears to be working well. There are a number of
examples of both supplier- and purchaser-led coordination occurring at a decentralised level. Imagery
suppliers/resellers appear to use pricing models that reflect this coordination and the opportunities
around shared property rights. For example, suppliers/resellers charge lower prices for purchases
under such arrangements as they retain the ability to generate further revenue from the resale of
imagery. Hence although there may be instances of similar imagery being procured by multiple
agencies, these procurements are priced to reflect this. In the absence of this mechanism, imagery
prices would likely be higher in order for a commercial supplier/reseller to have an incentive to acquire
or resell such imagery.
Duplication where total expenditure could be reduced does occur within and between central
government departments, between central and local government agencies, and between central
government departments and SOEs. On the basis of these cases, we conclude that the greatest
potential for gains from improved procurement is likely to sit with central government departments and
agencies. The online survey and follow-up interviews show that there could be potential expenditure
savings in the order of $130,000 to $532,000 from coordinated procurement.
If there was open access to a suitable national imagery data set there could be savings in the range
of $130,000 to $3,400,000 over a four year period. However, this assessment is based on existing
supply arrangements. The price of imagery may differ with the type of supply arrangement, which
would affect the net aggregate saving to the parties to a coordinated purchase arrangement.
3.4.2
Duplication of procurement effort
The results of the online survey indicated that local government agencies typically spend less time per
procurement on procurement processes than central government. This is consistent with findings from
the interviews that local government agencies are forming regional consortia or shared service
agencies to economise on purchase and staff costs.
Based on the 33 local government agencies surveyed, better procurement of imagery could save staff
time valued at between $4,000 and $60,000, while the saving for the 9 central government
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
39
departments and agencies could be between $4,000 and $12,500. Scaling these results to all public
sector agencies/departments suggests savings could be three to four times higher than the estimated
savings based on the responses by survey participants.
3.4.3
Wider economic benefits of improved coordination and open access
The wider benefits analysis indicates that the savings from improved procurement may be modest
relative to the potential benefits from greater use resulting from open access. Productivity benefits are
anticipated across a wide range of organisations and industries as a result of coordinated
procurement, and imagery purchasers are likely to experience the largest productivity gains from
coordinated procurement. Open access, in contrast, is likely to deliver the greatest productivity and
innovation benefits to imagery end users, that is, SOEs and private enterprises, rather than local or
central government agencies.
The economic impact of improved coordination open access was quantified using information on the
likely type and magnitude of impacts gathered from the study survey and interviews. We estimate that
the economic impacts, using this information base, will be modest in terms of employment and GDP
growth over the next decade. GDP would be by between $3.5 million (open access) and $4.2 million
(improved coordination) greater in 2021.
In most instances, however, the research participants affirmed but struggled to quantify the benefits
that current organisations could receive from open access. It was acknowledged that open access to
imagery could generate new products and services, increasing revenue and value added for a range
of businesses. To illustrate this potential, we examined what impacts would be with varying degrees
of innovation. The impacts were anchored to the experience of broadband (by industry) for those
industries currently producing or using imagery. The productivity impacts of imagery were expressed
as a proportion of the impacts of broadband: 10 percent, 25 percent and 50 percent.
The illustrations showed that GDP in 2021 could be in the order of $85 million (10 percent scalar) to
$419 million (50 percent scalar) greater from innovation enabled by open access imagery. In these
illustrations, value added output increases most for export-oriented and innovation-support industries.
Government agencies are shown to experience benefits in terms of greater productivity and improved
value for money, thereby support New Zealand’s open, export-oriented economy.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
40
4
Imagery coordination options
This section outlines coordination options to realise greater efficiency of imagery acquisition and
dissemination. These options are assessed and the consortium provides recommendations regarding
the role LINZ may take in coordination in the future.
4.1

Coordination option key findings
More work is required in order to decide on what centralised coordination option is best for New
Zealand. Therefore, we recommend a staged approach to increasing coordination of procurement
and open access.

Increasing coordination may involve LINZ moving through a stewardship role and potentially
towards having a centralised procurement function for a core national set of imagery.

Increasing access to public sector imagery may involve more access (greater awareness of
existing/planned imagery and discoverable data) as a near term goal and open access as an
ultimate goal.
4.2
Background
Minimising duplication in imagery acquisition and increasing cost efficiencies provide motivations for
greater public sector coordination. In addition to these imperatives, there are moves across the New
Zealand Government sector to improve the accessibility of information amongst government agencies
and to make information more readily available to New Zealanders. The Declaration on Open and
Transparent Government approved by Cabinet on 8 August 2011, states that the New Zealand
Government commits to actively releasing high value public data. More specifically, it states that
“Public service and non-public service departments are directed and State Services agencies
encouraged to commit to the release of high value public data for re-use in accordance with the
declaration and principles”
More relevant to this project, the 2007 New Zealand Geospatial Strategy (The Strategy) recognises
that there is
“… a lack of knowledge of, and access to, the geospatial information assets owned, maintained
14
or used by government . It is difficult to know what geospatial data exists as there is no easily
accessible geospatial metadata service providing discoverability of geospatial datasets. This
also leads to duplication of information, fragmentation of effort and inconsistencies among data,
systems, standards and processes”
Where the term ‘government’ is inclusive of all tiers of government, including local government and relevant Crown entities
through to the major central government geospatial information-producing and consuming agencies.
14
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
41
To address these problems, the Strategy identifies four strategic goals around governance, access,
data and interoperability. In particular, a strong central coordinating approach is noted as being
needed to drive the other three strategic goals and facilitate participation by key geospatial
participants – local government, relevant public sector agencies, Crown entities and industry. In
addition
“An appropriate governance arrangement with good leadership and support is needed for
development of quality, prioritised data strategies, access initiatives, and appropriate
interoperability programmes. Leadership and sustained coordination are essential to maintain
the momentum for any government intervention in this area.”
This recognition of the need for coordination to realise greater efficiency of imagery acquisition and
dissemination calls for the identification of suitable coordination options. In addition, under the New
Zealand Government Open Access and Licensing framework 2010 (NZGOAL), the significant creative
and economic potential that may lie dormant in the material locked up in government agencies is
recognised. The Government seeks openness and transparency, and wants to encourage the
realisation of this potential. Thus, a key goal of any coordination arrangement adopted for imagery
acquisition and dissemination in New Zealand will be to facilitate the open licensing and open access
principles outlined by NZGOAL.
4.3
Method for assessing coordination options
A range of coordination arrangements have been implemented around the world in order to achieve
greater efficiency of imagery acquisition and dissemination amongst government organisations and, in
some instances, private industry.
International and domestic imagery acquisition coordination activities were assessed as follows:
1. A selection of imagery coordination arrangements already, or previously, in use were identified
and the key elements of these models were investigated;
2. A set of performance indicators were developed based on the objectives of relevant New Zealand
Government policies and these performance indicators were approved by LINZ;
3. The types of coordination approach for each model element were then compared against the
performance indicators on a high-moderate-low scale; and,
4. The results from this assessment were then considered within the context of the New Zealand
15
geospatial industry based on a PEST analysis , and the economic analyses performed regarding
the value of public sector imagery (Section 4 of this report).
15
Political, Environmental, Social, and Technological (PEST) analysis is a type of framework for incorporating macroenvironmental factors in strategic management decisions.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
42
Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. visualises the method of assessment.
Figure 4.1 Visual representation of methodology
4.3.1
Assumptions
The robustness of the assessment method is based on the following assumptions:

In addition to the literature review that informs this assessment, the opinions of a number of
international experts were considered. It is assumed that these opinions are reliable, and that the
grey literature reviewed (such as materials from relevant websites) are accurate and unbiased;

In some instances, the coordination arrangements reviewed are no longer operative. These ‘older’
initiatives were considered relevant to the assessment, particularly with regard to lessons learnt.

Some of the grey literature derived from ‘official’ websites is dated and is assumed to be relevant,
though some of the factors discussed may have changed since the documents were generated.
Where information is available, the most recent sources were relied upon.

The coordination arrangements reviewed include those at both the national/federal and
state/provincial level. Whilst New Zealand is a small nation, government administration is both
national and regional, so it is difficult to determine whether national/federal or state/provincial
arrangements are more applicable. Thus, arrangements at both levels have informed the
assessment.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
43

The performance indicators selected, whilst based on relevant government policy and approved
by LINZ, are not exhaustive. Other factors, including flexibility, ease of implementation, potential
cost, and acceptability within the current New Zealand context and other considerations are also
addressed in section 0.

In undertaking the assessment, different approaches were rated based upon perceived
confidence given the potential for poor performance. Thus, government organisations are
considered more stable in the long-term than commercial organisations.

Some performance indicators are more important than others and this has been taken into
consideration in our recommendations.
4.4
Existing coordination arrangements
Existing coordination models were identified via a review of the academic and grey literature, as well
as emails to Consortium contacts in various countries and through geospatial forums on professional
social networks such as LinkedIn.
4.4.1
New Zealand
At the national level, although some coordination does occur, there is a lack of an overall consistent
approach. Some national initiatives have included:

KiwImage – An all-of-government imagery project, using DigitalGlobe satellite imagery;

Emergency Services Syndicated Procurement – New Zealand Police on behalf of other
Emergency Service agencies using Terralink International Ltd’s imagery services;

Land Use and Carbon Analysis System (LUCAS) – Through this project the Ministry for the
Environment negotiated SPOT 5 imagery for all-of-government use; and,

GLiDAR – Government inventory of LiDAR data by the New Zealand Geospatial Office.
There are many examples of coordination occurring at the regional level in New Zealand, often as
part of a Local Authority Shared Services arrangement amongst neighbouring local authorities (Colin
Drew Development Solutions 2011). As well as geospatial data procurement these agreements can
cover a wide range of procurements such as insurance, energy, office supplies and software licensing
(Shaw 2010). Some examples of New Zealand shared services collaborations include:

BOPLASS (Bay of Plenty Local Authority Shared Services); and,

MWLASS (Manawatu-Wanganui Local Authority Shared Services Ltd).
In some cases separate groups were set up to share the procurement of imagery, for example:

