Discussion #2876

Effectiveness KPI

Added by Christian Ansorge over 3 years ago. Updated over 3 years ago.

Status:New
Priority:Normal
Assignee:Vlado Cetl

Description

Dears,

I would like to start a discussion around the proposal Joeri made for a first draft indicator on Effectiveness of INSPIRE for the Environmental Policy lifecycle.

Joeri's draft indicator proposal

Part of the indicator screening will be the definition of a comprehensive set of KPI’s (Output, Outcome and Impact) and objectives that guide and monitor INSPIRE implementation.    

Example (for scene-setting purposes):
Objective: "Spatial data relevant to environmental reporting obligations is available"
Action plan: Develop a rolling list of priority data sets. Make available as-is by Q2/2017. Include EUR-Lex keyword in metadata. 
Possible key indicators to measure the performance of the action (KPI):   
Output indicator: Number/Percentage of data sets with Eur-Lex keyword 
Output indicator: Accessibility of spatial data to be reported under environmental reporting obligations for viewing (%)
Output indicator: Accessibility of spatial data to be reported under environmental reporting obligations for downloading (%)
Outcome indicator: Accessibility of spatial data to be reported under the AQD (%)
Outcome indicator: Availability of required spatial data for the integrated assessment of biodiversity and agricultural land use (%)
Impact indicator: Number of priority spatial datasets available in the European open data portal.

History

#1 Updated by Christian Ansorge over 3 years ago

I just would like to share some ideas and reflection regarding the KPI we aim to develop as first step under 2016.1

I added a bit details in comparison to the proposal I sent via email. The further discussion on the ideas should take place here. 

 

“Spatial data relevant to environmental reporting obligations is available”

You shared the first idea for a KPI which already triggers further ideas. Here we would have to take into account the actual representation of dataset relevant to the environmental reporting obligations in the countries as a standard to measure against. I am a bit afraid that this number  gets meaningless as it not is put in relation to the overall number of reported datasets. For example, a country without sea borders should have no national data on Marine environment and therefore those countries would always score lower, than other countries which have marine data.

Wouldn’t it be rather meaningful to have (maybe per environmental section or obligations) an indicator which gives us information that:

a) the reporting obligation is supported by MS datasets.

  • Definition: This indicator provides the percentage of MS's reporting obligations to which associated spatial data sets are available (metadata, dataset, service dimensions).

b1) by how many datasets from each MS the reporting obligation is supported (level 1 of the data pyramid).

  • Definition: This indicator provides the quantity of spatial datasets available which directly support reporting obligations in the MS (level 2 + 3 of the data pyramid). 

b2) by how many datasets from each MS are available which support the reporting process and are needed to implement the environmental legislation . 

  • Definition: This indicator provides the quantity of spatial datasets available which are needed to implement the environmental legislation on the national or local level and to generate the datasets requested as environmental reporting. 

c) to what degree are INSPIRE datasets directly/actively used in the environmental reporting (future eReporting concept).

  • Definition: This indicator provides the degree to which datasets and services provided under the INSPIRE obligations are directly used in the environmental reporting process. Future (from now) eReporting will take advantage of data available via INSPIRE and offer the possibility to include those in the reporting process. 

For me this would fit very well to the EFFECTIVENESS indicator from your Refit set. 

Just to kick of the discussion. Is that the direction we should further elaborate?

 

I added the figure of the data pyramid and priority setting 2020 for those who aren't familiar with it.

 

for those who aren't familiar with it.

 

 

#2 Updated by Christian Ansorge over 3 years ago

  • Assignee set to Vlado Cetl

I just would like to share some ideas and reflection regarding the KPI we aim to develop as first step under 2016.1

I added a bit details in comparison to the proposal I sent via email. The further discussion on the ideas should take place here. 

 

“Spatial data relevant to environmental reporting obligations is available”

You shared the first idea for a KPI which already triggers further ideas. Here we would have to take into account the actual representation of dataset relevant to the environmental reporting obligations in the countries as a standard to measure against. I am a bit afraid that this number  gets meaningless as it not is put in relation to the overall number of reported datasets. For example, a country without sea borders should have no national data on Marine environment and therefore those countries would always score lower, than other countries which have marine data.

Wouldn’t it be rather meaningful to have (maybe per environmental section or obligations) an indicator which gives us information that:

a) the reporting obligation is supported by MS datasets.

  • Definition: This indicator provides the percentage of MS's reporting obligations to which associated spatial data sets are available (metadata, dataset, service dimensions).

b1) by how many datasets from each MS the reporting obligation is supported (level 1 of the data pyramid).

  • Definition: This indicator provides the quantity of spatial datasets available which directly support reporting obligations in the MS (level 2 + 3 of the data pyramid). 

b2) by how many datasets from each MS are available which support the reporting process and are needed to implement the environmental legislation . 

  • Definition: This indicator provides the quantity of spatial datasets available which are needed to implement the environmental legislation on the national or local level and to generate the datasets requested as environmental reporting. 

c) to what degree are INSPIRE datasets directly/actively used in the environmental reporting (future eReporting concept).

  • Definition: This indicator provides the degree to which datasets and services provided under the INSPIRE obligations are directly used in the environmental reporting process. Future (from now) eReporting will take advantage of data available via INSPIRE and offer the possibility to include those in the reporting process. 

For me this would fit very well to the EFFECTIVENESS indicator from your Refit set. 

Just to kick of the discussion. Is that the direction we should further elaborate?

 

I added the figure of the data pyramid and priority setting 2020 for those who aren't familiar with it.

 

for those who aren't familiar with it.

 

 

Also available in: Atom PDF