A Local-State Government Spatial Data Sharing Partnership

More documents

Recommendations

Info

A Local-State Spatial Data Sharing Partnership Model to Facilitate SDI Development matured, they soon realised that building some of their fundamental data sets relied heavily on the contributions from jurisdictions such as local government. In Australia, the delivery of emergency services, such as police, fire fighting and ambulance is a state government responsibility. Accurate and relevant information such as address, vehicular access, location of services, property ownership, climate and topography is critical for emergency response teams. However, rarely do all of these data sets reside within the one organisation or jurisdiction. Hence, co-operation and data sharing amongst these organisations is critical. Although there is a history of good co- operation between jurisdictions during emergencies, at other times the sharing of data between jurisdictions has been problematic. With local government being a custodian of a number of strategic spatial data sets, it has a crucial role to play in the development of the state and national SDIs. In recent years, a number of co-operative partnerships between local and state government have begun to emerge. These partnerships are relatively new arrangements that have been established to facilitate the improved sharing of spatial data and to realise the full potential of the SDI. To maximise the benefits from these partnerships it is important to understand the factors that contribute to their successful operation and sustainability. Therefore, the focus of this research is to understand these collaborative arrangements so that future data sharing initiatives can be improved and sustained. The Internet and the release of on-line tools such as Google Earth has transformed the “Digital Earth” concept, described by former US vice-president Al Gore in 1998, into a reality (Butler 2006). However, the limitations on information portals such as Google Earth are unlikely to be of a technological nature. Instead, it is far more likely that these information portals will be limited by people and organisational issues. 1.2 Research Formulation 1.2.1 Statement of Research Problem Accurate and reliable spatial information, particularly property related information, supports many operational and strategic decisions both within government and the business community. The completeness and accuracy of many state spatial databases rely on the exchange of information between jurisdictions, especially local government. However, for a variety of technical, institutional, political and economic reasons, the exchange of this fundamental spatial information between local and state jurisdictions has proven to be problematic. The limited sharing of spatial information between jurisdictions 4
5 Chapter 1 - Introduction is having a detrimental affect on the development of spatial data infrastructures at local, state and national levels and hence the efficient delivery of government and community services. Therefore, the research problem to be investigated in this thesis is as follows: Because existing local/state government spatial data sharing partnership models in Australia do not adequately consider a range of technical, institutional, political and economic factors, their potential for contributing to the development of local, state and national SDIs is limited. 1.2.2 Aim, Research Questions and Objectives In recognising the research problem the central aim of the research is to: Develop a spatial data sharing partnership model which more effectively supports the sharing and maintenance of spatial information between local and state jurisdictions within Australia and hence contribute to SDI development. In considering the research problem and aim a number of key research questions emerged, namely: 1. Can the understanding of existing theory on data sharing, collaboration and organisations be applied to existing local/state government data sharing models to improve their operation and sustainability? 2. How can these partnership models be more rigorously described and classified? 3. What are the motivations and barriers for the participation of local and state government in spatial data sharing partnerships? 4. What are the factors that contribute to the successful establishment, management and operation of local/state SDI partnerships? 5. Can the varying organisational characteristics, capacities and attitudes of local government be related to their partnership participation or outcomes? 6. Can a generic model be developed which can guide future local/state spatial data sharing partnerships? Using these research questions as the basis for exploring the operation of local-state government partnerships, the following objectives were formulated to achieve the research aim.