WRAPS (Waikato Regional Aerial Photography Syndicate); and,

TRAPP (Taranaki Regional Aerial Photography Programme).
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
44
It is also important to note that key imagery suppliers have also directly enhanced coordination
activities. For example, it is common for an imagery supplier when undertaking a survey for one local
authority to contact other neighbouring authorities and offer their services.
The following coordination models were also reviewed:

Auckland Local Government Geospatial Initiative (ALGGI, no longer exists);

Wellington Area Government GIS (WAGGIS).
4.4.2
International
Internationally, many jurisdictions at both federal and provincial/state-level have implemented imagery
coordination arrangements. It is also common for some to govern imagery through broader Spatial
Data Infrastructures (SDIs). The primary international coordination arrangements reviewed in the
preparation of this report are presented in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Overseas imagery coordination arrangements reviewed
Country or
Jurisdiction
Name of Initiative or Coordinating
organisation
Primary Website
Australia: Federal
Cooperative Panel for Optical, Geospatial,
Radar and Elevation Supplies and Services
(OGRE)
www.ga.gov.au/earthobservation/ogre/about-ogre.html
Australia:
Queensland
Spatial Imagery Acquisition Programme
http://www.derm.qld.gov.au/property/m
apping/imagery_coordination.html
Australia: Victoria
Coordinated Imagery Program (CIP)
http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/propertytitles-and-maps/maps-imagery-anddata/imagery/coordinated-imageryprogram
Australia:
Western Australia
Landgate
https://www2.landgate.wa.gov.au/web/
guest
Canada: Federal
Geobase
http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/ind
ex.html
Canada: Federal
Satellite Acquisition Services (SAS)
http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/earthsciences/products-services/satellitephotography-imagery/satelliteacquisition-services/2350#acq_plan
Canada: British
Columbia
Digital Image Service Program
http://archive.ilmb.gov.bc.ca/crgb/pba/
dis/
Canada: Ontario
Imagery Acquisition Partnerships (IAP)
http://www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business
/LIO/index.html
Finland
National Land Survey of Finland / Aerial
Image Centre
www.maanmittauslaitos.fi/en
France
Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales (CNES)
www.cnes.fr/
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
45
Country or
Jurisdiction
Name of Initiative or Coordinating
organisation
Primary Website
Germany
Remote Sensing Data Centre of the
German Aerospace Centre DLR/European
Space Agency
http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefault
.aspx/tabid-10002/
India
GeoSpatial Delhi Ltd
http://delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/do
it_geo/geo/Home
India
National Spatial Data Infrastructure India
http://nsdiindia.gov.in/nsdi/nsdiportal/in
dex.jsp
Norway
Kongsberg Satellite Services (KSAT) and
Norwegian Space Agency
http://www.ksat.no/
Philippines
National Mapping and Resource
Information Authority (NAMRIA)
http://www.namria.gov.ph/
United Kingdom
Intra-governmental Group on Geographic
Information (IGGI)
http://www.communities.gov.uk/iggi/we
lcome.php
United Kingdom
Environment Agency
www.environement-agency.gov.uk
United Kingdom
Public Sector Mapping Agreement
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/osw
ebsite/public-sector/mappingagreement/index.html
USA: Federal
National States Geographic Information
Council (NSGIC)
http://www.nsgic.org/
USA: Federal
Imagery for the Nation (IFTN)
www.fgdc.gov/iftn
USA: North
Carolina
Center for Geographic Information and
Analysis (CGIA)
www.cgia.state.nc.us/
USA: Texas
Texas Geographic Information Council
(TGIC)
www2.dir.state.tx.us/sponsored/tgic/Pa
ges/overview.aspx
4.4.3
Elements of and approaches to coordination
From our review of national and overseas imagery coordination arrangements, key elements of
coordination models and approaches to addressing those elements were identified. These are
outlined in Table 4.2, and were assessed against performance indicators where appropriate. For the
remainder of the report, the term ‘purchasing partners’ is used in reference to a group of organisations
that acquire a set of imagery together in order to share costs
.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
46
Table 4.2 Key approaches to elements of coordination options
Elements of Coordination
Coordination of imagery procurement
The organisation/s responsible for the
acquisition of imagery on behalf of a
group of users. In coordinating imagery
procurements, there are cost savings for
the individual imagery users.
Coordination activities might include
tendering, contracting, quality assurance
and data distribution
Potential Approach to each Element of Coordination
Centralised coordination. Centralised coordination within a single agency such as a government department (e.g.
LINZ), State Owned Enterprise, or private organisation with overarching responsibility for coordinating imagery
procurement for user organisations.
National board. A national-level organisation that has responsibility for coordinating imagery procurement primarily
for organisations that operate within the nation.
Regional board. A regional-level organisation that has responsibility for coordinating imagery procurement
primarily for organisations that operate within the geographic region. This organisation could occur in different
forms, for example a Council Controlled Organisation like BOPLASS.
Special interest groups. Coordination occurs informally, where one organisation identifies an imagery procurement
need and informally approaches other organisations to see if they have the same need and are willing to share
procurement costs.
Final decision on imagery acquisition
The organisation that makes the final
decision about whether or not to procure
a set of imagery including based on the
nature, type, timing and cost of an
imagery procurement.
Centralised agency. If a centralised agency has responsibility for the coordination of imagery procurement, this
same organisation may also decide on behalf of the purchasing partners which imagery specifications and
supplier is most cost-effective.
National board. If a national board has responsibility for the coordination of imagery procurement, this same
organisation may also decide on behalf of the purchasing partners which imagery specifications and supplier is
most cost-effective.
Regional board. If a regional board has responsibility for the coordination of imagery procurement, this same
organisation may also decide on behalf of the purchasing partners which imagery specifications and supplier is
most cost-effective.
Special interest groups. Either, the informal special interest group decides collectively, or a lead representative of
the group makes the decision.
Purchasing partners. The purchasing partners collectively review the procurement options and come to a decision.
If a centralised agency, national board or regional board has responsibility for coordinating imagery procurement,
they may make recommendations to the purchasing partners who ultimately reach their own decision.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
47
Elements of Coordination
Potential Approach to each Element of Coordination
Funding of imagery acquisition
Central government funding. Full funding of imagery procurements for government organisations is provided by
central government. This funding might be administered through a government agency such as LINZ.
Which organisation/s pay for the imagery
procured and what proportion of the cost
they are responsible for. For example,
for some procurements, the group of
imagery users divide the costs evenly, or
a government department might pay half
of the cost and the remainder split
amongst the user organisations.
Funding imagery coordination and
dissemination
Which organisation/s pay for the
administration associated with procuring
and distributing the imagery amongst the
imagery users. This element does not
include the cost of the imagery.
Imagery storage
The organisation/s tasked with storing
any imagery that is procured. Also
known as the imagery custodian.
Mix of government and purchasing partners. Central government provides a portion of funding towards regular
procurements and the remainder of the costs are shared amongst purchasing partners.
Purchasing partners. Purchasing partners share the costs of the imagery purchased. This may be an even split in
costs amongst parties or proportional to the quantity of coverage they require.
Central government funding. Administration costs associated with coordinated imagery procurement are funded
by central government.
Mix of central government and purchasing partners. Administration costs associated with coordinated imagery
procurement are partially funded by central government and the purchasing partners pay a membership fee, have
a share in the coordination arrangement, or pay an additional administration fee each time they purchase imagery.
Purchasing partners. Administration costs associated with coordinated imagery procurement are fully funded by
the purchasing partners either through a membership fee, a share in the coordination arrangement, or additional
administration fees each time they purchase imagery.
Central government agency. A central government agency is the custodian of the data and is responsible for its
storage, discoverability and accessibility. National-level storage needs are large and there are associated costs.
National board. A national board is the custodian of the data and is responsible for its storage (holding different
areas of master data separately), discoverability and accessibility. National-level storage needs are large and
there are associated costs.
Regional board. A regional board is the custodian of the data and is responsible for its storage (holding different
areas of master data separately), discoverability and accessibility. Storage needs are smaller than at the national
level.
Purchasing partners. Individual purchasing partners are the custodians of the data they acquire and are
responsible for its storage (holding different areas of master data separately), discoverability and accessibility.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
48
Elements of Coordination
Potential Approach to each Element of Coordination
Imagery suppliers. Imagery suppliers retain master data and have the primary responsibility for data storage.
Discoverability and accessibility provisions may vary.
Licensing
The type of license arrangement in place
with the imagery supplier that specifies
who can use the imagery or which
purposes the imagery may be used for.
There are usually different costs
associated with different license types,
with the less restrictive license types
costing more.
Open to all. Licensing provisions allow anyone to access the imagery for free: government organisations, the
private sector, and members of the public. Imagery may be used for innovative purposes, meaning that value can
be added to the imagery through the development of products that may then be on-sold, growing the national
economy.
Open to government agencies only. Only government organisations can access the imagery for free.
Open to purchasing partners only. Access to the imagery is restricted to those organisations that purchased it.
Open to purchasing partners and the imagery supplier only. Access to the imagery is restricted to those
organisations that purchased it and the supplier that provided the imagery.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
49
4.5
Performance indicators
In order to ground our recommendations in the New Zealand policy context, a set of performance
indicators were derived from two key policy documents: The New Zealand Geospatial Strategy (2007)
and the New Zealand Data and Information Management Principles (2011). The set of performance
indicators is presented in Table 4.3 below.
Table 4.3 Performance indicators to rate potential coordination approaches
Performance
Indicator
Rating
High
Moderate
Low
Imagery investments
a
are optimised
Public investment in
imagery is optimised
through collective
arrangements where
appropriate
Some opportunities for
collective procurement
are captured
Opportunities for
collective imagery
procurement are not
captured
Imagery is easily
a, b
discoverable
Information about
imagery is easily
discoverable online,
with a single
authoritative source
existing for
fundamental datasets
Information about
imagery is partially
coordinated so
discovery is
challenging for some
datasets
Information about
imagery is not easily
discoverable, the
system is entirely ad
hoc with multiple
sources for
fundamental datasets
Imagery is easy to
a, b
access
Imagery can be easily
obtained through a
single point-of-access
There is some difficulty
in obtaining imagery
Imagery is
cumbersome to
access, involving time
delays and excessive
correspondence
Imagery is
a
standardised
Fundamental datasets
are maintained to
consistent, defined
specifications that
meet collective needs
Standards exist but are
not applied
consistently
Imagery is not
standardised and
exists in multiple
formats
Imagery is open for
a, b
public access
Imagery held by
government is licensed
for re-use and open
access, in accordance
with the New Zealand
Government Open
Access and Licensing
framework. This
facilitates innovation.
A mix of license types
is used, so the amount
of imagery available
for re-use or open
access is restricted.
Imagery is acquired for
purpose-specific use
only and not licensed
for re-use or open
access. This restricts
innovation.
Imagery is
appropriately protected
a, b
and preserved
Personal, confidential
and classified aspects
of imagery are
protected. Imagery is
appropriately archived.
Archiving of imagery
and/or protection of
personal, confidential
and classified aspects
of imagery is
inconsistent.
There are no
processes in place for
Archiving of imagery
and/or protection of
personal, confidential
and classified aspects
of imagery.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
50
Performance
Indicator
Rating
High
Moderate
Low
Collaboration amongst
a
imagery users
Full collaboration
amongst imagery
users so they can
share information and
develop ideas is
enabled
There are some
avenues for
collaboration amongst
imagery users
There are no avenues
for imagery users to
share information and
develop ideas with
others
a
Derived from the Key Principles and criteria outlined in the New Zealand Geospatial Strategy (2007)
b
Derived from the principles for Managing Data and Information held by the New Zealand Government, approved by Cabinet
on 8 August 2011 (CAB Min (11) 29/12 refers)
4.6
Assessment of coordination approaches
Various coordination approaches (refer to Table 4.2) were assessed against the performance
indicators outlined above and the results of this assessment are presented in Table 4.4. The
assessment process was informed by a comprehensive review of the existing coordination
arrangements outlined above.
Following Table 4.4 below, the results for each model element are discussed. The discussion outlines
some of the advantages and disadvantages of the highest ranking approaches, and relevant
examples of existing coordination arrangements. This section culminates in recommendations
regarding the best approach to coordination based on the results of the assessment.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
51
Table 4.4 Assessment of coordination models against performance indicators
Collaboration amongst
imagery users
Imagery is appropriately
protected and preserved
Imagery is open for
public access
Imagery is standardised
Centralised coordination
Imagery is easy to
access
Coordination
of imagery
procurement
Performance Indicators
Imagery is easily
discoverable
Coordinated Approach
Imagery investments are
optimised
Model
Element
National board
H
M
M
H
-
-
M
Regional board
H
M
M
M
-
-
M
Special interest groups
M
L
M
L
-
-
L
Centralised agency
M
M
-
H
H
-
L
National board
H
H
-
H
H
-
H
Regional board
H
M
-
M
M
-
H
Special interest groups
M
L
-
L
L
-
M
Purchasing partners
M
L
-
L
L
-
M
Central government funding
H
H
H
H
H
-
M
Mix of government and
purchasing partners
Purchasing partners
H
H
H
H
M
-
H
L
L
L
L
L
-
L
Funding
imagery
coordination
and
dissemination
Central government funding
H
H
H
H
H
-
H
Mix of central government and
purchasing partners
Purchasing partners
M
H
H
H
M
-
L
L
L
L
L
L
-
L
Imagery
storage
Central government agency
-
H
H
H
H
H
H
National board
-
M
M
H
H
M
M
Regional board
-
M
M
H
M
M
M
Purchasing partners
-
L
L
L
L
L
L
Imagery suppliers
-
H
L
M
L
H
L
Open to all
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
Open to government agencies
only
Open to purchasing partners
only
Open to purchasing partners
and the imagery supplier only
M
M
M
M
L
M
M
L
L
L
L
L
M
L
L
M
M
L
L
H
L
Final decision
on imagery
acquisition
Funding of
imagery
acquisition
Licensing
M
H
H
H
-
-
M
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
52
4.6.1
Coordination of imagery procurement
Consistent with the need for a strong central coordinating approach noted in the New Zealand
Geospatial Strategy, a centralised approach to the coordination of imagery procurement was ranked
highest in the assessment. Indeed, in most overseas examples the coordination role is carried out by
one designated ‘centralised’ government agency, or in some cases a small group of government
agencies within a country/jurisdiction. Selected examples include Federal-level arrangements such as
Australia’s Optical, Geospatial, Radar and Elevation Supplies and Services (OGRE) panel
administered by Geoscience Australia, Canada’s SAS administered by Natural Resources Canada,
Finland’s Aerial Image Centre, and the responsibilities of the National Mapping and Resource
Information Authority in the Philippines.
Examples of provincial/state-level arrangements include Ontario’s IAP administered by Land
Information Ontario in Canada and Victoria’s CIP administered by the Department of Sustainability
and Environment in Australia. In the United States, both the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S.
Geological Survey are responsible for coordinating imagery acquisition and dissemination, but their
respective responsibilities are specific to procurements at different resolutions. In many instances
central coordination arrangements target central government agencies, as opposed to all-ofgovernment or wider imagery user group procurements.
The key advantages of a centralised approach to coordination include:

