A Review of SDI Literature: Searching for Signs of Inverse Infrastructures

Coetzee, Serena; Wolff-Piggott, Brendon

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-17738-0_9

Cited by 13 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The notion from Coetzee and Wolff-Piggott [12] that SDIs are not yet self-organising and are mainly top-down structured seems not to apply to these two cases. Stakeholders in both cases reorganised their governance from time to time, especially when challenges arose and frustration with the product or process reached a boiling point.…”

Section: Self-organisationsmentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Masser [19] distinguishes two groups in his description of the first SDI generation: 'those which are the result of a formal mandate from government and those which have largely grown out of existing geographical information coordination activities' (p. 75). Coetzee and Wolff-Piggott [12] find, based on the SDI literature, that 'SDIs are evolving from top-down, centralized government funded initiatives into decentralized and bottom-up initiatives, but most SDIs are not yet self-organizing and user-driven systems' [12] (p. 124). Lance et al [33] conclude that in recent years more hierarchy has been introduced in the SDIs of Canada and the USA: 'Hierarchical controls may facilitate coordination to an extent that autonomy-seeking public managers need not automatically disparage such intervention; in fact, they may seek it' [33] (p. 265).…”

Section: Sdi Governance Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Stakeholders in both cases reorganised their governance from time to time, especially when challenges arose and frustration with the product or process reached a boiling point. However, Coetzee and Wolff-Piggott [12] also observe that 'the Dutch SDI development model is voluntary and its success lies in the strong self-organizing ability of the geospatial information community' (p. 124). Kok and Van Loenen [39] similarly stress the importance of self-organising abilities, characterising the Dutch community as 'active'.…”

Section: Self-organisationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evolving Spatial Data Infrastructures and the Role of Adaptive Governance

Sjoukema

Bregt

Crompvoets

2017

IJGI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Spatial data infrastructures (SDIs) are becoming more mature worldwide. However, despite this growing maturity, longitudinal research on the governance of SDIs is rare. The current research examines the governance history of two SDIs in The Netherlands and Flanders (Belgium). Both represent decades-long undertakings to create a large-scale base map. During these processes, SDI governance changed, often quite radically. We analyse written accounts from geo-information industry magazines to determine if the SDI governance of these two base maps can be considered adaptive. We conclude that SDI governance was adaptive, as it changed considerably during the evolution of the two SDIs. However, we also find that most governance models did not hold up very long, as they were either not meeting their goals, were not satisfying all stakeholders or were not in alignment with new visions and ideas. In recent years, the policy instruments governing these base maps became increasingly diverse. In particular, more hierarchical instruments were introduced. Indeed, governance scholars increasingly agree that governance can better respond to changes when a broader mix of policy instruments is applied. Alas, this does not make SDI governance any less complex.

show abstract

Section: Self-organisationsmentioning

confidence: 94%

Section: Sdi Governance Dynamicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Self-organisationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evolving Spatial Data Infrastructures and the Role of Adaptive Governance

Sjoukema

Bregt

Crompvoets

2017

IJGI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…SDI assessments have also been done according to geographic areas. Others according to SDI domain, for example, coastal zone, wetlands, disaster management (Coetzee and Wolff-Piggott, 2015;Idrees, 2015;Okuku et al, 2014;Makanga & Smit, 2010;Harvey et al, 2012;Mansourian et al, 2006;Georgiadou et al, 2005;Rajabifard, 2003;Mapping Science Committee, 1993).…”

Section: Sdi Assessment Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating a public sector organisation for SDI Readiness – The case of a South African government department

Hlela¹,

Coetzee²,

Cooper³

2016

SA J of Geomatics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this study, stakeholders are identified in the legislation. Authors have noted the importance of local governments for national SDIs (Rajabifard et al, 2006), but research on how local SDIs can and should contribute to national SDIs is limited (Van Loenen, 2006;Vancauwenberghe et al 2010;Hećimovic et al, 2014;Coetzee and Wolff-Piggott, 2015). In related work, the balance between local and national stakeholder influences in the Dutch address register were reviewed (Coetzee et al (2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Changing stakeholder influences in managing authoritative information – the case of the Centraal ReferentieAdressenBestand (CRAB) in Flanders

Coetzee

Vanlishout

Buyle

et al. 2019

Journal of Spatial Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Changing stakeholder influences in managing authoritative information -The case of the Centraal ReferentieAdressenBestand (CRAB) in FlandersMunicipalities are typically responsible for maintaining address data. Building and maintaining regional or national datasets from local sources requires careful coordination among stakeholders. The Centraal ReferentieadressenBestand (CRAB) is a digital authoritative address dataset, also referred to as a register, for the Flemish Region in Belgium. We present an analysis of the influence of CRAB stakeholders before and after the merger between the agencies responsible for geospatial information and e-government respectively. Tensions between stakeholders who create and maintain address data locally and those with an interest in the data for a larger area are discussed, and how these changed after the merger.

show abstract

A Review of SDI Literature: Searching for Signs of Inverse Infrastructures

Cited by 13 publications

References 21 publications

Evolving Spatial Data Infrastructures and the Role of Adaptive Governance

Evolving Spatial Data Infrastructures and the Role of Adaptive Governance

Evaluating a public sector organisation for SDI Readiness – The case of a South African government department

Changing stakeholder influences in managing authoritative information – the case of the Centraal ReferentieAdressenBestand (CRAB) in Flanders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About