Are SDIs serving the needs of local planning? Case study of Victoria, Australia and Illinois, USA

Abstract

National spatial data infrastructures (SDI) have been built throughout the 1990s in both Australia and the USA, conceptualized and initialized 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 levels in both countries share similar core objectives 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 contribute social, environmental, and economic benefits to the involved communities. Improved information resources, at the local level in particular, are expected to aid decision-making process and to enhance cooperation between government and non-government sectors. This paper raises a question about the effectiveness of existing SDI developments and about outcomes of the related interactions between the local, state, and national levels. Case studies of local governments in Victoria, Australia and Illinois, USA are used to evaluate the utility of existing SDIs to local planning activities and to make suggestions for increasing their effectiveness.

Introduction

Advanced spatial information and visualization technologies, including geographic information systems (GIS), remote sensing (RS), global positioning systems (GPS), image processing, among others, have enhanced the methods and tools for collecting, disseminating, sharing, integrating, and using spatial information. Access to such information as a primary input to the planning and implementation of various projects, policies, and programs is the key prerequisite for its effective use. To address this need for easy access to accurate, consistent, and up-to-date spatial information, spatial data infrastructures (SDI) are created globally and by many countries, international regions, and localities (Rajabifard, Feeney, & Williamson, 2002). An SDI encompasses policies, fundamental data sets, technical standards, access network (technologies), and human resources (including users, providers, and value adding sectors) necessary for the effective collection, management, access, delivery, and utilization of spatial data at different political/administrative levels (Chan et al., 2001, Coleman & McLaughlin, 1998, McLaughlin & Nichols, 1992, Rajabifard et al., 2000). SDI developments range from local to state/provincial, national, and international regional levels, to a global level. The design and implementation of an SDI is not only a matter of technology but also one of designing institutions, the legislative and regulatory frameworks and acquiring new types of skills (Feeney & Williamson, 2000, Remkes, 2000). The ultimate objectives of these initiatives, as summarized by Masser (1998), are to promote economic development to stimulate better government, and to foster environmental sustainability. Ideally, an SDI should provide benefits to all parties. In particular, the needs of cooperating members must be met, with the additional provision for other non-participating members to join. As the membership grows the data pool widens to enable the realization of further benefits and economies of scale. While focus in the USA has been on general public access, local and regional SDIs are accomplished through geodata collaboratives (Johnson, Nedovic-Budic, & Covert, 2001). In Australia and the USA substantial SDI developments have been spearheaded throughout the 1990s by the Australia New Zealand Land Information Council (Australia New Zealand Land Information Council (ANZLIC), 1996, Australia New Zealand Land Information Council (ANZLIC), 1998, Australia New Zealand Land Information Council (ANZLIC), 2000, Australia New Zealand Land Information Council (ANZLIC), 2001) and the Federal Geographic Data Committee (Executive Order 12906, 1994, Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), 2001, GeoData Alliance, 2002), respectively.

In addition to access, horizontal and vertical integration, flexibility, suitability, and movement of spatial information resources are important for effective planning and policy-making. However, evidence about the benefits planners desire from SDIs and from GIS is similarly anecdotal (Nedovic-Budic, 1998). A few reports based on the Australian and the USA experiences provide a more systematic evaluation of the usefulness of SDIs to planning. Jacoby, Smith, Ting, and Williamson (2001), for example, identify positive planning-related benefits in administration, decision-making, operations management, and service delivery. Those benefits have been derived primarily through the collaboration of state and local governments in Victoria’s state SDI activities. In their summary of six community demonstration projects supported by the FGDC, Dresler and Woods (2000) point to advantages and shortcomings of the Federal SDI-related activities. Beside numerous positive developments, they report that “[i]nformation required to address very localized issues such as growth, flooding, and crime analysis often require higher resolution data than is presently collected by the Federal community” (p. 6). Additional evidence that counters an optimistic view about the benefits offered by SDIs suggests a possible mismatch and misunderstanding between SDI provisions at the higher levels (e.g. national or state) and their utility for local planning and decision-making.

