Transcript Heritage Targeting Dataset

SHINE
Selected Heritage Inventory for Natural England
Selected National Heritage Dataset
Enhancement Project
Recap - SNHD
•
•
•
•
•
SNHD – Selected National Heritage Dataset
Created in late 2004 in time for launch of ES
Data came primarily from the NMR
Ten HERs contributed data
Selection criteria for sites:
–
–
–
–
a list of Monument Types
must be substantive, verifiable and of known character
must be closely mapped
should be able to benefit from an ES option
• Intended to populate ES maps with HE features
Recap - ES
• Environmental Stewardship launched in 2005
• Divided into two tiers: Entry Level and Higher
Level Stewardship (ELS and HLS)
• ELS is open to all land owners – farmers chose
from a suite of environmentally beneficial land
management options
• Five HE options exist
• Uptake of these options is almost entirely
dependent upon data provision
• Approx. £3billion will be spent on ES by 2013
How is your data used?
• SNHD has been loaded onto NE’s IT system
• Populates the Environmental Information Map
received by ELS applicants from NE
• A short description of each site is included in an
accompanying document
• Farmers pick the option they would like to use
on a feature
• Cross-compliance regulations provide a baseline
level of protection, regardless of whether an
option has been used
What are the problems?
• Data coverage is very
patchy
• Only 10 HERs have had
the opportunity to
properly input into this
dataset
• Polygons are variable in
quality and accuracy
• Selection criteria may not
represent our priorities
Why do we need to improve it?
• ‘Hands-off’ scheme, but this doesn’t mean that it
won’t deliver for HE
• Unlike HLS, uptake of options for ELS is driven
by the data provided on application maps rather
than consultation with HERs
• ELS represents the majority of spend for ES
• By May 2007, the SNHD was generating
£2.2million pa on management of HE features
• We MUST be able to justify value for money
What’s in it for you?
• SHINE presents an opportunity:
– to replace the current dataset
– to help secure funding for the management of
important archaeological sites
– to feed into a process that is delivering real benefits
on the ground in your area
– to ensure that where public funds are spent, it
represents value for money
– to help ensure that ELS delivers as much as it can,
rather than relying on the limited funds of HLS
How did this project get started?
• Natural England has funded the first two stages
of a three stage project to create SHINE
• Project put out to tender; exeGesIS successful
• Stage 1 : assessment of the SNHD, assessment
of what HERs might be able to deliver,
presentation of options
• Stage 2 : creation of a detailed methodology and
recommended workflow that we hope will enable
HERs to more easily participate
• Stage 3 : data capture, delivery of SHINE
Analysis of old SNHD Methodology
• Compared SNHD data with submitted data and current
HER data from eight pilot HERs.
–
–
–
–
–
Data created using different methodologies.
Inconsistencies in data structure and content.
Records from NMR not present in HER data.
Inconsistent, haphazard post processing.
Problems with final data supply to Natural England.
• Conclusions
– ELS dataset cannot be created as queried subset of monuments.
• No reliable selection method (monument type lists, evidence etc)
• Monument polygons rarely appropriate for ELS.
– Post-submission processing of the data should be minimised.
Towards a new methodology…
Questionnaire (48/51 replies): HER Systems
Do you have GIS integrated with your
HER?
3
6%
Which database system do you use to
manage your HER?
6
13%
21
44%
10
21%
0
0%
24
50%
32
66%
HBSMR
ArcGIS
Off-the-Shelf
MapInfo
In-House Access
Other
In-House Other
Questionnaire Results
Resources available for new SNHD
Resource estimates for 2008/9?
Annual resource estimates?
9
19%
13
27%
1
2%
9
19%
14
29%
0
0%
3
6%
22
46%
None
1-4 wks
5-8 wks
9-12 wks
Other
3
6%
22
46%
None
1-2 wks
3-4 wks
5-8 wks
Other
Questionnaire Results
Definition of sites to include for ELS
Is the ALGAO definition for candidate
sites to be included OK?
21
44%
27
56%
Sound
Problematic
Questionnaire Results
Central support
How useful would you find regular
visits from project staff?
1
2%
How useful would you find regional
seminars?
3
6%
5
10%
12
25%
22
46%
23
48%
Essential
30
63%
Essential
Useful
Useful
Not Useful
Not Useful
Did not answer
Questionnaire Conclusions
• HERs are positive about producing and maintaining a fitfor-purpose dataset for ELS.
BUT...
• HERs are concerned over quality/currency of existing
data.
• HERs have been concerned about lack of feedback and
perceived lack of outcomes from previous initiatives.
• Uncertainty whether HERs can commit sufficient
resources to create dataset.
SO…
• HERs want clear methodology, support and guidance.
• HERs need sensible timescales.
New SHINE methodology
• Simple clearly-defined dataset.
• Dataset created and maintained as a new GIS layer.
• No prescriptive methodology (eligible monument type list
etc)
• Recommended workflows provided, but can be tailored
(or ignored!). Start-up pack provided.
• Dataset supplied to SHINE coordinator at predetermined
intervals.
• Data merged and cleaned by coordinator using
automated toolkit for submission to Natural England.
• Clear mechanisms for progress review and feedback.
SHINE Data Standard
• Polygon Attribute Structure
– SHINEUID, a nationally unique identifier for each polygon. 2letter code for each HER + integer, e.g. DE457.
– Name, a descriptive name including the principle characteristics
(type, period and form) of the manageable site in non-technical
terms.
– Form, the predominant form, constrained to ‘Structure’,
‘Earthwork’, ‘Cropmark’ or ‘Sub surface deposit’ (EH thesaurus
definitions).
– Signif, the significance of the site, constrained to
High/Medium/Low (definitions to be confirmed).
– WebURL, optional URL to online record for main monument.
– LastEdit, the date and time of last data edit (ISO 8601 format).
All fields are mandatory except WebURL
SHINE Polygon Standards
Only one polygon per
SHINEUID
Polygons must not
be smaller than
400 square meters
(0.04 hectares)
in area


