Nationalism, globalization, politics, and GIS
We have shown above how the USA and groupings of other nation states have attempted to enhance the quality, utility, accessibility, and awareness of geographic information – and its use. This has been carried out through institutional structures and ‘umbrella bodies’, holding together disparate partners. But much GI has hitherto been created to suit national needs (at best). Its wider use is constrained by its historical legacy and the need for continuity through time for comparative purposes. Other than that collected via satellite remote sensing, truly global coverage GI is currently little more (and sometimes less) than the sum of the national parts and is not always readily available. Yet the need for globally or regionally available, easily accessible, and consistent GI – especially the ‘geographic framework’ variety– is increasingly evident. Even though few people currently have management responsibilities which are global, the present shortcomings in global GI have severe consequences for many actual and potential users who operate beyond national frameworks.
The United Nations Regional Director of Development for the Pacific argued forcefully for the need for greater partnering and coordination of data collection and supply on a regional and global basis. He emphasized that development of such datasets is labor-intensive and costly and, although these datasets could support a wide variety of applications, generally no single use can justify the full cost of development.
Other than for imagery, global GI is currently little more than the sum of the highly varied national parts and detailed information is not readily available.