GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November 2012. GEO Outreach to the Balkans - Results of the BalkanGEONet...

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November 2012.

GEO Outreach to the Balkans- Results of the BalkanGEONet project -

Vesna Crnojevic-BenginUNIVERSITY OF NOVI SAD, Serbia

GEO-IX, Foz de Igiuacu, November 2012.


Background

• GEO outreach to Balkans assessed based on the results of the ongoing FP7 BalkanGEONet project– „Balkan GEO Network – Towards Inclusion of Balkan

Countries into Global Earth Observation Initiatives“– ENV.2010.4.1.4-1: Identification and Networking of EO

activities in the Balkan area– 16 partners from all countries in the wider Balkan region– Expected impact: to contribute to building institutional

capacity to use EO and to establishing regional CB networks


Outline

• BalkanGEONet methodology for gap analysis• Results of the gap analysis used to evaluate the

impact of GEO to the region


B.GN Approach

• WP2 & WP3 provided a realistic picture of Balkan EO landscape

• WP4 – Gap analysis– BalkanGEONet

methodologydeveloped

278

235


B.GN Gap Analysis


Background

• Detailed analysis revealed that none of the existing methodologies fit our purpose:– GIGAS: many details needed on the limited number of

activities– Environmental Management Gap Analysis Tool from EEA:

too many details on the activities to be analysed need to be known

• Since the goal of B.GN is to work towards inclusion of the Balkan countries into GEO, it is important to structure the gap analysis done within B.GN along the lines of GEO actions.


B.GN Methodology

• Structured wrt. GEO Action 19.11, Task US-09-01a.

• Our goal: – To assess the potential available – To define the directions of future development

• Our approach: – Opportunity assessment: identifying where investments

would add value and leverage existing strengths– Structural gap analysis across geographic, observational

and domain variables– Carefull development of indicators


Indicators for General GA

Indicators Source

Number of Organizations involved with EO WP2 Survey

Number of Providers / Producers WP2 Survey

Number of Users WP2 Survey

Types of Organizations WP2 Survey

Problems regarding Exchange and Use of EO Data WP2 Survey

Assessment of Challenges and Obstacles WP2 Survey

Assessment of Importance of technical Challenges WP2 Survey

Assessment of Importance of global EO System WP2 Survey


Indicators for “Providers/Producers” Group

Indicators Source

Geographical Territory covered WP2 SurveyWillingness to Collaboration and Data Sharing WP2 SurveyWillingness to GEOSS Registration WP2 SurveyData Availability to others WP2 SurveyData Availability through Internet WP2 SurveyAvailability of Metadata WP2 SurveyAwareness of End-User Needs WP2 SurveyTime Duration to Requests for Data Needs WP2 SurveyRedundancies of EO Data / Applications WP2 SurveyCollaboration with other Providers / Producers WP2 SurveyNumber of EO Data Users related to Provider / Producer WP2 Survey

Compatibility of Data WP2 Survey


Indicators for “Users” Group

Indicators Source

Data Sharing Policy WP2 Survey

Standardization regarding EO Data WP2 Survey

Partnerships and Cooperation WP2 Survey

Use of Geo Portals WP2 Survey

Export of Products or Services WP2 Survey

Rating of ICT Equipment WP2 Survey

Increase of Investment into EO-related Activities WP2 Survey

Assessment of Services of EO Data Providers / Producers WP2 Survey

Numbers of Activities (Projects) WP3 Data Management

Information dissemination (web-based, languages,…) Internet research

Publications in selected international journals Internet/Literature review


Indicators for “Activities”Number of ongoing activities (projects) in 2009

Number of ongoing activities (projects) in 2010

Number of ongoing activities (projects) in 2011

Number of activities (projects) for environmental monitoring

Number of activities (projects) for civil security

Number of activities (projects) for political coordination

Number of activities (projects) for information spreading

Number of activities (projects) for the development of EO technology

Number of activities (projects) for other purposes

Number of Global/European activities (projects)

Number of Super-National activities (projects)

Number of National activities (projects)

Number of Regional activities (projects)


Integration of geographical aspects

Country/SBA Disasters Health Energy Climate Water Weather Ecosystems Agriculture Biodiversity

Albania

Bulgaria

BIH

Montenegro

FYROM

Croatia

Slovenia

Serbia

Romania

Greece

Non-GEO countries

GEO countries

All Balkan countries


Quantifying the Indicators

• The evaluation for each indicator has been calculated by averaging the survey inputs.