Minimising duplication of imagery acquisition and harmonising conflicting imagery requirements;

Generally more reliable than decentralised coordination, which can be administratively complex
and more vulnerable to threats such as job changes, restructuring,
16
and protecting local
17
autonomy ;

Development of expertise in imagery quality, facilitating the development of standards;

It is easier to ensure that data is being appropriately protected and preserved and that consistent
metadata is being collected, making data more ‘discoverable’;
18

Economies of scale from large tenders resulting in lower per unit prices ;

Large tenders may also assist imagery suppliers in being able to acquire imagery ‘as weather
permits’ over certain parts of a target area, without needing to wait for perfect conditions over a
smaller target area; and,

16
Large tenders may encourage additional suppliers to enter the market.
Ibid.
17
Colin Drew Development Solutions (2011, June). Shared Services for Local Government. Wellington Local Government New
Zealand.
18
Personal Communication, National Land Survey of Finland Aerial Image Centre, March 19, 2012.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
53

An important use of imagery is in response to emergencies or disasters. A centralised approach
to coordination in these circumstances may be advantageous (for example arranging for new
imagery to be captured and distributed to local organisations- which may have other priorities in a
time of crisis).
The key disadvantages of a centralised approach to coordination include:

The potential to be less agile than decentralised models, due to top-heavy administration,
resulting in less responsive and slower acquisition processes;

The potential for the central coordinating agency to prioritise its own interests ahead of the other
organisations they represent (Box and Rajabifard 2009);

A hierarchical structure that may not adequately accommodate the network and market-oriented
realities of the geospatial industry (Box and Rajabifard 2009);

Centralised coordination in itself is not necessarily a key factor in realising open access; and,

The supplier market in New Zealand is small and market disruptions could have a significant
impact on the overall industry, particularly if centralised coordination leads to less overall funding
for imagery suppliers.
In some jurisdictions, a ‘State Owned Enterprise’ or ‘Council Controlled Organisation’ fulfils the
coordination role. Examples include BOPLASS in New Zealand and the ‘State Controlled
Organisation’ initiated by Geospatial Delhi.
In New Zealand, imagery suppliers and re-sellers already endeavour to combine requirements and
encourage collaboration between imagery users with overlapping or neighbouring interests or to
provide ‘collated’ national products. The advantages that a centralised coordination approach has
over this informal approach are a lack of profit motive from the perspective of the central organisation,
and incentive to consider data/services from all suppliers rather than just one.
4.6.2
Final decision on imagery acquisition
National Boards followed by Regional Boards scored highest for making the final decision on imagery
acquisitions. In many overseas examples a ‘National Board’ (or ‘panel’ or ‘steering group’) and
‘Regional Boards’ make decisions on which imagery to acquire. Examples of national boards include
KiwImage in New Zealand, IGGI in the United Kingdom, and NSGIC in the USA. Regional board
examples in New Zealand include BOPLASS (Bay of Plenty Local Authority Shared Services) and
WRAPS (Waikato Regional Aerial Photography Syndicate). Regional boards in New Zealand focus on
aerial imagery acquisitions, whilst the focus of KiwImage is coordinated acquisitions of satellite
imagery.
The key advantages of a national or regional board approach to the final decision on imagery
acquisition include:
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
54
19

Cost sharing amongst purchasing agencies;

Well-run boards are inclusive and optimise the requirements of a wide range of organisations;

Boards are often integrated with SDI Initiatives, meaning that cross-dependencies and
considerations with other elements of SDI are considered; and,

