Infrastructure Engineering - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6
-
ItemThe role of institutional mechanisms in spatial data infrastructure development that supports decision-making(Australian Institute of Cartographers, 2002-01-01)Improved economic, social and environmental decision-making are principal objectives for investing in the development of Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) at all political and administrative levels. Indeed, Resolution 7 of the recent 5th Global Spatial Data Infrastructure (GSDI) conference in Cartagena, Colombia (GSDI, 2001) argued that the purpose of the GSDI is to improve the availability, accessibility, and applicability of spatial information for decision-making. While accepting the development of institutional mechanisms to support decision-making by promoting the availability and accessibility of spatial information as part of SDI institutional frameworks, many institutional mechanisms fall short of addressing the application of spatial data to decision-making. From an institutional perspective, the motivation for SDI implementation is the impracticality of a single organisation producing and maintaining the wide variety of data and models needed to inform many decisions, resulting in a need for sharing of data and a range of analytical and display tools. This is being seen particularly in the natural resource, environment and government sectors in Australia. These sectors are utilising institutional mechanisms to support spatial decision-making processes in a number of different ways including the development of community resource centres, departmental development of decision support tools, as well as the development of atlases, spatial data directories and on-line land information services. In Australia these institutional mechanisms are playing a crucial role in providing the building blocks for the institutional framework of SDIs and address different levels of the decision-making process. This paper looks at how availability and accessibility of spatial data are being achieved by reviewing examples from each of the institutional mechanisms mentioned. The variety of decision-making levels supported by these different initiatives is reviewed in terms of decision process theory. The paper concludes with a discussion of the implications of the approaches to developing institutional support for decision-making as part of SDI development, as well as a consideration of directions for SDI development in the future to support spatial decision-making processes.
-
ItemDirections for the Future of SDI Development( 2002)Understanding the role of Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) is important to acceptance of the concept and its alignment with spatial industry objectives. Much has been done to describe and understand the components and interactions of different aspects of SDIs and their integration into the transactions of the spatial data community. However, what fails to be received through these perceptions, is that the role SDI plays is by necessity greater than the sum of individual components of SDI and stakeholder groups.SDI is fundamentally about facilitation and coordination of the exchange and sharing of spatial data between stakeholders in the spatial data community. To this end, the authors propose that the roles of SDI have been pursued through different approaches: product-based and process-based. Both approaches have value, but contribute to the evolution, uptake and utilisation of the SDI concept in different ways. They provide different frameworks for dealing with SDI mandates for the objectives of spatial data access and sharing. This paper reviews the nature and concept of SDI, including the components, which have helped to build understanding about the importance of an infrastructure to support the interactions of the spatial data community. Several examples of how SDIs have been described are offered to aid understanding of their complexity. The need for descriptions to represent the conflict between the role and deliverables of an SDI and thus contribute to a simpler, but dynamic, understanding of the complexity of the SDI concept, are postulated. The transition between the understanding of SDIs from product-based to process-based approaches is investigated, with a review of the positions taken by current SDI initiatives throughout the world. A model of how these approaches provide a framework to meet the mandates of the relevant jurisdictions is proposed, and factors contributing to the success of such positions in the future are discussed.
-
ItemFundamental partnerships driving Spatial Data Infrastructure development within Australia( 2002)Recent models of Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDIs) are overly simplistic and fail to address the dynamic nature, complexity, inter- and intra-jurisdictional nature and important role of partnerships. There is a need by governments and administrators to better understand the complex nature of SDIs to facilitate implementation of this form of infrastructure in an information society. This paper aims to build upon current SDI research at local, state and regional levels to better understand the complex and multi-dimensional nature at a national level, while building onthe principles of Hierarchical Spatial Reasoning (HSR) theory. To date little work has been undertaken on mapping these partnerships particularly at the national level within a country that is a federation of states. This paper will introduce the notion that better understanding of the partnerships that support SDI will enable administrators of spatial information to implement this type of infrastructure into the future. The paper will also highlight new research being conducted by the Centre for Spatial Data Infrastructures and Land Administration at the University of Melbourne on the Australian SDI (ASDI) and the aims to develop a methodology to map the complex nature of national SDI (NSDI).