Polygons must
not overlap
Polygons created as
a buffer around a
point (such as a
barrow) must not
be less than 15
meters in radius


SHINE Polygon Standards
Polygons must have a minimum
internal dimension of no less than 10
meters


Polygons must
have no ‘spikes’


Polygons must not have
self-intersections


SHINE Polygon Standards
Polygons must not contain any holes

Polygons must be captured against a
base mapping at a
scale of 1:10000 or
larger, or against
suitable high
resolution, accurately
geo-referenced aerial
photography

The minimum gap between polygons
must be no less than 20 meters,
where polygons are less than 20
meters apart they should be merged
into a single polygon


SHINE Polygon Standards

Polygons created through heads-up
digitizing should be
captured at a scale
of no smaller than
1:5000
Where a polygon
contains or abuts
a SM polygon the
additional SHINE
polygon area must
meet all of the other
polygon standards
Where a polygon
contains or intersects
a SM polygon the
SM polygon should
NOT be ‘clipped’ from
SHINE polygon.
All records must have
a single closed
polygon



SHINE criteria
• 2004 definition felt to be workable, with minor
enhancement. In summary, a SHINE polygon must
include a monument or monuments that …
– Are substantive (surviving physical remains)
– Are verifiable (reliably observed & observable)
– Have known character (confidently classified with
thesaurus terms)
– Can be closely mapped (with a polygon meeting
above standards)
– Would benefit from ELS management
Suggested workflow
• Add a new “SHINE candidate status” to monument records, with
possible values: “Yes”, “Probable”, “Possible”, “Unlikely”, “No”.
• Automatically populate this with “Probable”, “Possible” or “Unlikely”,
based on existing data (including monument types, evidence,
SNHDv2, MPP, survival/significance data as available).
• “Manually” review “Probable” monuments, by parish or map sheet.
Where monument (or group of monuments) meets SHINE criteria,
create a SHINE polygon.
• Uncertain records must be omitted!
• Submit data to SHINE coordinator.
• Where time/resources permit, review “Possible” records as well.
• Maintain SHINE data – add/update polygons when new information
becomes available.
• Re-supply at agreed intervals.
SHINE resource estimates
Item
Time required
Preparation for start-up (incl.
candidate status)
1-6 days
Creation of basic SHINE
dataset
Creation of complete SHINE
dataset
7-11 days per 10K
monuments
25-35 days per 10K
monuments
Submission and review
0.5 day per submission
Maintenance (year 2 on)
1-4 days
SHINE coordinator toolkit
A simple set of tools for use by the SHINE facilitator.
1. Imports and checks new dataset from HER.
2. Reports on any problems found:
–
–
3.
4.
5.
Can fix polygons that are too small, but other problems cause
polygon to be dropped.
Opportunity for provider to review and fix problems and resupply.
Merges cleaned HER dataset into national SHINE
dataset.
Updates metadata tables automatically.
Exports SPIRE-compliant data and metadata to
Natural England.
Stage 3 – Data Capture
• We aim to have the first version of SHINE ready
to upload by March 2009
• Thereafter, we hope to be able to upload to NE
IT systems every six months
• We are optimistic that HEEP will fund a 1 year
facilitator post
• We hope work will begin in the first HERs by
September 2008
Stage 3 – Data Capture
• We hope that the facilitator post will:
– Enable start-up visits to be made to all HERs
– Enable a number of follow-up visits to HERs,
where needed
– Help to support the data capture process
– Manage the collation and amalgamation of
data from HERs into SHINE
– Manage the upload and update of SHINE to
NE’s IT system
Reminder – What’s in it for me?
• Initial outlay of time and effort is a significant
issue for HERs
• Resources such as the workflow will help
manage and prioritise the work, which can be
spread out over months
• Facilitator post will help to advise and liaise with
HERs, as well as manage the delivery of SHINE
• SHINE will help to enhance the core HER
dataset, and could be used for any number of
additional uses
Reminder – What’s in it for me?
££££££
• There’s a BIG funding stream out there – if
we can deliver this dataset we can tap into
that money, ensuring good management of
archaeological sites year after year