Board structures are more likely to establish communities of interest than other approaches.
20
The key disadvantage of a national or regional board approach to the final decision on imagery
acquisition is the potential for differences of opinion within a board structure delaying decisions. This
may have negative flow-on effects for organisations in need of up-to-date data and result in separate
acquisitions by an individual organisation.
21
Purchasing partners did not rate highly in the assessment because they were assessed in isolation
from the imagery coordination element. However, Australian coordination arrangements such as
OGRE and CIP involve central coordination and a tendering process, but the group of purchasing
partners make the final decision on imagery acquisition. The centralised influence means much
greater scores for an approach with purchasing partners making the final decision on the acquisitions
pursued. The key advantage of this type of approach is autonomy in decision-making on behalf of the
purchasing partners, coupled with the standardisation, discoverability, and access benefits of
centralised coordination.
4.6.3
Funding of imagery acquisition
Internationally, there are a variety of approaches being taken or considered for the funding of imagery
acquisitions. These include individual organisations funding their own acquisitions (even in cases
where Centralised Agencies or National/Regional Boards may have coordination roles), Regional
Boards or groups combining to fund initiatives, Central or Regional Governments ‘topping up’ or
‘buying up’ imagery from stakeholders with smaller areas of interest in order to make it more widely
accessible, central government only initiatives, and central governments initiating a national
programme and seeking contributions from regional governments. Under some other coordination
arrangements funding goes directly to the ‘centralised agency’ rather than through the ‘National
Board’. For example, in the UK, IGGI contracts out to the centralised agency (Ordnance Survey).
Disregarding other considerations, including the obvious important factor of cost, an approach that
incorporates significant funding from central government is the most likely to realise the performance
criteria used in this assessment. Assuming that central government will want other options to be
19
However, cost sharing amongst organisations is already occurring within New Zealand so the impact of this factor is unlikely
to be significant. Reduced cost savings for all due to the non-participation of one or more suitable partners is a general risk
where the group of purchasing partners is small.
20
Ibid.
21
Personal Communication, British Ministry of Defence, 4 March, 2012
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
55
considered, alternative approaches where funding is shared between central government and other
levels of Government also score highly.
From the assessment performed, the most pertinent approaches are those undertaken as part of
OGRE in Australia (Geoscience Australia) and IFTN in the USA (USGS and USDA). These
coordination arrangements are opposing in the sense that Australia is attempting to ‘stitch together’ a
large number of procurements from imagery users who are interested in smaller areas, sometimes
‘topping up’ procurements to eventually make a wide coverage openly accessible. In comparison
contrasting approach, the IFTN model is attempting to create a national coverage that is openly
accessible, and also gives imagery users the opportunity to ‘buy up’ their areas of interest at a higher
resolution of imagery.
The key advantage of the OGRE approach is optional involvement in any acquisition for the
purchasing partners because they reach the final decision on acquisitions. However, the OGRE
approach may take time to build up a wide coverage. In comparison, the key advantages of IFTN are
that larger tenders have the potential for economies of scale, coverage and resolution are more
consistent over the entire country, centralised decision-making is likely to be faster than divulged
decision-making, greater potential for a net saving (calculated across all-of-government), and open
access imagery for the entire country. The disadvantages are compulsory payments from State
Governments, upfront costs, and disagreements about ‘fairness’ in payment contributions or in the
distinction between ‘urban’ and ‘rural’ quality.
4.6.4
Funding imagery coordination and dissemination
The funding of ‘overheads’ associated with coordinated imagery acquisition can also be approached
in a variety of ways. These include specific funding from a government treasury, funding being
allocated from a centralised agency, contributions being made from stakeholders on a periodic basis,
or a percentage being taken from any imagery tenders/acquisitions that are processed via the
coordination or governance organisations.
In order to establish a programme of coordination, it is recommended that centralised funding or a mix
of central and purchasing partner funding be considered. International examples include:

The National Land Survey of Finland / Aerial Image Centre, where coordination is funded by the
National Land Survey (a ‘Centralised Agency’) from its own budget;

The UK Environment Agency, where coordination overheads associated with LiDAR acquisitions
are funded by the ‘Centralised Agency’; and,

The OGRE initiative in Australia there is a mixture of funding from ‘centralised agencies’ and also
a fee applied for each utilisation of coordination services.
In order to initiate a programme of coordination in imagery acquisition and dissemination, it would be
beneficial for coordination costs to be centrally funded. This could be reviewed once the coordination
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
56
arrangement is established. There may be debate about the relative value that different organisations
obtain from coordination and governance if some organisations utilise services in different quantities.
If costs are not devolved to purchasing partners, then there may be speculative requests for quotes
and debate over the ‘fairness’ of different quality and timing of acquisitions.
4.6.5
Imagery storage
There are many instances overseas where either regional organisations or a centralised agency holds
‘master data’ and acts as the distributor of this, often employing internet systems to make the data
available. There are associated storage and distribution costs that can be substantial. Regional
examples include Western Australia’s Landgate programme and associated Shared Land Information
Platform, the Image Web Service used by the CIP (Victoria) and the IAP (Ontario). These are wellestablished and offer relevant learning opportunities. IFTN (USA) provides an example of a
centralised agency providing centralised storage on a national scale. If properly coordinated the
advent of technology such as Web Services should mean that multiple organisations can provide
different datasets ‘seamlessly’, reducing the burden on any single agency.
Some considerations when determining the appropriate model include:

Expensive protection and preservation measures (backups, archiving, disaster recovery) could be
rationalised if there were fewer organisations maintaining their own data;

Distribution processes and mechanisms could be rationalised;

Centralising some aspects could aid discovery;

Centralising some aspects could ensure that metadata is correctly applied;

Backups, archiving and disaster recovery must be extremely robust if ‘all of the eggs are in one
basket’, however if copies are held by purchasing partners then this concern is reduced;

If a central agency were to hold a ‘master repository’ then this would increase the external profile
of the centralised agency at the expense of the purchasing partner. In other words, if ‘customers’
contact the centralised agency for data rather than the purchasing partner (even if the purchasing
partner paid for the imagery);

Some data processing or use will require copies of the ‘source’ (raw) data to be available and/or
processed on purchasing partners’ own systems. If a duplicate copy was held at a centralised
agency then duplication of activities such as processing/handling/backups would be likely.

Many organisations are only interested in a single ‘regional coverage’ area. A ‘national’ web
service or similar may accommodate many users who do not require such a national service.
4.6.6
Licensing
If imagery is available via ‘open access’ then this is beneficial to all other assessment criteria and
aligns with the New Zealand Government’s moves towards government-held imagery being made
available to the New Zealand public. Unfortunately, open access licensing tends to be the most
expensive licensing option. The four licensing options applicable to the OGRE arrangement
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
57
(Australia), include an open-access license, as well as more restrictive options. In some instances,
more restrictive licensing is appropriate in order to protect sensitive data.
4.6.7
Summary of assessment results
A summary of the assessment results is presented in Table 4.5. Preferred examples of existing
coordination arrangements are also listed. A summary of each of these five arrangements is provided
in Appendix D.
The assessment results favour central coordination, with decision-making about acquisitions
undertaken by either a national or regional boards or the purchasing partners. The funding of imagery
acquisition should be a mix of government and purchasing partner funding, and various options for
this can be explored. Initially, overhead costs associated with coordinated acquisition and the
dissemination of imagery should be funded centrally, but over time this could shift to a funding model
involving inputs of both government and purchasing partners. The responsibility for imagery storage
should be distributed to regional organisations, and licensing for imagery use should be open access
with exceptions for sensitive information.
Table 4.5: Summary of assessment results
Model Element
Best approach
Relevant examples
Coordination of
imagery procurement
Centralised coordination
CIP (Victoria, Australia)
IAP (Ontario, Canada)
IFTN (USA)
OGRE (Australia)
Final decision on
imagery acquisition
National board or purchasing
partners coordinated by a
central agency
IFTN
OGRE & CIP (purchasing partners)
Funding of imagery
acquisition
A mix of government and
purchasing partners
IFTN
OGRE
Funding imagery
coordination and
dissemination
Initially centralised funding, then
moving to a mix of government
and purchasing partners
OGRE (mix of funding)
Imagery storage
Mix of National and Regional
Organisations
GeoBase
IAP
CIP
Licensing
Open access
IFTN
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
58
4.7
Centralised coordination within the New Zealand context
In this section we discuss some of the implications of implementing centralised coordination within the
context of the current New Zealand geospatial industry. Our discussion was informed by a PEST
analysis (Political, Environmental, Social and Technological – refer to Appendix C) and the imagery
stock-take and economic analyses (see Sections 2 and 3).
It is clear from the assessment (Table 4.4 and Table 4.5), that some degree of centralised
coordination fits well with the performance indicators based on key New Zealand policies (outlined in
Table 4.3). However, unless the imperative arises, we do not recommend that LINZ rapidly implement
imagery coordination based on the results of the assessment above for the following reasons:

Rapid implementation of a centralised coordination arrangement with open access will be cost
prohibitive.

Compared to many of the countries where we have reviewed coordination efforts, New Zealand is
small and the level of work required to coordinate between different agencies is noticeably less.
This must be taken into consideration when looking at what has worked overseas.

Related to the above point, the performance indicators used in this project have been derived
from central government policies. Also, the majority of literature reviewed on this project is from
central government agencies. Through this our option evaluation will have a potential bias
towards centralised coordination. It should also be noted that many correspondents or websites
are more likely to focus on ‘positive’ aspects of their own activities rather than negative ones.

There is some evidence that dispersion of coordination across multiple jurisdictions is more
efficient, flexible and agile than a centralised coordination monopoly (Box and Rajabifard 2009).
Local coordination may be more appropriate to respond to local scales issues such as
infrastructure development. This may be particularly relevant in New Zealand as our changeable
weather conditions require flexible flying programmes.

Related to the point above, the economic analysis in Section 3 finds that the current situation in
New Zealand, although not centralised, has many elements that work well. Regional coordination
models work well in most cases and key imagery suppliers also contribute to coordination
amongst government agencies.

As many coordination arrangements are already in place, the rapid implementation of a
centralised approach may not be well-received. However, LINZ could work with existing
arrangements to build trust and share best practice, moving towards a mutually beneficial
arrangement that involves some centralised coordination for the benefit of all.

Rapid advancements in the availability of imagery and other geospatial data through platforms
such as Google Maps and Bing Maps are changing the landscape of imagery availability and use.
Most organisations we spoke with listed Google Maps as being the most widely used interface to
imagery. There are also rapid advancements in the methods used to store and distribute imagery
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
59
such as cloud-based servers and access to information through web services, which should affect
the type of coordination model adopted in New Zealand. Implementation of Ultra Fast Broadband
and Rural Broadband within New Zealand will also influence demand for imagery and have
implications for how imagery can be distributed.
22
Figure 4.2 illustrates an example of an ‘open
access’ web service that has been implemented by Environment Canterbury.
23
This service can
be ‘linked’ into other organisations own systems via standard web interfaces, meaning that those
organisations can use this data without needing to hold/manage the data themselves. A
coordinated set of services such as this to cover New Zealand would be useful for many
organisations. Currently, although several local authorities provide or are developing these
services they are not well aligned.
Figure 4.2 An example of an ‘open access’ web service
22
See for example BERL (2011). Regional and Inter-Regional Economic Assessment of the Benefits of Broadband for the Bay
of Plenty and Auckland Regions.
23
http://gis.ecan.govt.nz/ArcGIS/rest/services/Imagery/MapServer?f=jsapi.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
60
4.8
Recommended short-term actions for LINZ
Based on the assessment and analysis above, our key recommendation is that LINZ has a greater
role in the coordination of imagery acquisition and dissemination, and that the structure and growth of
this role is developed and implemented over time as part of a staged approach.
In order to do this, we recommend that the following short-term actions:
1. Strengthen LINZ’s current imagery stewardship role

