Enhancing NASA's Contributions to Polar Science: A Review of Polar Geophysical Data Sets (2001)
Chapter: Appendix B: Data Sets Survey
Page 111
APPENDIX B
Data Sets Survey
RESPONSES TO THE COMMITTEE'S SURVEY
To gather input from the polar science community, the committee developed a questionnaire1 on the strengths and weaknesses in the current data system (the questionnaire follows at the end of this appendix). Scientists were asked to characterize their research in terms of scientific and regional foci. This was followed by a list of polar geophysical data sets from NASA and non-NASA sources that respondents could mark if they used them in their research. The final four questions dealt with satisfaction issues.
The committee received 109 responses from a variety of university, governmental, and private industry institutions. Foreign respondents numbered 22. The number of scientists who identified their research focus as exclusively Arctic was 48, exclusively Antarctic 20, and global 41. The latter category generally denoted those with both Arctic and Antarctic interests (there were few responses from those who study more temperate regions).
Although the survey provided six categories of research focus, a large number of respondents chose “other.” Many of these would have marked
1 Although the survey provided useful information, it should not be considered a statistically rigorous study. Its availability was widely announced, but participants were self-selected. The information was used in a general way to help the committee form its conclusions and recommendations.
Page 112
more than one research category, if that option had been allowed. Others were in categories that were not listed (e.g., hydrology). The committee's response was to create several new research focus categories that better reflect the disciplines of most respondents who marked “other.” Multiple choices were also allowed. The resulting breakdown of research foci in Table B-1.
“Sea ice or ocean” researchers were the most frequent respondents, more than double the next category. “Ice sheets or sea level” researchers were the second most frequent respondents. These category names are somewhat misleading, however, since very few oceanographers responded to this survey. This begs the question, “Where do high latitude oceanographers seek support?” The answer is in a variety of global and other programs. This may serve to enhance cross-latitude oceanography at NASA, but it also limits cross-disciplinary research in the polar community. An example of this situation is the lack of coherent surface-temperature data sets that include open water and other surfaces (i.e., ice, snow, land).
Table B-2 shows the breakdown of “types of research data sets used” by the survey respondents, broken down by whether they use only NASA data sets or some combination of data supplied by NASA and others. These two lists are fairly similar, perhaps showing that NASA is generally
|
Research Focus |
Number of Respondents |
|
Sea ice/ocean |
41 |
|
Ice sheets/sea level |
20 |
|
Terrestrial—physics, hydrology, and land-atmosphere linkages |
13 |
|
Terrestrial—biology and biogeochemistry |
9 |
|
Terrestrial—physical and biology |
4 |
|
Other |
6 |
|
Atmospheric circulation, planetary boundary layers, climate, and upper air studies |
3 |
|
Clouds/radiation |
3 |
|
Sea ice/oceans, atmospheric circulation etc. |
3 |
|
Sea ice/oceans and terrestrial—biology |
2 |
|
Glaciers |
2 |
|
Snow cover |
2 |
|
Sea ice/oceans and terrestrial—physics |
1 |
|
TOTAL |
109 |
Page 113
|
NASA and Non-NASA |
NASA Only |
||
|
Types of Data |
Number of Respondents |
Types of Data |
Number of Respondents |
|
Atmospheric |
185 |
Sea Ice |
81 |
|
Sea Ice |
131 |
Atmospheric |
51 |
|
Radiance and Backscatter |
82 |
Radiance and Backscatter |
37 |
|
Imagery (Visible and IR) |
78 |
Imagery (Visible and IR) |
24 |
|
Ice Sheet |
63 |
Vegetation |
15 |
|
Snow Cover |
56 |
Ocean |
16 |
|
Ocean |
48 |
Ice Sheet |
14 |
|
Vegetation |
38 |
Snow Cover |
13 |
|
Glaciers |
21 |
Glacier |
11 |
|
Hydrology |
18 |
Hydrology |
7 |
responding equitably to data needs by discipline, although there are some specific gaps and deficiencies to be discussed elsewhere in this report. Also note that the frequency of research foci ( Table B-1) is not in general the same as the frequency of data sets used ( Table B-2). For example, one of the most frequently used type of data is atmospheric, although relatively few respondents identified themselves as meteorologists. This shows how some types of data sets can easily cross disciplines. It may also identify the potential underuse of data, for example, by global-scale atmospheric scientist).
