A multi-level perspective of a spatial data ecosystem: needs and challenges among urban planning stakeholders in New Zealand

Spatial data ecosystems are often complex, and stakeholders express difficulties in finding, accessing, using and sharing spatial information. Doing so can be essential for making good evidence-based decisions on urban development. New Zealand's urban planning spatial data ecosystem is no exception. This paper identifies and maps key stakeholders, their data needs and respective barriers to an improved use of spatial information. We apply a multi-level perspective approach to analysing challenges of a transition towards an improved spatial data ecosystem for urban decision-making. Based on expert interviews and the international literature, we provide recommendations to improve the spatial data ecosystem and reduce barriers to making spatial data more available to support urban decisions. Our stakeholder-based analysis highlights the importance of intensive stakeholder engagement across the multiple levels of the spatial data ecosystem, fostering increased awareness and understanding of the value of fit-for-purpose spatial information for better planning outcomes. We argue for a coordinated, stakeholder-based mechanism addressing in particular cultural and governance local practices.

[1]  Dominique Peeters,et al.  Locating fire stations: An integrated approach for Belgium , 2012 .

[2]  A. Rajabifard,et al.  Future directions for SDI development , 2002 .

[3]  Bastiaan van Loenen,et al.  How to assess the success of National Spatial Data Infrastructures? , 2005, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[4]  Maurice Landry,et al.  A stakeholder approach to MCDA , 1998 .

[5]  P. Phillips,et al.  Hot property in New Zealand: Empirical evidence of housing bubbles in the metropolitan centres , 2015 .

[6]  Habtamu Sewnet Gelagay.  Geospatial Data Sharing Barriers among Organizations and the Possible Solution in Ethiopia , 2017, Int. J. Spatial Data Infrastructures Res..

[7]  Uta Wehn de Montalvo,et al.  Mapping the Determinants of Spatial Data Sharing , 2003 .

[8]  Pramod Kumar Singh.  Spatial Data Infrastructure in India: Status, Governance Challenges, and Strategies for Effective Functioning , 2009, Int. J. Spatial Data Infrastructures Res..

[9]  Pengfei Chen,et al.  A general framework for spatial data inspection and assessment , 2015, Earth Science Informatics.

[10]  Joep Crompvoets,et al.  Value of spatial data: networked performance beyond economic rhetoric , 2009, Int. J. Spatial Data Infrastructures Res..

[11]  Bojan Stopar,et al.  Spatio-temporal evaluation matrices for geospatial data , 2011, Int. J. Appl. Earth Obs. Geoinformation.

[12]  Felicia Olufunmilayo Akinyemi,et al.  An Assessment of the Current State of Spatial Data Sharing in Rwanda , 2011, Int. J. Spatial Data Infrastructures Res..

[13]  Carlos Henggeler Antunes,et al.  A GIS-based multicriteria spatial decision support system for planning urban infrastructures , 2011, Decis. Support Syst..

[14]  Robert Jeansoulin,et al.  Towards spatial data quality information analysis tools for experts assessing the fitness for use of spatial data , 2007, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[15]  F. Geels.  Processes and patterns in transitions and system innovations: Refining the co-evolutionary multi-level perspective , 2005 .

[16]  Paul A. Longley,et al.  The emergence of geoportals and their role in spatial data infrastructures , 2005, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[17]  Stephen Glackin,et al.  A software-aided workflow for precinct-scale residential redevelopment , 2016 .

[18]  Ian Masser,et al.  What's Special about SDI Related Research? , 2006, Int. J. Spatial Data Infrastructures Res..

[19]  Kirsi Virrantaus,et al.  Spatial Data Quality: Problems and Prospects , 2009 .

[20]  Andrew U. Frank,et al.  Procedure to Select the Best Dataset for a Task , 2004, GIScience.

[21]  L. Whitmarsh.  How useful is the Multi-Level Perspective for transport and sustainability research? , 2012 .

[22]  Liping Di,et al.  Building an Online Learning and Research Environment to Enhance Use of Geospatial Data , 2008, Int. J. Spatial Data Infrastructures Res..

[23]  F. Geels.  Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi-level perspective and a case-study , 2002 .

[24]  Emidia Vagnoni,et al.  A multi-level perspective analysis of urban mobility system dynamics: What are the future transition pathways? , 2018 .

[25]  Rob Raven,et al.  What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability , 2012 .

[26]  Suzana Dragicevic,et al.  iCity: A GIS-CA modelling tool for urban planning and decision making , 2007, Environ. Model. Softw..

[27]  Mahmoud Reza Delavar,et al.  Spatial Data Quality: From Process to Decisions , 2009 .

[28]  G. Heuvelink,et al.  Assessing and recording uncertainties about environmental data , 2004 .

[29]  Martin Raubal,et al.  Experiences with metadata , 1997 .

[30]  Sarah Elwood.  Grassroots groups as stakeholders in spatial data infrastructures: challenges and opportunities for local data development and sharing , 2008, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[31]  Hermann Klug,et al.  A Spatial Data Infrastructure Approach for the Characterization of New Zealand's Groundwater Systems , 2016, Trans. GIS.

[32]  Robert Jeansoulin,et al.  ONTOLOGICAL APPROACH OF THE FITNESS OF USE OF GEOSPATIAL DATASETS , 2004 .

[33]  Paul H. Whitfield,et al.  Why the Provenance of Data Matters: Assessing Fitness for Purpose for Environmental Data , 2012 .

[34]  J. Pinto,et al.  Organizational (soft) GIS interoperability: lessons from the U.S. , 2001 .

[35]  B. Klinkenberg.  The true cost of spatial data in Canada , 2003 .

[36]  Bertram C. Bruce,et al.  Reconceptualizing the role of the user of spatial data infrastructure , 2008 .

[37]  Dagmar Haase,et al.  Towards sustainable settlement growth: A new multi-criteria assessment for implementing environmental targets into strategic urban planning , 2012 .

[38]  Adrian Smith,et al.  Translating Sustainabilities between Green Niches and Socio-Technical Regimes , 2007, Technol. Anal. Strateg. Manag..