24
by:
Developing of standards, guidelines and templates to be used in imagery acquisition. This would
include licensing models;

Enhancing imagery discoverability, storage and distribution, bringing together existing web
services and supporting the implementation of new ones

Further developing relationships with imagery users and existing regionally-based coordination
arrangements in New Zealand through a dedicated annual workshop and relevant conferences;

Further developing relationships with imagery suppliers; and,

Staffing a role within LINZ or the NZGO specifically tasked with implementing the above.
Each of these actions is discussed in more detail in the sub-sections below.
2. A thorough assessment of the advantages, disadvantages, costs, and benefits of the coordination options identified in this report. The best representatives of these arrangements are:
OGRE and CIP in Australia, IAP in Canada, IFTN in the USA (refer to Appendix D).
4.8.1
Development of Standards, Guidelines and Templates
LINZ has accepted the role of Steward for imagery in New Zealand.
25
A recommended key task under
this role is for a domain specialist to develop a set of standards, guidelines and templates, including
common licensing models which would be provided to all government organisations looking to
procure imagery. We see it as a core task which could be the platform for LINZ to both build the
confidence of other organisations in their stewardship role and also develop avenues whereby LINZ
would become a valuable part of the procurement process. This could potentially fit within the
procurement service of the Ministry of Economic development (www.business.govt.nz/procurement).
24
We note that some of these initiatives fall within the recommended tasks and actions the New Zealand Geospatial Office’s
discussion paper “Stewardship and Custodianship of Geospatial Data” (May 2011)
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
61
4.8.2
Enhancing imagery discoverability, storage and distribution
LINZ has already made great advancements in the last few years with initiatives like the LDS (LINZ
Data Service), which has enabled much greater access to core New Zealand Geospatial data. On top
of this there are other private and government open data initiatives such as:
DATA.GOVT.NZ and

DIGITALNZ
GEODATA.GOVT.NZ

LRIS Portal

LINZ Imagery Acquisition Register

Open Data Catalogue

GLiDAR

Koordinates.com

One perspective is that the range of portals to geospatial information available has become too
complicated and confusing to potential users. For example the LINZ Imagery Acquisition Register
appears to only hold a subset of the planned acquisitions listed within the questionnaire conducted for
this report. LINZ should be in a position now to review the aspects of these initiatives that have
worked and failed, and to make a decision on whether government-funded imagery can be
incorporated into an existing portal or a new application developed.
Some suggestions for improvements include:

Recent actual imagery acquisitions as well as planned or proposed acquisitions should be
available within the same system. This could facilitate future joint procurements.

Interested parties should be able to ‘subscribe’ to areas and scales of interest and then to receive
‘push notifications’ of changes new acquisitions or proposed acquisitions within those parameters,
rather than needing to ‘login’ and check regularly if any changes have been made.

Systems should have the ability to read relevant metadata web services from other organisations
rather than those organisations needing to re-enter metadata into another system.

This could include ‘areas of interest’ where changes on the ground are known to have occurred
(e.g. major new subdivisions) so that a collated picture of where new imagery would be beneficial
could be developed, and perhaps re-flown as a small imagery acquisition in-between more
regular imagery acquisition programmes.

Expert opinion from the UK indicates that in order to improve the utility of these types of portals
data must be easy to access via ‘themes’. It is noted that ‘imagery’ is a theme in some of the
systems above, however this should perhaps be sub-divided into ‘imagery types’, including a
standardised classification or ‘Urban’ and ‘Rural’ imagery resolutions.
26
Enhancing the discoverability, storage and distribution of satellite imagery is an area which LINZ has
helped drive through the KiwImage project. We believe further coordination efforts in this area,
building on KiwImage would be a core part of LINZ’s imagery steward role.
26
Personal Communication, Email from KnowEdge UK.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
62
4.8.3
Relationship-building with imagery users
Another way for LINZ to develop the imagery steward role is to both sponsor and organise an annual
workshop for New Zealand’s geospatial industry that could operate as a forum for discussing the
acquisition needs of users, sharing best practice and insights from existing coordination approaches
at regional levels, and dialogue about LINZ’s role in the coordination of acquisition and dissemination.
Genuine communication and relationship-building by imagery users, suppliers and LINZ will raise
LINZ’s profile within the industry and increase the acceptability of LINZ’s future coordination role. In
addition, participation at relevant conferences and workshops will also raise LINZ’s profile.
4.8.4
Relationship-building with imagery suppliers
In order to develop a greater understanding of the imagery archives that exist in New Zealand and
planned future procurements, LINZ could build more formal relationships with imagery suppliers.
There is good communication currently between LINZ and key imagery suppliers but LINZs need to
ensure that they have a continued understanding of supplier imagery holdings and forward work
programmes when there is staff turnover or when new suppliers join the market.
4.8.5
Human resource
The different recommendations listed above require the right person to drive them. This person may
already exist within LINZ or may need to be recruited. It is important that the role is given a clear
mandate and is measured against the points outlined above. Through this role LINZ will become
much more aware of the disjointed but functional coordination efforts within New Zealand and will be
in a much better position to provide a more centralised coordination role in the future.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
63
5
Conclusions and recommendations
There are moves internationally to coordinate the procurement of imagery. Countries such as
Australia, Canada and the US have set up governance systems that coordinate the acquisition,
dissemination and access to imagery.
This is the first study in New Zealand to investigate the landscape of the imagery industry and
whether better coordination and open access to government imagery is needed in New Zealand, and
to quantify the value of this.
This report shows that total annual spend on imagery of $5.7 million represents a significant
investment by government and industry per year. Despite the amount spent on imagery, little time is
spent procuring imagery (2 percent of an organisation’s employees are dedicated GIS users).
In addition to having opportunities to improve procurement processes, we found several instances
where there is duplication on the expenditure on imagery. Depending on timing, and the resolution
required by agencies, eliminating this duplication could reduce expenditure by $130,000 to $532,000.
There is a high level of coordination in the procurement of imagery between local and regional
authorities. However, we find limited coordination between central and local government agencies
with respect to procuring imagery. As local government and central government are the largest
procurers of imagery (53 percent) in New Zealand, these agencies are likely to experience the
greatest cost savings from coordinating their activities. Despite local government and core central
government departments and agencies being the largest users of imagery in New Zealand, they
contribute a relatively small share of New Zealand’s overall GDP (around 3 percent). Rather, the
benefit of improved coordination is likely to be experienced by a broad range of industries that draw
on government services. These benefits are quantified at an additional $4.2 million of GDP in 2021.
Based on the study’s surveys and interviews, we quantify that open access to public sector imagery
would add an estimated $3.5 million to GDP in 2021. This figure is likely to underestimate the
potential that imagery has to stimulate innovation. It was difficult, however, for governments and
private organisations to express the productivity benefits of open access to imagery. This is because
participants tend to under-value the long term benefits of imagery as they are difficult to foresee.
Some benefits of imagery are difficult to measure due to the challenge of separating the impact of
imagery versus other geospatial data on decision making.
Where open access to imagery enables innovation the wider benefits to the economy would be
greater: the magnitude depends on whether it is niche-based or widespread, transformative
innovation. Open access allows the development of new products or new processes that, ”in turn,
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
64
generate new economic activity, new business opportunities, better informed and potentially better
government and business decisions” (Houghton 2011).
27
Whether these benefits are realised will depend on the type of coordination model adopted. Many
organisations, particularly local authorities, are providing open or ‘free’ access to imagery, suggesting
that some data sharing is already occurring. 46 percent of organisations own or share the rights to
distribute imagery. However, it is unknown how many do share imagery. More work is required to
establish the extent to which organisations are trying and succeeding in providing open imagery.
Another hurdle is ensuring the resolution and timing of procurements match those required by those
agencies that are coordinating. According to our sample survey, most government departments
require resolution to be between 0.25 to 0.5 metres, while most local governments obtain imagery
greater than 0 and less than 0.25 metres.
The benefit will change depending on the type of coordination option chosen, but this expresses the
maximum benefit that these options can achieve.
To achieve these benefits, a new system for coordinating government procurements is needed. An
initial scan of coordination options, such as centralised coordination, national boards, regional boards,
special interest purchasing groups were assessed.
The selected performance indicators are: investments are optimised, imagery is easily discoverable,
imagery is easy to access, imagery is standardised, imagery is open for public access. The dispersion
of governance across multiple jurisdictions is considered to be more efficient than a centralised
governance monopoly, as governance operates multiple scales that respond effectively to issues that
have varying scales and territorial reach. Some form of central coordination scored highly against all
criteria.
27
Houghton, John (2011). Costs and Benefits of Data Provision. Melborne: Centre for Strategic Economic Studies Victoria
University.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
65
Recommendations
The consortium recommends that LINZ take a greater role in the coordination of imagery acquisition
and dissemination, and that LINZ should increase its role using a staged approach. The first stage is
to strengthen LINZs current imagery stewardship role by:

enhancing imagery discoverability, storage, and distribution to promote open access;

developing standards, guidelines, and templates to be used in imagery acquisition;

improving relationships with imagery users, organisations with existing coordination
arrangements, and imagery suppliers in New Zealand;

establishing a specific role within LINZ or the NZGO to implement the tasks above.
A second stage should thoroughly assess the advantages, disadvantages, costs, and benefits of the
best representatives of various coordination examples identified in this report. There are many
approaches that are being taken overseas. Based on our assessment, the best examples for
consideration in the New Zealand context are:

Optical, Geospatial, Radar and Elevation Supplies and Services (OGRE) and the Coordinated
Imagery Program (CIP) in Australia;

