Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
Summary of National Dialogue Session With EPA-EU Ecoinformatics Technical Collaboration
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
April 8, 2008
As part of the National Dialogue on Access to Environmental Information, EPA engaged with international and domestic environmental information experts at a gathering of the European Union-Environmental Protection Agency (EU-EPA) Ecoinformatics Technical Collaboration group in April 2008. This is a summary of the findings discussed during the session.
This session provided EPA the opportunity to discuss the National Dialogue with a unique audience focused on international issues, data standards, and environmental indicators. The discussion was focused on eliciting comparative case studies, best practices, and information needs of international, national, and federal environmental agencies. From the session, it was clear that all participants face the same challenges with providing data access, but each organization has a different balance depending on their audience, purpose, and context.
Comments on EPA Website
-
For topics like recreational water quality, EPA’s website and other U.S. sites effectively present information at the state and local levels, but there’s no way to roll this up to the national level.
-
In the U.S., there’s no single, intuitive place to go to get environmental information from government (e.g., EPA, USGS, etc.), and data are presented in an overly complicated way.
-
Some EPA databases (such as STORET) present a mix of authoritative information and more anecdotal data. Although both are important and should be accessible, there should be a way to assess, distinguish, and present each type of information.
-
AirNow presents an extremely useful, straightforward tool that is picked up by a variety of groups. The challenge is to apply this approach to different topics, and to present AirNow information in diverse forms for different audiences.
How Their Agencies Prioritize Access
-
There is a need to recognize a distinction between serving policy objectives and serving citizens. Some data are relevant specifically to citizens, such as flood vulnerability information, information based on life changes (e.g., having a baby, buying a house), or general topics. A related distinction exists between serving researchers and serving policymakers.
-
Need to determine the government’s niche in environmental communication (and the niche of each level of government). Because Europeans typically go to NGO sites for such information, the government needs to feed NGOs with the information they need.
-
If other levels of government more effectively provide neighborhood-level information, larger agencies should support and link to these efforts and minimize duplication.
-
Communications (access) must be designed around audiences, and business must be designed around communications.
-
Governments tend to see and present information to serve “science” rather than “the public.” The public needs a clear structure and synthesis of complicated data, and this structure is dependent on the audience. Environment Canada has found that the public is only interested in a few discrete categories of environmental information (air, water, biodiversity, and climate).
-
Three main types of Web information exist: text, statistics, and imagery. Although access to all three types is important, the tools to effectively present them do not yet exist.
Current Challenges
-
It’s difficult to search once and find what you’re looking for. Often, you need to look at multiple sites, which sometimes reflect an obscure internal organizational structure.
-
Making a website an “authoritative source” for information is a policy decision, but also involves effective branding and “look-and-feel.” You need to identify if and how to brand QA activities at other levels of government (e.g., states) as part of your brand.
-
“Authoritative source” can be defined in different ways, particularly depending on each country or agency’s context and target groups.
-
EEA has seen instances where its data were borrowed and cited, but were then altered after the fact. With indicators, there are many issues at play, including different terminologies, indicator presentations, source databases, and preferred algorithms.
-
It may be prudent to present a broad disclaimer if data are coming from a wide variety of sources, such as the EEA’s: http://www.eea.europa.eu/legal/disclaimer
-
Governments are inherently wary of releasing raw data – they prefer reports, which have a clear publication date and review trail. Different levels of government may be more or less willing to let their data out for specific purposes. Governments also fear that if raw data are released, others will present interpretation of that data before they do.
-
It’s important to separate the story from the information. At the local level, the data themselves tell the story. But at the macro level, a story is often needed for data interpretation.
-
It’s impossible to control how data will be interpreted on different websites, or how data will be blended to reach a certain interpretation. The government should ensure that it presents its own conclusions and methodology while allowing others to use a different approach.
-
The government should develop a better understanding of the complex chain between the government’s provision of data and their use and presentation by the public, NGOs, etc.
-
Providing access to raw data allows wider distribution at more appropriate local levels, but the design of the interface (e.g., mapping capabilities) eventually determines how people use the information.
-
Despite these challenges, it’s a disservice to withhold data. One Canadian province has a two-week service standard for collecting and releasing water quality data. This has already led to concrete examples of improved decision-making and public access, which has helped demonstrate the value of the monitoring program.
Web 2.0: Experiences and Challenges
-
Sites featuring syndication (e.g., RSS) help demonstrate that a site is being regularly updated, which government isn’t typically good at. But this should be easy – it helps governments demonstrate responsiveness.
-
Web 2.0 technologies are presenting “huge nervousness.” In Canada, one agency is using it internally, and they’re waiting to complete a model on how to deliver information.
-
European Environmental Agency (EEA) has had a previous public chat during a meeting, which was successful. To pull this off, managers need to be well-prepared and committed. They also need to recognize that not all public comments can be answered [quickly], especially if irrelevant or politically loaded.
-
EEA has launched a portal including a blog and survey tools, and is also managing a consultation on how to design its next “state of the environment” report.
-
Governments need to distinguish between outreach to friendly and hostile communities. Some sites will need intense management. Removing these sites from the “.gov” environment can help reduce hostility.
-
Web 2.0 requires governments to adapt their typical information-delivery approach of either saying nothing or saying something that’s “cast-iron” (e.g., has been exhaustively reviewed).
-
Many “mash-up” technologies make data sources less prominent, such as seeing a “pretty map” on Google and Virtual Earth. The tools are extremely useful, but this aspect is problematic.
-
At the same time, we need to further develop and maintain “classical” data and GIS services.
-
It’s difficult to establish an “A-through-D” rating system for indicators because no one will rate their own data “D.” Instead, providing accurate, comprehensive metadata may be all you can and should do to give people the context for making their own conclusions.
-
To manage this, it’s possible to create a tiered Web approach. EEA provides three different sites, each with a separate “look and feel.” The public site presents the most authoritative information, an intermediate site presents information for EEA and its “network,” and a password-protected “informal” page presents more free-form information for EEA only, which encourages experimentation and dialogue.
-
Anecdotal information has always existed, but Web 2.0 provides a new forum for dissemination. This means that government needs to develop an approach for how to treat anecdotal information.
-
These changing ways of presenting information are exciting. The challenge is to determine how users can find government information as effectively as those using Amazon or Facebook. Another challenge is to ensure that information can help agencies establish their objectives even before the implementation of formal policies.
General Advice and Best Practices
-
Environment Canada’s principle is that you shouldn’t need to know an organization’s organizational structure to search or navigate its website.
-
The Web isn’t always necessarily the only way to provide access to the general public – specialized, knowledgeable individuals can already find the information they need.
-
Presenting information for policymakers is a key challenge (e.g., environmental indicators), and it’s more of an art than a science.
-
Looking beyond the environmental realm may provide useful examples. The economic statistics realm, for example, may present best practices for standardizing and coordinating diverse types of information.
Participants from:
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, U.S. Department of Energy
Environment Canada
Joint Research Centre (European Commission)
European Environment Agency
United Nations Environment Programme
US EPA Office of Environmental Information.