The Governance Landscape of Geospatial E-Services—The Belgian Case

Abstract

Geospatial data and geospatial e-services require governance and coordination between different governmental organisations.This article aims to understand what governance, and specifically what coordination, is used in Belgium for geospatial e-services and data. The Belgian case, with a focus on the regions and federal administration, is researched by making use of a document analysis, interviews with key stakeholders and an online survey. In contrast to the federal and Walloon administration, the Flemish administration and the Brussels Capital Region administration have a clearly developed governance model. Flanders combines hierarchy with network governance, whereas the Brussels administration is known for its hierarchical way of working. The transposition of the INSPIRE Directive had a strong influence: The Brussels Capital Region became more network-oriented, and the Walloon Region developed a form of network governance. The federal level, however, struggles to make the connection between geospatial data and e-services. From an inter-organisational perspective, the coordination can be labelled as a weak form of network governance: Cooperation exists, but only in a few areas. Nevertheless, geospatial data are exchanged within and between regions and the federal level. Geospatial e-services are also developed but there is a clear influence of the degree of organisational coordination on the development of geospatial e-services.

Assessing the Governance Context Support for Creating a Pluvial Flood Risk Map with Climate Change Scenarios: The Flemish Subnational Case

“…For each cell, we analyzed first the individual answer and then, we compared it with the rest of the stakeholders' answers to reach a general conclusion. Secondary sources, such as previous research on the topic [7,28] as well as European [79] and legal documents [80], were used to confirm or complement the information gathered during the interviews. The results are considered reliable, since the interviewees reported in similar and complementary ways.…”

“…Previous research has characterized Belgium from a governance perspective as an interesting case of study that has a dual federal structure composed of the federal state and three subnational regions (Brussels capital, Flemish region, and Walloon region) [28]. The regional governments are currently in charge of territorial policies, including urban development, environmental policy [28], and flood protection. Under the regional government, there are 10 provinces (also a subnational government) and 589 communities [28].…”

“…The regional governments are currently in charge of territorial policies, including urban development, environmental policy [28], and flood protection. Under the regional government, there are 10 provinces (also a subnational government) and 589 communities [28]. In terms of flood risk maps, Belgium has designated seven units of management and each unit has a Flood Risk Management Plan [79].…”

“…However, GD establishment, sustainable usage, and maintenance face numerous governance challenges. GD itself is becoming key for modern governance as it requires guaranteed access to data by various stakeholders, which has resulted in the creation of GD services with structures that govern data sharing and coordination [28]. Therefore, GD is no longer seen as a technological activity only.…”

Geo-Information Tools, Governance, and Wicked Policy Problems

“…They argue that adaptive governance with a broader mix of individualist, hierarchist, or egalitarian policy instruments can better respond to changes. Chantillon et al [45] focus empirically on Belgium to understand what kinds of social coordination (market, hierarchist, and network) are used for geospatial e-services and data in various regions. They show that Flanders combines hierarchy with network (egalitarian) governance, whereas the Brussels administration prefers a hierarchist way of working.…”