geographic issues study
DESCRIPTION
Geographic Issues Study . Jorge-A. Sanchez-P.& Nikos Vogiatzis for the EARNEST/GEANT2 Foresight Study http://www.terena.org/activities/earnest/geog.html Amsterdam, 8 May 2007. Presentation Topics. The DD in the REN context A Framework for measuring the DD in REN The RENDDI structure - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
Geographic Issues Study
Jorge-A. Sanchez-P.& Nikos Vogiatzisfor the EARNEST/GEANT2 Foresight Study
http://www.terena.org/activities/earnest/geog.html
Amsterdam, 8 May 2007
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
Presentation Topics
• The DD in the REN context• A Framework for measuring the DD in REN• The RENDDI structure• Key Findings and Future Work
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
GIS main Goal
…to come up with an enhanced, concrete and structured measuring approach that will lead to a
deeper understanding and addressing of the Digital Divide (DD) challenges in the Research & Education Networking context.
Quantify the Digital Divide / Opportunity
Quantify the need for improved network performance
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
Definition of the RENDD
“The uneven distribution, difference or gap in regular and effective access to and usage of
digital resources and technologies”… between scientists, researchers, students, etc* attached to research and education networks
… due to infrastructural, social, economic, educational, regulatory and other causes, including but not limited to, unavailability of, difficulty in accessing, unawareness of the availability and/or capabilities of, lack of understanding of how to access and/or use such digital resources and technologies.
* Conclusions should be able to be deducted for organizations, campuses, and geographic areas attached to research and education networks.
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
Why a solid and robust Framework?
Stakeholders need information, benchmarks and analysis to evaluate what has been achieved,
as well as what is achievable in the future in each member state and neighboring countries for appropriate policy interventions to take place.
“it is part of the vision of the European Research Area that researchers throughout Europe, irrespective of location, will be able to contribute fully to its high-quality research activities. This represents equality of opportunity for
researchers, and increasingly, advanced research networks such as GÉANT and the NRENs are playing a key role in achieving this.”
The SERENATE study
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
The International Experience
A composite index
8-48 Indicators convoluted
Clustered in 3-6 sub-indexes
Assess progress in creating digital opportunity and bridging the DD
Ability to participate in and benefit from ICT
developments
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
Digital Opportunity Index (2005)
(Source: ITU/UNCTDA/KADO)
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
Digital Access Index (2003)
(Source: ITU)
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
Networked Readiness Index (2007)
(Source: WEF/Insead)
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
The RENDDI Quantification
Framework– Covers a large number of countries – Modular structure
• can be grouped in logical classifications/clusters/categories/areas with special interest (e.g. enabling factors/opportunity, infrastructure, usage, etc)
– Straightforward methodology• Raw ingredients are separate indicators that can be measured relatively easily.• Can be convoluted into a single Index (RENDDI)
– Objective criteria and measurable indicators• Data collected via high-quality sources, e.g. the Compendium or other databases
from the ITU, WorldBank, EuroStat, etc, and processed via robust statistical methods.
– Standardized indicators• Allows for consistent and periodical measurements and assessments• Permits comparisons of the Digital Divide evolution (whether it is diminishing and
at what speed)—both changes in absolute scores, as well as changes in rankings.– Captures the causes as well as the effects of the Digital Divide
• exposing both the readiness as well as the intensity of use of digital resources and technologies
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
RENDDI Structure
Sub-IndexCluster Answers what?
Infrastructure
Usage
Affordability
Knowledge
Quality
Network capacity
Resources utilization
Financial capacity
General infrastructure landscape
Policy environment
Human capacity Human output
Network performance
How capable is my network?
How much my network is used?
Can I build a good network?
How robust is my network?
Can people build and use my network?
How to answer?
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
RENDDI StructureInfrastructure Sub-Index
Category Sub-category
Infrastructure
Sub-Index How to construct the Sub-Index?
Access network capacity
External connectivity capacity
Core network capacity
N e
t w
o r
k c
a p
a c
i t y
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
RENDDI StructureSub-Indexes
Category Sub-category
Infrastructure
Usage
Affordability
Knowledge
Quality
External connectivity capacityCore network capacity
Access network capacity
IP outgoing traffic IP incoming traffic
GDP Expenditure on education Expenditure on R&D
Literacy School enrolment Patents Researchers in R&D
Availability
NREN budget
Sub-Index How to construct the Sub-Indexes?