Geobase and IAP in Canada; and,

Imagery for the Nation (IFTN) in the USA.
In most of the foreign examples, imagery coordination is managed as a component of Spatial Data
Infrastructure programmes. Therefore, it is recommended that this arrangement is reflected within
New Zealand.
The KiwImage initiative within New Zealand should also be examined in order to determine what has
worked well and what could be improved upon.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
66
6
Definitions
Term
Definition
Coordination
approach
This is the way a particular element of coordination is addressed. For example,
possible approaches to the coordination element of who makes the “final
decision on imagery acquisition” include a central agency, a national or
regional board, a special interest group, or the purchasing partners.
Coordination
element
These are key aspects of a coordination arrangement that can be addressed
via a variety of means. For example, one element of a coordination
arrangement is who makes the “final decision on imagery acquisition”.
Existing
coordination
arrangements
These are examples of coordination models in place in different jurisdictions.
For example, the Coordinated Imagery Program in Victoria, Australia, and
Taranaki Regional Aerial Photography Programme in New Zealand.
Geographic
Information
System (GIS)
A digital database in which information is stored by its spatial coordinate
system, which allows for data input, storage, retrieval, management,
transformation, analysis, reporting, and other activities. GIS is often envisioned
as a process as much as a physical entity for data (Folger 2009).
Geospatial data
Information that identifies the geographic location and characteristics of natural
and constructed features and boundaries on Earth (Folger 2009).
LiDAR
LiDAR (Light Detection And Ranging, also LADAR) is an optical remote
sensing technology that can measure the distance to, or other properties of a
target by illuminating the target with light, often using pulses from a laser.
LiDAR technology has application in geomatics, archaeology, geography,
geology, geomorphology, seismology, forestry, remote sensing and
atmospheric physics,[1] as well as in airborne laser swath mapping (ALSM),
28
laser altimetry and LiDAR contour mapping .
Oblique
An image captured from a side-angle from an aircraft or satellite
Orthoimagery
Digital or digitized aerial photographs or images in which the pixels are
geometrically rectified and geographically referenced, often including details
about topography and names. The rectified orthoimage is free of geometric
distortions that are part of the original photograph or image (Folger 2009).
Purchasing
partners
A group of organisations that acquire a set of imagery together to share costs.
Web Service
The W3C defines a ‘Web service’ as "a software system designed to support
29
interoperable machine-to-machine interaction over a network".
28
Wikipedia Encyclopaedia (accessed March, 2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIDAR.
29
Wikipedia Encyclopaedia (accessed March 2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_service
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
67
7
References
ACIL Tasman (2004) Economic Impacts of broadband adoption in Victoria. Report prepared for
Multimedia Victoria. Australia.
BERL (2011). Regional and Inter-Regional Economic Assessment of the Benefits of Broadband for
the Bay of Plenty and Auckland Regions.
Box P and Rajabifard A (2009). SDI governance: bridging the gap between people and geospatial
resources. In GSDI 11 World Conference, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Bresnahan T and Trajtenberg M (1995). General Purpose Technologies - 'Engines of growth'? Journal
of Econometrics, 65: 83-108.
Colin Drew Development Solutions (2011). Shared Services for Local Government. Accessed on 7
March 2012 from www.lgnz.co.nz.
Folger P (2009). Geospatial Information and Geographic Information Systems (GIS): Current Issues
and Future Challenges. Geospatial Research Service. Retrieved on 3 March 2012 from
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40625.pdf.
Fornefeld M, Delaunay G and Elixmann D (2008). The Impact of Broadband on Growth and
Productivity. Micus Management Consulting.
Houghton J (2011). Costs and Benefits of Data Provision. Melborne: Centre for Strategic Economic
Studies Victoria University.
Janssen J and McLoughlin S (2008). New Zealand’s Productivity Performance. New Zealand
Treasury Productivity Paper 08/02.
OECD (2003). ICT and economic growth - evidence from OECD countries, industries and firms.
Geneva.
OECD (2007). Broadband and the economy. Retrieved March 22, 2011, from
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/62/7/40781696.pdf.
Shea C (2005). Future management research directions in nanotechnology: A case study. Journal of
Engineering and Technology Management, Volume 22, Issue 3, September 2005, Pages 185-200.
Shaw J (2010). Research into Shared Services in New Zealand Local Government 2010. Accessed
on 7 March 2012 from www.algim.org.nz.
Stevenson M (2009). ALGGI – Auckland Local Government Geospatial Information. Article for Survey
Quarterly.
United Kingdom Government (March 2011). ICT Strategy.
United States Geological Survey (2007). Imagery for the Nation: Cost Benefit Analysis.
Wikipedia Encyclopaedia (accessed March, 2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LIDAR.
Wikipedia Encyclopaedia (accessed March 2012) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_service.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
68
8
Appendix A: Survey and interview participation
In total, 61 organisations participated in the on-line questionnaire survey, and interviews were
conducted with 19 organisations. The targets for participation in the survey and interviews were
exceeded, as specified in Table 8.1 below.
Table 8.1 Break-down of survey and interview targets and participation
Target Specified by LINZ
On-line Survey of Imagery
Users
Interviews with Imagery Users and
Imagery Suppliers
On-line questionnaire
distributed to up to 50
organisations.
Distributed to 93 organisations,
61 organisations participated
N.A.
Ten (10) local or regional
councils, or shared service
organisations (including:
BOPLASS, Auckland
Council, Waikato Regional
Council, Wellington City
Council)
51 organisations contacted,
including 48 Local Authorities,
2 Council Controlled
Organisations, and 1 Shared
Service Organisation. Of
these, 30 participated in the
survey, including all of the
specified organisations
Interviews conducted with BOPLASS,
Bay of Plenty Regional Council, Hutt
City Council, Wellington City Council,
Greater Wellington Regional Council
Five (5) central
government agencies
(including: NZ Defence
Force, Ministry for the
Environment, NZ Police)
12 central government
agencies invited to participate,
9 responses received including
the target organisations
Interviews conducted with LINZ,
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry,
NZ Police, NZ Fire Service, NZ
Defence Force (KiwImage) and
Landcare Research
Five (5) private
organisations that
purchase imagery
(including: Terralink
International Limited)
24 Private Sector
organisations were contacted
and 13 responded to the
survey
Interviews conducted with ANZCO
Foods Limited, Opus International
Consultants Limited, PF Olsen
Limited, Scion Forest Research,
Terralink International Limited, and
Zespri. As Terralink is both a supplier
and user of imagery, this organisation
was interviewed rather than surveyed
Three (3) providers of
imagery acquisition
services (including: NZ
Aerial Mapping, Aerial
Surveys, an imagery
satellite company)
N.A.
Interviews were conducted with NZ
Aerial Mapping, Aerial Surveys, and
SKM.
Five (5) public sector
organisations that
purchase existing imagery
from providers (including:
LINZ)
5 organisations contacted,
including 3 CRIs, 2 SOEs, 1
Public Sector Body (Search
and Rescue) and LINZ. 5
participated in the survey
Interviews conducted with Solid
Energy New Zealand, Transpower,
and LINZ
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
69
9
Appendix B: CGE model and what it does
This appendix briefly describes what a CGE model, what it does, and how it can be used to quantify
the potential economic impacts of a change or ‘shock’ to the economy.
Economists use economic models to simplify and understand the behaviour and interrelationships
between the various sectors and participants in the economy. The Computable General Equilibrium
(CGE) is a standard economic model widely used in estimating the impact of a change in one sector
on other sectors and the whole-economy.
The CGE model allows us to perform computer simulations to investigate the effect of particular
events on macro-economic variables (e.g. GDP and consumption) and industries. For example, we
could estimate the changes in macro-economic variables resulting from a:

change in population growth, which affects household spending growth

technological breakthrough that results in increased productivity in particular sectors

world event (e.g., political turmoil) that reduces the demand for our exports

change in policy (e.g., increased government spending on hospitals)

change in the price of commodities (e.g., milk solids or oil).
The model is made up of data and equations that depict the workings/flows of economic transactions
in an economy. The equations are developed by combining input-output tables
30
with national account
data (GDP, household and government consumption, investment, exports and imports) and
behavioural equations reflecting behavioural responses to price changes. Behavioural responses are
made by firms and consumers. Currently, BERL’s CGE model identifies 53 different industries and 40
different occupation (i.e. labour) types. It is based on unofficial inter-industry data for the 2005/06
year, which has been derived by BERL from a variety of sources.
31
The model must always be in equilibrium. Equilibrium is where the supply of a product is equal to its
demand. The CGE model calculates the new equilibrium between the demand and supply of factors
of production, and goods and services when there is a change in one sector in the model, which is
described as a “shock”. That is, producers, consumers, workers and investors must adjust their supply
or demand until they are satisfied with the current market prices and quantities.
30
Input-output tables indicate how much each industry requires of the production of each other industry in order to produce
each dollar of its own output. It shows how the output of one industry is an input to each other industry.
31
The latest generally-available official inter-industry data is for the 1995/96 year.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
70
In order to assess the interrelationships between changes in one sector on the rest of the economy,
these models follow various neoclassical assumptions to ensure the impact can be measured. These
assumptions are:

Market-clearing prices – In line with the condition for equilibrium, prices adjust to their ‘marketclearing’ level; that is to the level where demand in a particular market equals the supply in that
market.

Zero (pure) economic profit - Zero economic profit means the return to capital invested in a
sector is equivalent to the returns to capital available in alternative investment opportunities.

Cost-minimising firms – Firms are assumed to shift between alternative production processes in
order to minimise the unit costs of production of goods and services. The alternative choices are
between relatively labour-intensive or capital-intensive processes, as well as between imported or
domestically-sourced material inputs.