A comparative study of planning data needs in relation to the provision of such data through SDIs may help us assess the benefits of SDI activities. We proceed with a more detailed examination of SDI interactions between the national, state, and local levels in Australia and the USA. Our study focuses on the state and local levels as the most formative and potentially influential link in enabling both horizontal and vertical coordination, connectivity, and integration of spatial data. In both countries there is a substantial variation in the approaches taken by different states. However, in both of them there are examples of state governments assuming a key role in building locally relevant SDIs and in initiating programs for enabling and coordinating developments at the local government level (Warnecke, 1995). Two states, namely Victoria in Australia and Illinois in the USA, are sampled for assessing the capacity of state and locally developed SDIs to satisfy data requirements posed by planning practice at the local level. Victoria and Illinois are selected for their similarities in land area, population, level of urbanization, role in the national agricultural production, and economic development based on industrial and commercial activities. Their differences in the approaches taken toward building the state and local SDIs and in interaction between various levels of government are explored as potential determinants of the utility planners may derive from SDI activities.

Sources of information for this study include available documentation about Australian and USA SDIs; general references about local planning context, methods, and data requirements; and field interviews with local community planners and other producers and users of spatial data for planning. We shall first discuss the role of information in supporting local planning functions. We shall then refer the readers to existing literature on SDI developments in Australia and the USA across the national, state, and local levels and focus on state-local relationship, in particular, to assess how existing SDIs satisfy planning information needs. We shall review and compare experiences of four local governments from the states of Victoria, Australia and Illinois, USA. In addition to considering SDI goals and local planning information needs, we shall also evaluate data products supplied at the national, state, and local level, or developed through cooperative initiatives and programs, against the criteria outlined later. The criteria are as follows: awareness of SDI efforts and products; data availability; data accessibility; relevance of data to local planning; flexibility/adaptability of data to planning applications; effect on decision making; and impact on local cooperation.

There is an increasing number of spatial data producers who provide substantial geographic databases and products. Means for disseminating information about these databases and products, however, are still scarce. Spatial data clearinghouses and organized SDI-related networks and communication channels are in the formative stages and not widely known or used by the majority of potential users of spatial data and products. Information such as data type (what), location (where), quality (accuracy, currency, completeness), and ownership (whose) can be obtained rather efficiently if the level of awareness among potential users is increased.

Spatial data depositories developed and managed by government agencies at all levels contain a varied but non-exhaustive set of spatial datasets. Data availability depends upon content and completeness of databases on variety of spatial themes.

Even if available, a spatial dataset may or may not be obtainable. Accessibility depends on various factors, including privacy, security, revenue expectations, power relationships, and enabling technologies.

Dataset contents are often driven by organizational or project mission and needs that may or may not correspond to the mission and needs of local planning practice. Consequently, only some (if any) of the data themes available and accessible through SDIs will be relevant to urban planning functions.

Planning applications require a variety of data that does not have to be very accurate and precise, but must have sufficient detail and attribution to allow for understanding of planning problems and for proposing actions, plans, and policies. To make data suitable for a specific application, planners often modify original data by aggregation/disaggregation, re-classification, merging, or other spatial data manipulation methods. The extent of data preparation for further use in analysis, modeling, and design of plans and policies, depends on resolution, scale, and the way attributes are encoded in the original dataset.

Integration of data from multiple sources is a standard practice in planning agencies. Socio-economic, environmental, infrastructural, property ownership, and other data are intersected to derive understanding of and implications of spatial phenomena and processes. Compatibility of software formats, scales, and spatial references are some of the factors that will facilitate integration of various data themes into a seamless database.

Ultimately, spatial information resources and outcome presentations created through their manipulation may affect the nature and quality of the planning process and decisions. The question asked in this research focuses on specific decision-making effects brought about by the use of datasets acquired through the SDIs.

One of the main expected by-products of development and use of SDIs is the improvement in cooperation between governmental agencies and other organizations and interest groups involved in regional and local economies and communities. We explore if such cooperation has occurred.

Understanding the utility and impact of current SDIs will help guide strategies for future SDI developments and, consequently, promote more effective information support for urban planning and development. Our conclusions summarize the lessons learned so far, and offer suggestions relevant to further building of local and state SDIs.