Internet tariff International Internet bandw. Internet users Broadband users
Regulatory situation
Unreachability Losses Jitter Throughput
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
RENDDI InputInfrastructure Index
(Source: TERENA compendium)
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
RENDDI StructureInfrastructure Index
Category Sub-category
Infrastructure
Core network size per user
Core network capacity per user
Sub-Index Sub-Sub-Index
External connectivity with peerings per user
Core network size per sq km
Access network capacity per user
External connectivity without peerings per user
N e
t w
o r
k c
a p
a c
i t y
The NREN potential users are 7.5% of the
population
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
RENDDI StructureInfrastructure Index (cont’d)
Category Sub-category
InfrastructureIndex
Core network size Index1
Core network capacity Index
Sub-Index Sub-Sub-Index
External connectivity with peerings Index
Core network size Index2
Access network capacity Index
NREN External
Connectivity Index
NREN Core Network
Connectivity Index
NREN Access Network
Connectivity Index
External connectivity without peerings Index67%
33%
30%10%60%
100%
33%
33%
33%
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
REN Infrastructure Index (2006)
Average kbps per NREN userNetherlands: (internat. connections) 84,18kbps (access network): 71,03kbpsIceland: (internat. connections) 59,18kbps (access network): 1.152,28kbpsSlovakia: (internat. connections) 78,45kbps (access network): 186,61kbpsRussia: (internat. connections) 0,27kbps (access network): 1,55kbps
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
RENDDI StructureUser-centric Sub-Indexes
Category Sub-category
InfrastructureIndex
UsageIndex
AffordabilityIndex
KnowledgeIndex
QualityIndex
Core network size per user
Core network capacity per user
IP outgoing traffic per user IP incoming traffic per user
GDP per capita Expenditure on education % of GDP Expenditure on R&D %
Adult Literacy School enrolment Patents per capita Researchers per capita
NREN budget %
Sub-Index Sub-Sub-Index
Internet tariff % International Internet bandw.per capita
Internet users per capita
Broadband users pc
Regulatory situation
External connectivity without peerings per user
External connectivity with peerings per user Core network size per sq km
Access network capacity per user50%
20%
10%
10%
10%AvailabilityUnreachability Losses Jitter Throughput
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
RENDDI (2006) - top 30
IcelandNetherlands
Sweden
SwedenSwedenGermanyFranceIsrael
Slovenia
Finland
Denmark
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
RENDDI (2006) - next 30
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
RENDDI (2006)
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
RENDDI vs other related Indices
RENDDI vs DAI
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00
100,00
0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00
RENDDI vs DOI
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00
100,00
0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00
IcelandNetherland
s
Sweden
NorwaySlovakia
DenmarkCzech
Hungary
Latvia
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
RENDDI vs …RENDDI vs GDP per capita
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00
100,00
0 10.000 20.000 30.000 40.000 50.000 60.000 70.000 80.000 RENDDI vs Population in Countries
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00
100,00
0 20.000.000 40.000.000 60.000.000 80.000.000 100.000.000
RENDDI vs Internet tarif f
0,00
10,00
20,00
30,00
40,00
50,00
60,00
70,00
80,00
90,00
100,00
0,00 10,00 20,00 30,00 40,00 50,00 60,00 70,00 80,00
Luxembourg
Latvia
Armenia
IcelandNetherland
s
RENDDI vs DOI and DAI
0,00
0,10
0,20
0,30
0,40
0,50
0,60
0,70
0,80
0,90
1,00
0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00
Digital Access Index
Digital Opportunity Index
Log. (Digital Opportunity Index)
Log. (Digital Access Index)
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
Other results…NREN Budget (as % of GDP)
00,020,040,060,080,1
0,120,140,160,180,2
Cro
atia
Slov
enia
Irela
ndPo
rtuga
lLu
xem
bour
gEs
toni
aSw
eden
Cyp
rus
Nor
way
Net
herla
nds
Gre
ece
Latv
iaIc
elan
dH
unga
rySw
itzer
land
Uni
ted
Kin
gdom
Finl
and
Mol
dova
Turk
eyC
zech
Rep
ublic
Serb
iaG
eorg
iaPo
land
Jord
anD
enm
ark
Mac
edon
ia, F
YRSl
ovak
iaBe
lgiu
mAl
geria
Lith
uani
aG
erm
any
Italy
Aust
riaFr
ance
Spai
nR
oman
iaIs
rael
Bulg
aria
Azer
baija
nBe
laru
sAl
bani
aKa
zakh
stan
Kyrg
yzst
anM
oroc
coSy
riaR
ussia
Uzb
ekis
tan
Ukr
aine
RENDDI vs GDP pc (NREN budget)
0
10.000
20.000
30.000
40.000
50.000
60.000
70.000
80.000
0,00 0,20 0,40 0,60 0,80 1,00
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
The RENDDI as a policy tool
• Ranking and comparing countries on the 5 main sub-indices, is probably more useful than on the main RENDDI
– The sub-indices can allow for specific policy recommendations and concrete action plans in order to address low-ranked attributes.
