Infrastructure Engineering - Research Publications
Permanent URI for this collection
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8
-
ItemThe dynamic nature of spatial data infrastructures: a method of descriptive classification( 2001)Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) is understood and described differently by stakeholders from different disciplines and different administrative/political levels. However, current SD Idefinitions are individually insufficient to describe the dynamic and multi-dimensional nature of SDI. Despite the international interest and activities toward SDI development, SDI remains very much an innovation even among practitioners. There are still doubts regarding the nature and identities of SDI, particularly in connection with how it evolves over time to meet user needs. Asa starting point a means to describe SDI’s multi-dimensional capacity as an inter- and intra- jurisdictional spatial information framework is required. The aim of this paper is to better understand and describe the nature of SDI and its components. A method to classify the perceived roles of SDI is identified. The method is extrapolated from a technique to describe different perspectives of Geographical Information System (GIS) diffusion, based on identified parallels between GIS and SDIs. The methodology may facilitate description and understanding of the SDI technological and user environment, by promoting insight into the dynamic roles of SDI.
-
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)
-
ItemAre SDIs serving the needs of local planning? case study of Victoria, Australia and Illinois, USA(Elsevier Ltd., 2004)National spatial data infrastructures (SDI) have been built throughout the 1990s in bothAustralia and the USA, conceptualized and initialized by the Australia New Zealand LandInformation Council (ANZLIC) and the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC),respectively. Numerous SDI-related activities at the national, state, and local levels in bothcountries share similar core objectives to stimulate coordinated collection, dissemination, anduse of spatial data by public and private entities. This coordination is to result in digitaldatabases that would be easily accessible and seamless across administrative and organizationalboundaries and that would contribute social, environmental, and economic benefits tothe involved communities. Improved information resources, at the local level in particular, areexpected to aid decision-making process and to enhance cooperation between government andnon-government sectors. This paper raises a question about the effectiveness of existing SDIdevelopments and about outcomes of the related interactions between the local, state, andnational levels. Case studies of local governments in Victoria, Australia and Illinois, USA areused to evaluate the utility of existing SDIs to local planning activities and to make suggestionsfor increasing their effectiveness.
-
ItemAre SDIs serving the needs of local planning?: case studies of Victoria, Australia and Illinois, USA( 2001)National spatial data infrastructures (SDI) have been initiated and built throughout 1990s in both Australia and the U.S., initiated and coordinated by the Australia New Zealand Land Information Council (ANZLIC) and the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), respectively. Numerous SDI-related activities at the national, state, and local level in both countries share similar core objectives, which are to stimulate coordinated collection, dissemination, and use of spatial data by public and private entities. This coordination is to result in digital databases that would be easily accessible and seamless across administrative and organizational boundaries and that would help secure social, environmental, and economic benefits to the involved communities. The improved information resources at the local level in particular are expected to contribute to sustainable urban development and to enhance the cooperation between government and nongovernment sectors. This paper raises the question about the actual effectiveness of the existing SDI developments and about the outcomes of the related interactions between the local, state, and national levels. Case study of local governments in Victoria, Australia and Illinois, U.S. are used to evaluate the utility of existing SDIs to local planning activities and to offer recommendations for increasing their effectiveness in supporting sustainable development.
-
ItemSpatial data infrastructure frameworks to support decision-making for sustainable development(Geography Institute of Colombia, 2001)
-
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.