• E.g. if the average mark was 3 (60%), a score above 75% or 3.75 indicates high relevance of the issue for Balkan stakeholders while a score below 45% or 2.25 indicates low importance of the issue:

Score < 45%: low relevance of the respective issueScore 45%- 59%: moderate relevance of the respective issueScore 60% - 74%: considerable relevance of the respective issue Score 75% – 84%: high relevance of the respective issueScore ≥ 85%: very high relevance of the respective issue


B.GN Results

…selected to highlight the impact of GEO


Number of Stakeholders

Types of data Non-GEO countries

GEO countries

Remote sensing 67 110In-situ 46 63Other 56 79Unknown 7 13Total 176 265

• 50 % more stakeholders in GEO countries!• Similar difference exists for producers/providers and users


Type of EO Data

• GEO member countries:– Rely more on remote sensing and satellite data than on

in-situ and other types of data

• Non-GEO countries:– Rely more on in-situ data collection since it requires less

investment to deploy.


Stakeholders Across SBAa

• GEO outreach reflected through number of organisations


SBA Coverage Across Countries

• Membership to GEO significantly reflected

Country/SBA Disast. Health Ener. Clim. Wat. Weath. Ecosys. Agri. Biodiv.

NON-GEO countriesAlbania 10,6% 12,0% 10,2% 6,0% 14,7% 9,3% 11,0% 10,2% 8,2%

BIH 8,0% 6,5% 13,6% 6,0% 8,4% 9,3% 5,9% 9,1% 5,2%Bulgaria 10,6% 8,3% 4,5% 8,4% 7,4% 11,6% 11,9% 8,0% 9,3%FYROM 4,4% 1,9% 1,1% 1,2% 0,0% 2,3% 1,7% 2,3% 1,0%

Monteneg. 6,2% 12,0% 6,8% 8,4% 7,4% 2,3% 9,3% 8,0% 11,3%GEO countries

Croatia 7,1% 18,5% 10,2% 13,3% 15,8% 14,0% 15,3% 8,0% 14,4%Greece 5,3% 7,4% 5,7% 9,6% 4,2% 7,0% 8,5% 8,0% 5,2%

Romania 8,0% 3,7% 1,1% 7,2% 4,2% 2,3% 5,1% 2,3% 4,1%Serbia 11,5% 11,1% 15,9% 14,5% 12,6% 9,3% 10,2% 14,8% 17,5%

Slovenia 14,2% 11,1% 14,8% 13,3% 16,8% 20,9% 13,6% 17,0% 17,5%Turkey 14,2% 7,4% 15,9% 12,0% 8,4% 11,6% 7,6% 12,5% 6,2%


Type of Stakeholders

• GEO outreach mirrored onto type of organisations

GEO-countries Non-GEO countries

Comm.Gov.

Ac.Public

Sci.Other

NGOInt.

Gov.Comm.

Public

Ac. Sci.

NGOInt.Oth.


Does your organization provide and/or use EO data?

• Most EO players both provide and use EO data – Action needed!• Similar for GEO and non-GEO countries• Outliers: e.g. FYROM, Greece and Romania, where use of EO data

dominates over production.

Country/ answer

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 Total

Albania 4,8% 42,9% 23,8% 23,8% 0,0% 4,8% 100,0%

BIH 4,4% 47,8% 13,0% 0,0% 17,4% 17,4% 100,0%

Bulgaria 3,7% 59,3% 22,2% 3,7% 3,7% 7,4% 100,0%

FYROM 0,0% 38,5% 53,9% 7,7% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0%

Montenegro 0,0% 29,2% 41,7% 8,3% 16,7% 4,2% 100,0%

Croatia 13,3% 43,3% 30,0% 3,3% 6,7% 3,3% 100,0%

Greece 11,8% 23,5% 47,1% 11,8% 0,0% 5,9% 100,0%

Romania 10,5% 26,3% 63,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0%

Serbia 0,0% 44,1% 17,7% 17,7% 11,8% 8,8% 100,0%

Slovenia 2,6% 38,5% 46,2% 5,1% 5,1% 2,6% 100,0%

Turkey 0,0% 53,8% 3,8% 19,2% 11,5% 11,5% 100,0%

NON-GEO 2,8% 44,4% 28,7% 8,3% 8,3% 7,4% 100,0%

GEO 5,4% 40,0% 32,7% 9,7% 6,7% 5,4% 100,0% Wider Balkan Area

4,4% 42,5% 31,5% 9,2% 7,3% 6,2% 100,0%

A1 Yes, we only provide EO data A2 Yes, we both provide and use EO data A3 Yes, we only use EO data A4 No, but we would like to use EO data A5 No, but we would like to learn if EO data can be used to enhance our business A6 No


Does your organization provide and/or use EO data?