Utility-maximising consumers – Consumers are assumed to shift their demand for goods and
services in response to price and income changes in order to maximise their individual well-being.
9.1
Background information for open access and innovation scenario analysis
To anchor the ‘what if’ scenario analysis, we considered the types of impacts attributed to similar
technologies that support decision making and enable product development and on-going innovation.
Technologies with such features have been described as a General Purpose Technology (GPT), and
can be viewed as an engine of growth (BERL 2011, Breshana and Trajtenberg 1995). That is, as
GPTs improve they are adopted by an increasing number of people over time, for example
progressing from dial-up to broadband internet. The combination of progress and dispersion supports
complementary innovation, thereby increasing the demand for that GPT. In turn, this stimulates
further GPT improvements and a new set of complementary innovations.
This scenario references the increases in revenues and innovation that has been ascribed to ICTs
such as broadband (BERL 2011, ACIL Tasman 2004, OECD 2003, OECD 2007). For example,
broadband provides opportunities for on-going development and innovation rather than a single set of
applications (Shea, 2005). Similar to broadband, a major benefit of imagery is arguably its ability to
enable investment in complementary innovations and the development of applications that:

improve business or operational processes – reducing the cost of coordination, communication
and information processing costs, and allowing businesses to become more decentralized and
operate in many locations/countries more efficiently;

develop new products;