– A country’s overall RENDDI score can be used to benchmark the performance on the main sub-indices in order to produce a specific diagnosis on intra-indicators correlations and deviations.
• Time evolution (trend) of RENDDI and its sub-indices is significantly more meaningful than a static snapshot
– This requires dedicated resources, commitment, and consistency, in order to implement a data collection, validation, and analysis (both offline and online) process that caries over a long period of time (e.g. min 3-5 years)
• TERENA Compendium is widely accepted by the NREN community as a reference point of data gathering, however, a data validation mechanism is required in order to ensure data correctness as much as possible
– A data validation mechanism will also encourage cooperation and coordination among the NREN, Academia, Ministries, and other stakeholders in order to produce a cohesive national policy and consensus.
– The RENDDI offers up to a point that validation mechanism
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
The RENDDI as a policy tool
The RENDDI provide R&E policymakers a policy tool
– A comprehensive statistical framework to monitor the RENDD
– A frame of reference for comparisons over time and between regions
– A benchmark for monitoring internal disparities in REN Infrastructure, Usage, Affordability, Knowledge and Quality based on classificatory variables of interest to the R&E community
– A Tool to evaluate the impact of REN policies
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
Future Work • Further confirm the data in the databases and evaluate
further the convolution methods (sensitivity analysis, etc) -> Compare “Apples with Apples”
• Identify data for the Quality Index (pinger)• “Run” the Index again for 2007• Present the findings to the Stakeholders:
– The National Research and Education Networks– The management of research institutes, universities and other
organisations that could benefit from research and education networks
– Governments and research funding bodies for the development of future strategies
– The European Commission, which is sponsoring the study and values the Digital Divide issue high in its policy agenda
– The members of the European Parliament
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
Final outcome• REN-DD Policy Workshop & White Paper
– A declaration of solidarity for closing the REN-DD– To be endorsed and co-signed by
• EC• EP• NREN directors• National and EU Policy Makers • et al.
– Commit to a “REN-DD Action Plan: 2007-2013” based on GIS findings and recommendations.
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
Acknowledgements• TERENA
• EARNEST panel
• Geographic Issues Study Advisory Board
• Institute of Computer and Communications Systems
• Pinger
• ITU, WorldBank, WEF, OECD
Please send your comments to [email protected]
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
GIS Target AreasGN2
• Austria (ACOnet) • Belgium (BELNET) • Bulgaria (BREN) • Croatia (CARNet) • Cyprus (CYNET) • Czech Republic
(CESNET) • Denmark (UNI-C) • Estonia (EENet) • Finland (FUNET) • France (RENATER) • Germany (DFN) • Greece (GRNET) • Hungary (HUNGARNET)
• Iceland (RHnet) • Ireland (HEAnet) • Israel (IUCC) • Italy (GARR)
GN2 Observers & SEEREN
• Serbia (AMRES)• FYR of Macedonia
(MARNet)
SEEREN
• Albania (ANA)• Montenegro (MREN)• Bosnia & Herzegovina
(BIHARNET)
PORTA OPTICA
• Belarus (BASNET) • Moldova (RENAM) • Ukraine (URAN)• Azerbaijan (AzRENA) • Georgia (GRENA) • Armenia (ASNET)
• Latvia (LATNET) • Lithuania (LITNET) • Luxembourg (RESTENA)
• Malta (CSC) • Netherlands (SURFnet) • Norway (UNINETT) • Poland (PIONIER) • Portugal (FCCN) • Romania (RoEduNet) • Russia (RBNET/RUNNET)• Slovakia (SANET) • Slovenia (ARNES) • Spain (RedIRIS) • Sweden (SUNET) • Switzerland (SWITCH) • Turkey (ULAKBIM) • United Kingdom
(UKERNA)
EUMEDCONNECT
• Algeria (ARN) • Egypt (EUN) • Jordan (JUNET)• Lebanon (CNRS) • Libya• Morocco (CNCPSRT) • Palestine (PADI2)• Syria (HIAST) • Tunisia (MRST)
OCASSION• Kazakhstan (KazRENA) • Kyrgyzstan (KRENA-
AKNET) • Tajikistan• Turkmenistan• Uzbekistan (UzSciNet)
The EARNEST Foresight Study 2006 - 2007
Defining the Digital Divide
“The origins of the Digital Divide can be dated quite precisely to May 24, 1844, when the first electronic telegraph route was opened between Washington D.C. and Baltimore, and when Samuel Morse sent the historic first message “What hath God wrought?”
That first link privileged the two end-points of the circuit, but every other point on the globe suddenly found itself on the wrong side of a newly-opened Digital Divide.
However, by the time the original telegraph circuit was extended to reach Philadelphia and New York, the Digital Divide was already starting to be reduced.”