Future Applications of GIS: Depth vs Breadth - The case of the Land Use Profiler

As society becomes increasingly spatially enabled, Geographical Information Systems (GIS) will evolve, and geographical information will be embedded in most information applications and services that society uses. This trend presents many opportunities and challenges. It means GIS technologies will facilitate ¿more¿ by becoming `less`. As the general use of GIS increases, the visible appearance of GIS decreases, as it becomes an integrated part of organisational and societal information systems. The trend is for GIS to move from a multi-use tool for project and departmental systems, to specific product systems for multiple users, multiple applications and multiple purposes. These new systems are not all technically GIS, but are systems with embedded geographic knowledge, and the data and tools to capitalise upon the capabilities and to facilitate distribution. The Land Use Profiler (LUP) system is an easy to use spatial analysis tool developed by the Department of Infrastructure in Victoria. It constitutes an illustration of these trends in GIS. Developed to locate areas of land best suited to particular land-use purposes, the LUP is a tool being piloted to facilitate preliminary investment decisions. The LUP adopts user-friendly interfaces, easy-to-assemble query structures and GIS embedding to facilitate broad-spectrum inquiries across a number of datasets using a `what-if-analysis`. The use and implementation of such a tool raises interesting issues about the transparency of spatial information processing. It reinforces the developmental trends of GIS and provides an indication where these trends may lead

Future Applications of GIS: Depth vs Breadth - The case of the Land Use Profiler

As society becomes increasingly spatially enabled, Geographical Information Systems (GIS) will evolve, and geographical information will be embedded in most information applications and services that society uses. This trend presents many opportunities and challenges. It means GIS technologies will facilitate ¿more¿ by becoming `less`. As the general use of GIS increases, the visible appearance of GIS decreases, as it becomes an integrated part of organisational and societal information systems. The trend is for GIS to move from a multi-use tool for project and departmental systems, to specific product systems for multiple users, multiple applications and multiple purposes. These new systems are not all technically GIS, but are systems with embedded geographic knowledge, and the data and tools to capitalise upon the capabilities and to facilitate distribution. The Land Use Profiler (LUP) system is an easy to use spatial analysis tool developed by the Department of Infrastructure in Victoria. It constitutes an illustration of these trends in GIS. Developed to locate areas of land best suited to particular land-use purposes, the LUP is a tool being piloted to facilitate preliminary investment decisions. The LUP adopts user-friendly interfaces, easy-to-assemble query structures and GIS embedding to facilitate broad-spectrum inquiries across a number of datasets using a `what-if-analysis`. The use and implementation of such a tool raises interesting issues about the transparency of spatial information processing. It reinforces the developmental trends of GIS and provides an indication where these trends may lead

Researching Frameworks for evolving Spatial Data Infrastructure

Technology and infrastructure both play key roles in achieving the optimisation of spatial data to support decision-making, in the spatial data community. Many institutional and technical initiatives have arisen in response to the increase in quantity and improving quality of spatial data to help users to structure the influx

The Role Of Institutional Mechanisms In Spatial Data . . .

Improved economic, social and environmental decision--making are principal objectives for investing in the development of spatial data infrastructure (SDI) at all political and administrative levels. So much so, resolution 7 of the recent 5 Global Spatial Data Infrastructure (GSDI) conference in Cartagena, Colombia argued that the purpose of the GSDI is to improve the availability, accessibility, and applicability of spatial information for decision-making (GSDI 2001). While accepting the development of institutional mechanisms support decision-making by promoting the availability and accessibility of spatial information as part of SDI institutional frameworks, many institutional mechanisms fall short of addressing the applicability of spatial data to the decision environments. From a

Directions for the Future of SDI Development

This is a pre-print version published in International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation © 2002 Elsevier. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03032434. www.elsevier.comTitle of the published version is 'Future directions for SDI development'.Understanding the role of Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) is important to acceptance of the concept and its alignment with spatial industry objectives. Much has been done to describe and understand the components and interactions of different aspects of SDIs and their integration into the transactions of the spatial data community. However, what fails to be received through these perceptions, is that the role SDI plays is by necessity greater than the sum of individual components of SDI and stakeholder groups.SDI is fundamentally about facilitation and coordination of the exchange and sharing of spatial data between stakeholders in the spatial data community. To this end, the authors propose that the roles of SDI have been pursued through different approaches: product-based and process-based. Both approaches have value, but contribute to the evolution, uptake and utilisation of the SDI concept in different ways. They provide different frameworks for dealing with SDI mandates for the objectives of spatial data access and sharing. This paper reviews the nature and concept of SDI, including the components, which have helped to build understanding about the importance of an infrastructure to support the interactions of the spatial data community. Several examples of how SDIs have been described are offered to aid understanding of their complexity. The need for descriptions to represent the conflict between the role and deliverables of an SDI and thus contribute to a simpler, but dynamic, understanding of the complexity of the SDI concept, are postulated. The transition between the understanding of SDIs from product-based to process-based approaches is investigated, with a review of the positions taken by current SDI initiatives throughout the world. A model of how these approaches provide a framework to meet the mandates of the relevant jurisdictions is proposed, and factors contributing to the success of such positions in the future are discussed

Spatial Data Infrastructure Frameworks to Support Decision-Making For Sustainable Development

Sustainable development requires the resolution of many spatial decision problems in regard to managing the rights, restrictions and responsibilities between people and land. Most spatial decision problems are multicriteria in nature, involving economic, social, environmental and political dimensions and competing values. However, the process of multicriteria decision-making is not well established or effectively integrated into contemporary frameworks for spatial analysis or infrastructure. The nee

Fundamental partnerships driving Spatial Data Infrastructure development within Australia

This is a pre-print version of an article published in Cartography 2002. This version is restricted to staff and students only.Recent models of Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDIs) are overly simplistic and fail to address the dynamic nature, complexity, inter- and intra-jurisdictional nature and important role of partnerships. There is a need by governments and administrators to better understand the complex nature of SDIs to facilitate implementation of this form of infrastructure in an information society. This paper aims to build upon current SDI research at local, state and regional levels to better understand the complex and multi-dimensional nature at a national level, while building onthe principles of Hierarchical Spatial Reasoning (HSR) theory. To date little work has been undertaken on mapping these partnerships particularly at the national level within a country that is a federation of states. This paper will introduce the notion that better understanding of the partnerships that support SDI will enable administrators of spatial information to implement this type of infrastructure into the future. The paper will also highlight new research being conducted by the Centre for Spatial Data Infrastructures and Land Administration at the University of Melbourne on the Australian SDI (ASDI) and the aims to develop a methodology to map the complex nature of national SDI (NSDI)