enhance existing products (convenience, timeliness, quality and variety).
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
71
Table 9.1 shows the annual impact of broadband on productivity estimated by ACIL Tasman (2004),
which we use as a reference source for this analysis.
Table 9.1 Average annual impact of broadband on productivity
Industry
Primary agriculture
Forestry and fishing
Coal
Oil
Gas
Minerals nec
Processed food
Light manufacturing
Petroleum, coal products
Other manufacturing
Motor vehicles and other transport
Electronic equipment
Electricity
Gas manufacture, distribution
Water
Construction
Trade
Transport
Communication
Financial services nec
Insurance
Business services nec
Recreational and other services
Public admin. and defence, education, health
Whole economy - weighted by industry (#)
32
32
Average annual
productivity shocks
0.06
0.06
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.19
0.19
0.10
0.19
0.19
0.19
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.19
0.27
0.19
0.47
0.44
0.44
0.44
0.26
0.27
0.23
This table is a reproduction of Table 5 from ACIL Tasman (2004) Economic Impacts of broadband adoption in Victoria.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
72
10
Appendix C: PEST analysis
Strategic Considerations
33
This section utilises a ‘PEST Analysis’ to indicate some of the considerations that have been taken
into account during the creation of this report. The level of impact that the following considerations
listed below varies from ‘major’ significant to indirect ‘minor’ impact, as indicated.
Impact to
Imagery
Strategy
Political
Government policies
Proposed changes to the structure and responsibilities of regional and local
Government. Also the recent amalgamation of councils in Auckland.
Major
Sale of State Owned Assets- this may affect the shape of ‘future whole of
government’.
Minor
Development of Steward/Custodian framework for geospatial information
34
Major
Implementation of Ultra Fast Broadband and Rural Broadband (affects ability to
transfer large amounts of data such as imagery). Imagery is also useful in
planning for utility implementation projects.
Major
Political trends
NZ is a ‘free market’
Intermediate
Government regulation is minimized
Minor
NZ to be a ‘knowledge economy’ and have strong technological infrastructure
Minor
Smaller government (recent example: personnel reductions at TPK and MFAT)
Minor
On-going investment in Infrastructure (e.g. Auckland motorway enhancements)
Intermediate
Intention to streamline processes such as planning applications
Minor
Government structures
Merging of government departments (recent example: MAF and MOF)
Intermediate
Merging ‘back office functions’
Intermediate
Encouraging sharing of resources amongst Government departments and Local
35
Government business units (recent example: BOPLASS)
Major
Foreign Government influences
Various foreign governments: introduction of various forms of governance over
Major
33
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEST_analysis
34
http://www.geospatial.govt.nz/sites/default/files/assets/Chapter%201%20Data%20stewardship%20and%20custodianship.pdf
35
BOPLASS Article in the ‘Local Government’ Magazine August 2011
“When councils work together, especially through joint procurement and the provision of shared services, the benefits include:
improved efficiencies, increased value, reduced costs – and perhaps most importantly a feeling of collaborative community.” Ross Carter Chief Executive, BOPLASS.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
73
imagery procurement
US Government: The signing of ‘the Wellington Agreement’ with the United
States- particularly the impact of this on the sharing of intelligence information
(including presumably satellite imagery for military uses)
Minor
UK Government: Sharing of IT resources and leveraging combined purchasing
36
power
Intermediate
Home market lobbying/pressure/industry groups
Influence of other industry associations (notably SIBA)
Major
Economic
Home economy situation
Economy remains relatively stable
Minor
Home economy trends
Economy is expected to grow slowly
Minor
Seasonality/weather issues
Aerial photography flying season generally limited to Sept-April. Near the extents
of this range long shadows within photographs and poor light can cause issues.
LiDAR and other ‘imagery’ types are less affected by this, although winter
weather conditions can affect flying conditions,
Major
NZ is often ‘the land of the long white cloud’- in comparison with other countries
NZ is often cloudy, with some regions such as Fiordland being particularly prone.
Clouds can delay imagery acquisition. Other climatic conditions may also impair
acquisition or flying
Major
Lying snow and leaf cover can obscure geographic features, however sometimes
considerations such as the extent of lying snow may be a feature of interest
Minor
Specific industry factors
There are high ‘barriers to entry’ for new satellite or aerial photography suppliers
(cost of satellites/planes/cameras and expertise to operate them). UAV enabled
with sensors are making some changes to this at the lower end of the market.
Major
There are few suppliers of aerial photography in NZ
Major
There are no satellite imagery suppliers based in NZ (satellite imagery is all
‘imported’)
Minor
An important aspect of imagery is ‘swath’- the coverage area that imagery covers
Major
An important aspect of imagery is ‘spatial resolution’- the detail that can be
‘zoomed into’ and the size objects that can be discerned within the image.
Factors that affect this are mainly flying height and the quality of the
Major
36
UK Government ICT Strategy March 201136
“Government sourcing of ICT has often failed to deliver economies of scale and the most cost-effective use of taxpayers’
money. The Government will therefore aim to become a single and effective ICT customer which will leverage its considerable
buying power to drive down the operating cost of its ICT.” http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/ukgovernment-government-ict-strategy_0.pdf
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
74
camera/sensor used
An important aspect of imagery is ‘date of image acquisition’ (a.k.a. date flown).
This is particularly important to relate to changes that have occurred ‘on the
ground’.
Major
Figure 2 Christchurch's Cathedral Square, before and after the Feb 22
earthquake (Source: Land Information NZ, Crown Copyright Reserved)
Imagery data often consumes a very large amount of data capacity and therefore
has been historically difficult to store, transfer and for computer systems to
display rapidly.
Major
An important aspect of imagery is ‘spectral resolution’ or ‘type’- generally ‘visible
spectrum’ (i.e. natural colour), however other types such as infra-red, multispectrum, monochromatic/black and white are common. LIDAR data is often
associated with imagery (and can be used to generate views that resemble a
photograph) but uses a different approach to gather laser responses indicating
the position and elevation of objects and their ‘return strength’. A similar
approach is used with RADAR sensors.
Minor
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
75
Figure 3- LIDAR Image
37
Figure 4 High resolution airborne synthetic aperture
radar image of the Pentagon. (credit: Sandia
38
National Laboratory)
Market routes and distribution trends
Computing capacity, power and network speeds have been improving rapidly
meaning that using imagery has been easier
Major
Techniques to display imagery digitally have advanced- the main techniques
being ‘caching’ of imagery and conversion of imagery data from raw imagery files
to compressed formats.
Major
‘Web Services’ that allow one system to publish data on the internet in such a
way that other systems can read and use it are a recent technological advance.
Web Services can be established that provide easy access to imagery for other
systems - only reading the areas that a user requests. This negates the
complications of needing ‘local copies’ of imagery data and the issues of data
storage space and repeated imagery processing.
Innovations in other areas of technology are making imagery more widely
available (for example available via mobile devices).
Customer/end-user drivers
There are numerous uses for imagery across many industries, and these uses
have been expanding
Major
The aerial imagery perspective ‘from above’ is becoming more widely understood
by non-expert users. This is increasingly used in the news media and
advertising, and through common internet mapping applications.
Intermediate
Demand for imagery has increased in recent years, as evidenced by this
statement from Queensland’s Department of Natural Resources and Water:
37
Source http://dominoc925.blogspot.co.nz/2010/03/create-lidar-intensity-geotiff-images.html
38
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/790/1
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
76
“Annual expenditure on imagery acquisition in Queensland has increased from
39
an estimated $1.8 million in 2002–03 to $4.0 million in 2005–06”
Exchange rates
Satellite Imagery is generally sourced from the United States (and generally paid
for in US dollars)
Minor
Technological
Competing technology development
The availability and quality of satellite imagery continues to improve rapidly. For
resolutions that have previously been captured using aerial photography satellite
imagery is now available.
Major
The quality of aerial photography continues to improve meaning that higher
resolution photography can be captured from higher altitudes.
Major
UAVs make aerial imagery cheaper, can fly in poor weather conditions and are
quickly deployable. But they are unable to cover large areas, which makes them
unsuitable for many local or central government purposes.
Minor
Associated/dependent technologies
The rate of increase in computing power is a rapid exponential pattern (Moore’s
Law). Dealing with imagery requires significant computing power- therefore this
principle is relevant.
Major
Environmental
Environmental issues
Imagery is a useful tool in determining land use
Major
Imagery is a useful tool for conducting ‘change analysis’ of land use and other
analysis relevant to environmental purposes.
Major
Global factors
Imagery is a useful tool to support or report on ‘Multilateral Environmental
Agreements’ that New Zealand has with other countries.
Major
Defence and Civil Defence
During the recent earthquakes in Christchurch and flooding in
Nelson/Marlborough as well as recent disasters in Japan and Haiti imagery has
been extensively utilized to assist with rescue and recovery efforts. It may be
important to ensure that there is national capability to respond to these
situations. There is a similar but perhaps less likely/critical consideration for an
independent capability to support defence.
Major
39
https://datasmart.oesr.qld.gov.au/Events/datasmart.nsf/0/F5F5F4D29F935B034A2578A30006389D/$FILE/imageryacquisition
evaluation.pdf?openelement
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
77
11
Appendix D: Summary of existing coordination
arrangements
The five most appropriate examples of existing coordination arrangements arising from the
assessment in Section 5 of this report are summarised below.
11.1
Cooperative Panel for Optical, Geospatial, Radar and Elevation Supplies and Services
(OGRE)
Jurisdiction Australia
Administered by Geoscience Australia (GA)
Website www.ga.gov.au/earth-observation/ogre.html
General The OGRE was set up to improve the efficiency of commercial imagery procurement,
especially satellite imagery, and to encourage coordination and cooperation within Australian
Government. The first procurements were successfully completed through the OGRE in October
2010.
Participation Initial participation was for Federal Government Financial Management Act (FMA)
agencies, with the potential to reach all levels of government in Australia. Major government
stakeholders can provide input to the OGRE processes through representation on the OGRE
Advisory Committee. All stakeholders, including suppliers, have opportunities to communicate needs
and other developments at the annual GA coordinated OGRE Stakeholder Engagement Day.
Procurement process Procurements are made via the formal Requests for Quotations (RFQ) process
under the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines, including (a) value for money (ability to meet
specifications of coverage and timeframes, competitiveness of price, ability to share the data, and
past performance of the supplier), (b) encouraging competition, (c) efficient, effective and ethical use
of resources, and (d) accountability and transparency. Quotes are assessed by the OGRE Team and
recommendations made to the purchasing partners. Costs are shared amongst purchasing partners
and they make the final decision on which procurement/s to pursue.
Licensing An all-of-government licence or Creative Commons 3.0 ‘Attribution’, wherever possible.
Data storage & access A federated approach to the management of imagery through a managed
archive of Earth Observation data set. Research initiatives are supported through the re-use of data,
which is openly accessible. Minimum national standards apply to the data acquired, increasing the
accessibility and adaptability of imagery nationally across all levels of government.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
78
11.2
Coordinated Imagery Program (CIP)
Jurisdiction State of Victoria, Australia
Administered by Department of Sustainability and Environment (DSE)
Website www.dse.vic.gov.au/property-titles-and-maps/maps-imagery-and-data/imagery/coordinatedimagery-program
General The CIP was set up to coordinate policy, practice and specifications for imagery
procurement, adopt a ‘user driven’ approach to imagery and elevation acquisition, and manage
efficient central storage and retrieval of imagery for purchase partners of spatial imagery and
elevation products. The associated services provided by and through the CIP include data capture,
data processing, data management, data delivery (through an image web server), contract
management, expert advice, consultation with Departments, and coordination of purchasing on behalf
of the purchase partners.
Participation The CIP’s purchase partners are predominantly Local and State Government bodies and
some nongovernment organisations. A State Purchase Contract (SPC) with all Victorian government
departments has been introduced for the acquisition of spatial imagery and elevation products. There
is a panel of suppliers of spatial imagery and elevation products and services under a standing offer
agreement
Procurement process Purchase partners and users of products place their requirements for imagery
and elevation products with the CIP Team. The CIP will coordinate requests from each of the
purchase partners to create the strategic plan for spatial imagery capture. Total acquisition is based
upon the total funds contributed by the purchase partners. A shared cost model applies, based on
agreed specifications negotiated amongst purchase partners. Projects are managed by the CIP
Team, and products are checked to conform to the CIP metadata and quality requirements.
Licensing Intellectual Property (IP) from any procurements resides with the State, allowing shared
access across participating organisations (this gives DSE use of the IP allowing it to own, sell, license
or bequeath the IP). By DSE owning full IP rights it can licence organisations wishing to use or sell the
data, or to become Data Service Providers (DSPs) or Value Added Resellers (VARs). As the CIP is
not a revenue raising initiative, provision is made for purchase partners to be licensed under terms
that ensure generous use provisions to meet their business requirements, including provision of
products to contractors or consultants; on-selling or sub-licensing and publishing; over the counter
map sales; provision of a pdf to local residents of participating Purchase Partner Councils; and for
display on a Council’s web page (so long as no other product can be produced by the image).
However, this does not include the commercialisation of the data, as it should not be used for profit.
There are two types of license internal use only (non-commercial) and commercial use involving onselling licensed data or information, or using licensed data in a commercial product (this may involve
the return of royalties to the custodian).
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
79
Data storage & access All acquired images are stored on the CIP’s Image Web Server (IWS), a
central archive of imagery that can be used to provide online access to purchase partners and other
users. The CIP allows designated users to access existing imagery stored on the Image Web Server
(IWS) through the Program or via Data Service Providers (DSPs), Value Added Resellers (VARs) or
DSE/SII Direct (CD ROM or DVD).
11.3
Imagery Acquisition Partnerships (IAP)
Jurisdiction Ontario, Canada
Administered by Land Information Ontario
Website www.mnr.gov.on.ca/en/Business/LIO/2ColumnSubPage/STEL02_167963.html
General The LIO coordinates a wide range partnerships to share the costs of acquiring imagery
(satellite imagery, orthophotography, false colour composition, elevation derivative, land cover
classifications) within the same geographic area. Costs are shared amongst purchasing partners. The
LIO stores and distributes data, develops data standards and requirements, and oversees quality
assurance and quality control testing (either a Federal or Provincial data standard is adhered to).
Participation Over 300 member organisations from both the public and private sectors.
Procurement process Purchase partners place their requirements for imagery and elevation products
with the LIO and partnerships are coordinated. A shared cost model applies, based on agreed
specifications negotiated amongst purchase partners. Organisations generally pay around only 15%
of the project costs within their area of interest because the larger geographic sizes of each project
result in lower implementation costs and longer flight lines. An Imagery Strategy is being developed to
define imagery update schedules on a rotating basis around the province (4 or 5 year cycle), allowing
partners to plan budgets around update cycles and take advantage of the partnership model to
conduct their own projects in "off-years" if required.
Licensing Partner organisations only, usually with unrestricted access and use of all products
generated.
Data storage & access The LIO stores and distributes imagery as it is processed. Storage needs are
substantial, with 3 Petabytes of new data anticipated between 2010 and 2012. Large volumes of data
cannot be transferred over the internet, leading to complexities of delivering data to multiple
organisations
11.4
Imagery for the Nation (IFTN)
Jurisdiction United States of America
Administered by U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
80
Website www.fgdc.gov/iftn
General The IFTN Planning Team was chartered in 2008 to develop a program of aerial and satellite
procurement for government agencies at all levels with a mix of Federal funding and “buy-up” options
for participating agencies. In 2007, a Cost Benefit Analysis was undertaken to compare different
funding models. The IFTN program is still under development.
Participation On-going partnership between Federal, state, local and tribal governments.
Procurement process The intention of IFTN is to provide two programs (1) the existing National
Agricultural Imagery Program (NAIP) administered by the USDA, “high resolution” and (2) a
companion program administered by the USGS, “very high resolution”. The NAIP imagery would be
enhanced to provide one-meter resolution orthoimagery over all states except Hawaii and Alaska on a
regular cycle with full Federal funding and buy-up options for higher resolutions. The USGS program
would collect one-foot resolution imagery every three years for 50 percent of the U.S. land mass
(except Alaska, which would get one-foot resolution imagery only over densely populated areas). The
program would include an option for states to “buy up,” or enhance, any or all of the remaining 50
percent. The program would also provide 50 percent matching funds for partnerships to acquire sixinch resolution imagery over urban areas with at least 1,000 people per square mile as identified by
the U.S. Census Bureau.
Licensing Open-access licensing, with all data available in the public domain (with some exceptions).
Data storage & access A common portal to all data regardless of data location will be provided. IFTN
hosting and archiving will be based on existing infrastructure with the very high resolution component
hosted by USGS EROS and the high resolution component hosted by the USDA Aerial Photography
Field Office. Data will be available for public access at no charge with 24/7 availability
11.5
KiwImage
Jurisdiction New Zealand
Administered by New Zealand Defence Force (NZDF)
Website http://kiwimage.govt.nz/
General The scope of KiwImage is to capture full coverage of New Zealand and Offshore Islands for
government access. When this is complete any additional funds will be used to update old, cloud
covered, or out of spec imagery. There also may be scope to capture the SW Pacific Islands and
Ross Dependency. The KiwImage project started in 2007/08 and under the current Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) it will finish in 2012. The project is club-funded, therefore imagery can only be
purchased with funds that are contributed by the project members. The fee structure is based so that
any agency joining after year 1, will pay the same total amount as if they had joined in year 1. The
membership fees are paid annually to the NZDF, and are based on a tier level structure. The earliest
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
81
imagery is from 2005, and no imagery older than 18 months at date of delivery is added. Imagery is
purchased all-of-government licence, resulting in cost saving, especially for agencies that could
normally not justify the cost of purchasing imagery individually at commercial rates.
Participation KiwImage is available to all Government Agencies, Territorial & Regional Authorities,
State Owned Enterprises (SOE), Emergency Services, Crown Research Institutes, and Universities.
To access KiwImage products, organisations must sign a MOU with the NZDF.
Procurement process Tier 1 members set the priority sheets for the project. The KiwImage
Governance Board (KIGB) is made up from various agencies including NZDF, NZ Fire Service, Land
Information NZ, & Wellington City Council. The KIGB meet approximately every 3-4 months, and
provide direction for the project. The imagery is captured by DigitalGlobe using the Quickbird II
satellite and supplied to the NZDF from SKM in Melbourne. Other sources of imagery come from local
government. Existing high resolution imagery can be added to the KiwImage data set from project
members, which will then become available to all of the KiwImage project members. Three products
are available bundle (spatially corrected), pan-sharpened, and basic (raw imagery, no correction
applied).
Licensing All-of-government license. Members can print images or provide derivative products from
the data and sell these at any size or shape, but cannot on sell or pass on the digital data. Data may
be exchanged between agencies that have signed the MOU. Members can make imagery available to
the public via their website in the form of one screen view of the data at time at full resolution, which
may be downloaded as a single screen grab at full screen resolution.
Data storage & access NZDF is the custodian of the imagery, administering the project, hosting and
disseminating the data to project members and providing quality assurance. The initial scope of the
KiwImage Governance Board was to host the imagery on a web server using the State Services
Commission GSN. However after a tender process of solutions for the web service it was decided to
focus on the purchase of imagery, and look at a web service in the future if the funding is available.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012
82
Copyright© BERL
BERL project reference #5170
All work is done, and services rendered at the request of, and for the purposes of the client only.
Neither BERL nor any of its employees accepts any responsibility on any grounds whatsoever,
including negligence, to any other person.
While every effort is made by BERL to ensure that the information, opinions and forecasts provided to
the client are accurate and reliable, BERL shall not be liable for any adverse consequences of the
client’s decisions made in reliance of any report provided by BERL, nor shall BERL be held to have
given or implied any warranty as to whether any report provided by BERL will assist in the
performance of the client’s functions.
All-of-government I-SEC
LINZ
April 2012