The implementation of Geographic information systems has implications for every man, woman, child, dog and cat in Britain. This was the essence of the message delivered by world expert David Rhind, at a McDonnell Douglas-sponsored press briefing held at London’s Claridges Hotel last week. Initially, uncertainty was the only visible reaction: most members of the assembled crowd had little or no concept of the technology that was apparently poised to change their lives. Help Fortunately help was at hand: for behind the personal awareness scenes, geographic information systems have evidently generated a good deal of institutional and corporate activity. In 1987, the UK Government set up a committee, headed by Lord Chorley, to examine the handling of geographic information. In the course of a year, the committee was able to formulate a working – if convoluted – definition which states that a geographic information system is used for capturing, storing, checking, integrating, manipulating and displaying data which are spatially referenced to the Earth. Further clarification can be gleaned from the appended revelation that this is normally considered to involve a spatially-referenced computer database and appropriate applications software. Put simply then, a geographic information system integrates a database with a tool kit, for the storage and manipulation of diverse sets of geographical data. In the US, research into the area began in 1975 at the Computer Graphics Laboratory of Harvard University, with the introduction of the first commercial system, Arc/Info, some seven years later by the Californian-based ESRI. In the UK, where initial demand for the systems came from the public utilities in the early 1980s, clear technological players have now emerged. IBM and ICL have the lion’s share of the market, with companies like Intergraph, Synercom, McDonnell Douglas and Honeywell Bull busily developing software for consumption in both home and export markets. To date, most of the geographic systems-based work carried out in the UK has been confined to the digitising of Ordnance Survey maps. Large public utililties, notably British Gas and British Telecom, have implemented digitised map-based systems in an attempt to gain accurate, speedy and up-to-the minute answers to all those What is at…, Where is the following true and What’s changed since…-style questions.
Local authorities – by far the largest anticipated user segment have also linked map-based systems to individual data sources for the development of planning, building control and land charge applications. South Oxfordshire District Council, one of the first local authorities to invest in a McDonnell Douglas developed map-based system, has made substantial savings on staff costs and office space, eliminated the duplication of paper and linen maps, and now describes itself as a fully fledged mapping skills centre. As demand and implementation continue to grow however, ethical and human skill type problems are beginning to surface. On the one hand, the efficient exploitation of the systems is being hampered by a distinct shortage of suitably trained staff, compounded by the current unavailability on the market of any system with inbuilt intelligence. David Rhind joined manufacturers to warn against the volumes of misleading data which can be generated by end users who fail to understand the power of the tool, and stressed that, by the same token, a system’s potential could only be fully tapped by fully qualified professionals. Formal attempts to address the problem include the creation in 1987 by the Economic and Social Research Coucil of Regional Research Laboratories to train staff, undertake collaborative projects, hold and distribute data and carry out research work. Ethical questions, however, are the greatest potential headache. Rhind’s message is aimed less at the technology – to a large degree established and available – than the nature of geographcal data. Although postal addresses, post codes, national grid references and the myriad data cont
ained on maps comprises the obvious examples of the material currently contained in geographic system databases, any data described by its position in space could, he argued, be a potential target for integration, manipulation and subsequent classification. Existing data protection legislation is now felt by many, he added, to be entirely inadequate for protecting individual’s households against the worst excesses of the informa-tion technology revolution: a situation that will be exacerbated as local authorities come under increasing pressure to maximise technology facilities for commercial purposes. Controversy Rhind pointed to the the controversy which currently surrounds strategic planning in the South-East of England to illustrate his example. Whilst not denying the importance of the role played by geographic systems in rational regional planning, abuse of the data by unscrupulous landowners and speculators seeking a competitive edge could, he argued, prove socially disastrous. Equally irritating – if less serious in the long-term – could be the highly detailed scrutiny and subsequent infiltration of households by advertisers and insurance companies, and a stage could even be reached where geographic systems could ly furbish the means to influence public taste and attitudes and exercise social control. Short-term, two faint glimmers of hope for those concerned about the Civil Liberties implications are visible on the horizon: local authority associations recently opted to establish a group dedicated to a scrutiny of geographic information system issues, while a similar body, the Association for Geographic Information, was formed earlier this year. The task confronting them now is to steer through a suitable series of legislative measures to ensure that geographic information technology is used by properly-trained personnel efficiently, profitably and for reputable and respectable ends.