Page 1: A Local-State Government Spatial Da
Page 5 and 6: Abstract In the past decade efforts
Page 7 and 8: Acknowledgements Completion of a Ph
Page 9 and 10: Table of Contents DECLARATION .....
Page 11 and 12: APPENDIX 5 - INTER-STATE DIFFERENCE
Page 13 and 14: FIGURE 6.7 USE OF WEB MAPPING .....
Page 15 and 16: List of Acronyms ACT AUSTRALIAN CAP
Page 17 and 18: Operational Definitions The followi
Page 19 and 20: 1 Chapter 1 Introduction Chapter 1
Page 21: 1.1 Background to Research 3 Chapte
Page 25 and 26: 7 Chapter 1 - Introduction enforcem
Page 27 and 28: 9 Chapter 1 - Introduction The rese
Page 29 and 30: 11 Chapter 1 - Introduction organis
Page 31 and 32: 13 Chapter 1 - Introduction three c
Page 33 and 34: 15 Chapter 2 - Spatial Data and SDI
Page 35 and 36: 2.1 Introduction 17 Chapter 2 - Spa
Page 45 and 46: 2.2.6 Property Information as a Fun
Page 73 and 74:
Chapter 3 - Collaboration, Partners
Page 75 and 76:
3.1 Introduction Chapter 3 - Collab
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Dimensions Actors Lower ranking mem
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
91 Chapter 4 - Research Design and
Page 111 and 112:
4.1 Introduction 93 Chapter 4 - Res
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Chapter 5 - Results of Partnership
Page 135 and 136:
5.1 Introduction Chapter 5 - Result
Page 137 and 138:
Employees '000s 500.0 450.0 400.0 3
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Data Exchange Process Chapter 5 - R
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
5.3.6 Key Outcomes Chapter 5 - Resu
Page 159 and 160:
Employees '000s 60.0 50.0 40.0 30.0
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
6.1 Introduction Chapter 6 - Result
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Percent 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Equality in Collaborations Chapter
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
% of LGAs For Each State 60.0% 40.0
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
195 Chapter 7 - Model Development a
Page 215 and 216:
7.1 Introduction 197 Chapter 7 - Mo
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
7.3 The Data Sharing Partnership Mo
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Partnership Management Partnership
Page 227 and 228:
Performance Monitoring 209 Chapter
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
7.4.4 Assessment of the Outcome Com
Page 235 and 236:
SDI Component - Standards Access Ne
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
223 Conclusions and Implications 8
Page 243 and 244:
8.1 Introduction 225 Conclusions an
Page 245 and 246:
227 Conclusions and Implications 8.
Page 247 and 248:
229 Conclusions and Implications ca
Page 249 and 250:
231 Conclusions and Implications pa
Page 251 and 252:
References 233 References Reference
Page 253 and 254:
235 References Cameron, D 2001, 'Th
Page 255 and 256:
237 References Department of Foreig
Page 257 and 258:
239 References Hesse, WJ & Williams
Page 259 and 260:
241 References Masser, I 2002, Repo
Page 261 and 262:
243 References Onsrud, HJ & Rushton
Page 263 and 264:
Tashakkori, A & Teddlie, C (eds) 20
Page 265 and 266:
247 References
Page 267 and 268:
Appendix 1 - Publications Relating
Page 269 and 270:
Appendix 1 - Publications Relating
Page 271 and 272:
Appendix 2 - Semi Structured Interv
Page 273 and 274:
Appendix 2 - Semi Structured Interv
Page 275 and 276:
Appendix 3 257 Appendix 3 - Local G
Page 277 and 278:
259 Appendix 3 - Local Government Q
Page 279 and 280:
Part 1 - Your Organisation 261 Appe
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Q4e: The costs to acquire State gov
Page 285 and 286:
Part 6 - About People 267 Appendix
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Appendix4 - Open Ended Questionnair
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
54 Provision of Aerial photos at a
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
APPENDIX 5 293 Appendix 5 - Inter-S
Page 313 and 314:
ANOVA ANALYSIS 295 Appendix 5 - Int
Page 315 and 316:
297 Appendix 5 - Inter-State Differ
Page 317 and 318:
Kruskal Wallis Test Statistics(a,b)
Page 319 and 320:
APPENDIX 6 FACTOR ANALYSIS 301 Appe
Page 321 and 322:
Communalities 303 Appendix 6 - Fact
Page 323 and 324:
305 Component Matrix(a) Component A
Page 325 and 326:
APPENDIX 7 307 Appendix 7 - Correla
Page 327 and 328:
Size_Index Org_support Ext_access_p
Page 329 and 330:
APPENDIX 8 311 Appendix 8 - Multipl
Page 331 and 332:
Variables Entered/Removed(b) Model
show all

A Local-State Government Spatial Data Sharing Partnership

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?