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

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.

[1]  Cathy Macharis,et al.  A stakeholder-based assessment framework applied to evaluate development scenarios for the spatial data infrastructure for Flanders , 2014, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[2]  Anders Henten,et al.  E-Services: Characteristics, Scope and Conceptual Strengths , 2009, Int. J. E Serv. Mob. Appl..

[3]  Koen Verhoest,et al.  Resources, Mechanisms and Instruments for Coordination , 2010 .

[4]  Amrit Tiwana,et al.  E-services: problems, opportunities, and digital platforms , 2001, Proceedings of the 34th Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

[5]  Ada Scupola.  E-Services : Definition , Characteristics , and Taxonomy , .

[6]  M. Pitman.  Qualitative Research Design: An Interactive Approach , 1998 .

[7]  K. Narasimhan.  Services Marketing: People, Technology, Strategy , 2004 .

[8]  Idit Keidar,et al.  Introduction , 2019, Concurrency: the Works of Leslie Lamport.

[9]  K. Schmidt.  Conceptual Framework for , 2002 .

[10]  I. Masser.  Building European Spatial Data Infrastructures , 2007 .

[11]  Per Lægreid,et al.  Governance And Administrative Reforms , 2012 .

[12]  Steven De Haes,et al.  COBIT 5 and Enterprise Governance of Information Technology: Building Blocks and Research Opportunities , 2013, J. Inf. Syst..

[13]  Patricia Popelier,et al.  Stabiliteit en instabiliteit in de Belgische federale staatsstructuur , 2012 .

[14]  Charles F. Hofacker,et al.  E-Services: A Synthesis and Research Agenda , 2007 .

[15]  Ida Lindgren,et al.  Electronic services in the public sector: A conceptual framework , 2013, Gov. Inf. Q..

[16]  Lakshmi S. Iyer,et al.  E-government Maturity over 10 Years: A Comparative Analysis of E-government Maturity in Select Countries Around the World , 2010 .

[17]  Javier Nogueras-Iso,et al.  Spatial Data Infrastructures for environmental e-government services: The case of water abstractions authorisations , 2013, Environ. Model. Softw..

[18]  John F. Affisco,et al.  E-government: a strategic operations management framework for service delivery , 2006, Bus. Process. Manag. J..