Turning to the final four questions, the respondents were generally positive about the current data system. The ASF and especially the NSIDC were complimented on the quality of their service. NSIDC was singled out for its simple, easy-to-use Web site, and for its willingness to provide data by Internet before a final CD was published.
About 25 percent of the respondents had negative comments. These fell into two broad categories: inadequate publication of available data sets and difficulty of access or use of data sets. Those who were simply unaware of existing data sets were more frequently (but not exclusively) new to the field or from more isolated institutional environments; however, even experienced researchers had problems. Some of these problems could be relieved by more extensive linking of data set Web sites. Several responses were from heavy users of the NSDIC and the ASF who did not know that these were DAACs. Perhaps the heavy reliance on acronyms and other NASA jargon can discourage and thus limit usage of data sets.
Page 114
In the survey responses, it appeared that a broad spectrum of users (including DAAC employees) experienced data access problems. Even experienced researchers noted some difficulty with the formatting of data. Insufficient documentation of individual data sets was also noted as a problem by some survey respondents, in regards to time and space resolution, data format, and sensor information. Similar concern was expressed about insufficient overview guidance for DAAC holdings, which is standard information that typically should appear on or near the main home page. Recommendations for NASA data set providers to help improve the utility of existing data sets are included in Chapter 5. Opportunities for improvement lie in the areas of links to other related data sites, outreach to more aggressively publicize activities and holdings, improvements in access through better documentation, and opportunities for community feedback and information exchange, such as via Web bulletin boards.
Page 115
QUESTIONNAIRE
Under the auspices of The National Academies' Polar Research Board and at the request of NASA, a committee is reviewing the strategy, scope, and quality of existing polar geophysical data-sets and suggesting ways to improve future products. The committee's charge and a list of its members can be seen here. As part of this effort, the committee is seeking input from scientists who use these types of data-sets, whether those produced by NASA or others with similar purposes. The committee will keep your comments confidential, so we appreciate your frankness in describing the strengths and weaknesses of current data-sets and dissemination strategies.
Name:
Affiliation:
Brief description of your research (1-2 Sentences):
-
Arctic
-
Antarctic
-
Global
-
Sea Ice/Oceans
-
Ice Sheets/Sea Level
-
Clouds/Radiation
-
Terrestrial—Biology and Biogeochemistry Related
-
Terrestrial—Physics and Land-Atmosphere Linkages
-
Other—please specify:
1. Which of the following scales best describes your research:
2. Which of the following areas best describes the focus of your research:
3. What NASA geophysical data-sets and products relevant to polar regions do you use in your research and for what purposes? What other geophysical data-sets (e.g., global, international, or other U.S. sources) do you use and for what purposes? Please mark the following checklist and note the specific products you use in the text boxes provided.
Page 116
Sea Ice
Concentration
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Ice Type
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Ice Motion
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Other
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Snow Cover
Areal Average
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Water Equivalent
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Albedo
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Other
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Page 117
Ice Sheet
Elevation (Altimeter data)
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Surface Meteorology
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Ice Core Data
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Other
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Glacier Data
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Atmospheric Data
Cloudiness
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Radiative Fluxes
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Surface Temperature
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Page 118
Precipitation
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Temperature Profiles
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Moisture Profiles
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Other
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Ocean Data
SST
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Color
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Other
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Hydrology
Streamflow/Runoff
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Page 119
Soil Moisture
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Vegetation Data
Vegetation Classification
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Indicies of Biomass
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Indicies of Absorbed Radiation
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Albedo
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Other
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Miscellaneous (other uses)
Microwave Radiances
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Radar Backscatter (SAR or Altimetry)
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
Page 120
Visible Satellite Imagery
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
IR Satellite Imagery
-
NASA
-
Other
What specific product?
4. If you are not using NASA data-sets or don't find these useful, please explain why:
5. If you do use NASA data-sets, how do you judge the quality of the data and the ease of access for obtaining the data? Please note any specific problems you've encountered or suggestions for improvements.
6. Is there a data-set you wish was available? If so, please describe briefly and why it would be useful to your work.
7. Do you now or have you in the past used a Distributed Active Archive Center (DAAC) to obtain data? If yes, please note whether request for and receipt of data was satisfactory or if you have suggestions for improvements. If not, why not?