-
ItemThe cultural aspects of sharing and dynamic partnerships within an SDI hierarchy(Informa UK Limited, 2002-01-01)
-
ItemSDI development to support spatial decision-making( 2002)Improved economic, social and environmental decision-making are principal objectives for investing in the development of spatial data infrastructure (SDI) at all political and administrative levels. So much so, resolution 7 of the recent 5th Global Spatial Data Infrastructure (GSDI) conference in Cartagena, Colombia argued that the purpose of the GSDI is to improve the availability, accessibility, and applicability of spatial information for decision-making (GSDI 2001). Developing institutional support for decision-making that promotes and incorporates the availability and accessibility of spatial information therefore plays an important role in SDI implementation. From an institutional perspective the motivation for SDI implementation is driven by the impracticality of a single organisation producing and maintaining the wide variety of data and models needed to inform many decisions, which results in increased sharing of data, information, analytical, display and modelling tools. This is being seen particularly in the natural resource, environment and local government sectors in Australia (Feeney et al. 2002). These sectors are utilising a variety of institutional mechanisms in their development of spatial decision support capabilities, which are moving progressively towards models that support the development and availability of interoperable digital geographic data and technologies to support spatial decision-making at different levels and participation. The inclusion of technology support as part of developing SDIs has been recognised as essential to meeting the needs of the multi-disciplinary and multi-participant environments that characterise decision-making for sustainable development (Agenda21 1993, GSDI 2001, Rio+10 2002). Unless a diversity of decision support mechanisms are going to be incorporated more into decision processes many relevant and useful spatial datasets and technologies are not going to be used to their potential to support sustainable development. Government has a central role to play in developing infrastructure that supports the discovery, access and applications of spatial information and technologies for such decision support. This paper looks at a variety of institutional mechanisms, for supporting the decision process, being employed in SDI development in the natural resource and environmental sectors in Australia. The decision-making levels supported by these different mechanisms will be reviewed in terms of organisational decision-making and decision process theories, as well as the level of coordination between institutional approaches at the spatial data policy level. The paper will conclude with a discussion of the implications of the approaches to developing institutional support for decision-making, as part of SDI development, as well as a consideration of directions for SDI development in the future to support spatial decision-making.
-
ItemThe Cultural Aspects of Sharing and Dynamic Partnershipswithin an SDI Hierarchy( 2002)The need to create multi-participant, decision-supported environments to address the issues of sustainable development and improving the quality of life creates a growing need to organise data across disciplines and organisations through different forms of spatial data infrastructure (SDI). This infrastructure is fundamentally a concept about facilitation and coordination of the exchange and sharing of spatial data between stakeholders from different jurisdictional levels in the spatial data community. The concept is well explained as an integrated, multi-levelled hierarchy of interconnected SDIs based on partnerships at corporate, local, state/provincial, national, regional (multi-national) and global (GSDI) levels. The creation of such an infrastructure and understanding the role of dynamic partnerships within an SDI hierarchy are essential to develop any SDI initiative. This paper reviews the nature and concept of SDIs, including the SDI hierarchy, which has helped to build understanding about the importance of the relationships within different levels of SDI, to support the interactions and dynamic nature of partnerships between spatial data communities. The role that human nature plays in any endeavour based on interaction and sharing makes cultural and social factors within a business environment important to the acceptance of the SDI concept and its alignment with spatial industry objectives. Further, the importance of establishing a culture for sharing as well as understanding the dynamic partnerships necessary to support such a culture is highlighted, and three classes of factors influencing SDI development are identified. It is argued that the adoption and implementation of these factors and selection of a proper model for SDI development can assist SDI coordinating agencies to overcome the problem of low participation and speed up the progress in the development of SDI initiatives.