• Potential new users of EO data (answers A4 and A5): 16.5% !• Potential is similar for GEO and non-GEO countries• Some countries show remarkable ambition to use EO data:

Albania (23.8%), Montenegro (25.0%), Serbia (29.5%), Turkey (30.7%) !

Country/ answer

A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 Total

Albania 4,8% 42,9% 23,8% 23,8% 0,0% 4,8% 100,0%

BIH 4,4% 47,8% 13,0% 0,0% 17,4% 17,4% 100,0%

Bulgaria 3,7% 59,3% 22,2% 3,7% 3,7% 7,4% 100,0%

FYROM 0,0% 38,5% 53,9% 7,7% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0%

Montenegro 0,0% 29,2% 41,7% 8,3% 16,7% 4,2% 100,0%

Croatia 13,3% 43,3% 30,0% 3,3% 6,7% 3,3% 100,0%

Greece 11,8% 23,5% 47,1% 11,8% 0,0% 5,9% 100,0%

Romania 10,5% 26,3% 63,2% 0,0% 0,0% 0,0% 100,0%

Serbia 0,0% 44,1% 17,7% 17,7% 11,8% 8,8% 100,0%

Slovenia 2,6% 38,5% 46,2% 5,1% 5,1% 2,6% 100,0%

Turkey 0,0% 53,8% 3,8% 19,2% 11,5% 11,5% 100,0%

NON-GEO 2,8% 44,4% 28,7% 8,3% 8,3% 7,4% 100,0%

GEO 5,4% 40,0% 32,7% 9,7% 6,7% 5,4% 100,0% Wider Balkan Area

4,4% 42,5% 31,5% 9,2% 7,3% 6,2% 100,0%

A1 Yes, we only provide EO data A2 Yes, we both provide and use EO data A3 Yes, we only use EO data A4 No, but we would like to use EO data A5 No, but we would like to learn if EO data can be used to enhance our business A6 No


Scientific Activity

• Top 10 institutions per country• High-impact journals, 2006 - 2012

Country / Number of Org.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Albania Low Medium Low High Low Low Low Low Low Low

BIH Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Bulgaria High High Low Excellent Excellent Low Excellent High Low Low

FYROM Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Montenegro Medium Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

Croatia Excellent High High Low Low Low Excellent High Low Low

Greece Excellent High Excellent Low Low Low Low Medium Low Medium

Romania Low Low Low Excellent High Excellent Low Low High Low

Serbia Medium Low Low High Medium High Medium Low Low

Slovenia High Low Medium Medium Medium Medium Excellent Low Low High


Web-Based Disseminaiton

• Important indicator of the degree of international integration• Top 10 institutions per country

Country / Org. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Albania 2 3 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 3BIH 1 2 3 2 2 2 3 2 3 1

Bulgaria 1 2 1 1 1 2 1 1 2 1FYROM 3 3 1 2 2 0 3

Montenegro 3 1 2 2 2 2 3 2 3 3Croatia 2 1 3 1 3 1 2 2 2 2Greece 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 2

Romania 1 1 3 1 1 1 2 2 2 2Serbia 1 1 3 3 2 2 2 1 1

Slovenia 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 1

1fully available, local language + English

2available in local language, partialy in English

3 local language only

0 no web page


Conclusion

• Results clearly illustrate the impact of GEO to the countries in the wider Balkan region

• B.GN methodology is scalable and applicable to any other region

• It can be used to evaluate the level of current and importance of future GEO outreach, and to indicate directions where future efforts should be focused, e.g.:– Capacity building across various geographic, observational

and domain (SBA) categories– Outreach to contributors and users of GEOSS – Raising awarenes of decision- and policy-makers


Thank you!

more details can be found onwww.BalkanGEO.net

[email protected]

GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November 2012. GEO Outreach to the Balkans - Results of the BalkanGEONet...

Documents

Transcript of GEO-IX, Foz de Iguacu, November 2012. GEO Outreach to the Balkans - Results of the BalkanGEONet...