Developing a Common Spatial Data Infrastructure between state and Local Government – An Australian case study Steve Jacoby1, Jessica Smith2, Lisa Ting3 and Ian Williamson4 1
Director, Land Information Group Land Victoria, Department of Natural Resources & Environment 2nd floor, 121 William Street, Melbourne 3000 Victoria, Australia +61 3 9269 4546 (T) +61 3 9269 4500 (F)
[email protected] Department of Geomatics, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia 2 PhD Candidate
[email protected] 3 PhD Candidate
[email protected] 4 Professor of Surveying and Land Information +61 3 8344 4431 (T) +61 3 9347 4128 (F)
[email protected] Abstract Over the last decade a number of countries and states have successfully established complete spatial data infrastructures (SDIs) incorporating core digital map bases such as the cadastre or land parcel layer, topography, hydrology, road networks and administrative boundaries. These have usually been based on the amalgamation of national or state mapping and cadastral or land registration systems. At the same time many cities or Local Governments world-wide have established their own SDIs although they are more commonly referred to as geographic information systems. However in most cases the relationship between the Local Government and the national or state systems is at best poor. The result is that in many cases Local Government does not use the state SDI. This presents many difficulties in establishing state or national data sets, particularly where Local Government is responsible for controlling or maintaining the integrity of specific land related data in the state SDI. This paper describes the successful establishment of a partnership between 78 Local Government authorities and a State government in Australia. This successful partnership has resulted in the State providing and updating the basic SDI for Local Government and Local Government in turn providing land parcel and property data to the State government. This has resulted in significant improvements being made to the core map bases in the State SDI (such as the increased integrity of the state street address file), a marked reduction in duplicative mapbase maintenance activity (particularly by Local Government) and increased adoption of GIS technologies by Local Government with the beginnings of considerable flow-on benefits to the community being observed. The authors believe that this is a useful model which facilitates the SDI concept becoming a reality and which has generic application in many countries world-wide.
Page 1
Keywords Spatial data infrastrutures (SDI), geographic information systems (GIS), partnerships, custodianship, cadastral data, local government, state government, re-engineering Introduction Over the last decade a number of countries and states have successfully established complete spatial data infrastructures (SDIs) incorporating core digital map bases such as the cadastre or land parcel layer, topography, hydrology, road networks and administrative boundaries. The major challenge in establishing these SDIs has been the integration of the traditional national or state mapping systems with the spatial cadastre or land parcel layer since these systems are usually based on different projections and administered in different government departments (Williamson et al, 1998; Mooney and Grant, 1997). The integration of these two usually disparate data sets at a state or national level continues to be a challenge in most countries across Western Europe, many jurisdictions in North America, as well as many countries world wide. At the same time many cities or Local Governments world-wide have established their own SDIs although they are more commonly referred to using the generic term of geographic information systems (Suwanarat et al, 2000). Successful examples are common, particularly in North America and are well documented in annual conferences such as those organised by the North American Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA) and the Australasian Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (AURISA). However in most cases the relationship between the Local Government and the national or state systems is at best poor. The result is that in many cases Local Government does not use the state SDI. This presents a whole range of difficulties in establishing state or national data sets, particularly where Local Government is responsible for controlling or maintaining the integrity of many land related or property data sets. Important examples of this Local Government data includes street addresses, land valuation or land tax data, and proposed subdivisions of land. While the benefits of a close working relationship between state and Local Governments are recognised within the SDI concept (see below), the number of successful partnerships between these two levels of government is not common. This paper describes the successful establishment of a partnership between 78 Local Government authorities and the State Government of Victoria in Australia facilitated by the Property Information Project (PIP). This partnership has resulted in the State providing and updating the basic SDI for Local Government and Local Government in turn providing land parcel and property data to the State Government. This has resulted in significant improvements being made to the core map bases in the State SDI (such as the increased integrity of the state street address file), a marked reduction in duplicative mapbase maintenance activity (particularly in Local Government) and the increased adoption of GIS technologies by Local Government, with the beginnings of considerable flow-on benefits to the community being observed. The authors believe that a detailed review of the Property Information Project is justified due to its success in bringing two levels of government into a cooperative partnership in support of the establishment of a comprehensive State SDI. In order to examine the PIP, the paper
Page 2
reviews general trends in SDI development and briefly describes the SDI vision for the Victorian State Government. The success, benefits and future plans for PIP are outlined.
General Trends in SDI Development Following the early activities in the 1990s of the US Federal Geographic Data Committee, many countries throughout the world are recognising the importance of spatial information and the related infrastructure required for its management to ensure effective decision making. Spatial data infrastructures (SDIs) consisting of policies, standards and procedures aim to provide an environment that encourages co-operation in data production and sharing (Federal Geographic Data Committee 2000; Rajabifard, Williamson et al. 2000). The numerous political and administrative levels evident in a single nation have resulted in the development of SDIs at a variety of scales from corporate and Local Government levels through to state/provincial and national levels. On an even wider scale, a need has also been demonstrated for regional (multi-national) and global SDIs (Rajabifard et al, 2000). Despite differences in scale, the underlying objective of SDIs is to ensure users of spatial data will be able to acquire consistent datasets to meet their requirements. In many instances, as is the case for the Australian SDI, the data will be collected and maintained by a variety of authorities with the SDI itself being made up of data held on independently maintained systems linked by common standards and policies (AUSLIG 2000). The diverse nature of the administrative distinctions between nations means that there is not yet a clear agreement on what “spatial data infrastructure” and “geographic information infrastructure” efforts should or should not include (Coleman and McLaughlin 1998). Onsrud (1998) identifies that there are significant variations in infrastructure developments particularly in regard to legal, economic, scale and organisational considerations. Despite these variations, there are commonalities, most evident in regard to metadata, core data, standards and clearinghouse concepts which are recognised as constituent components of SDIs at a national level. The structure of central (state and national) and Local Governments has a profound impact on the distribution of responsibilities for the collection of geographic information and the attitudes towards access to public information (Masser 1998). However, often nongovernmental groups are more closely involved in the driving force behind SDI development. Thus the key features of the initiatives and their status with respect to government need to be identified and the relationship and responsibilities to government ascertained. The development of an SDI as a networked, distributed enterprise requires new relationships and partnerships among different levels of government and between public and private sector entities to be established. These partnerships allow and require organisations to assume responsibilities that may differ to those of the past (Tosta 1997). SDI activities in North America and Australia have focussed on encouraging communication and partnerships among the diverse collectors and users of geospatial data. The Victorian SDI is a useful working example of the communication strategies required and is a good illustration of a strategy to involve Local Government as an active partner in achieving a comprehensive state SDI.
Page 3
The Victorian Spatial Data Infrastructure Vision As background, Australia consists of eight jurisdictions (six States and two Territories), with Victoria being the smallest of the mainland States by area. At 227,420 km2 it accounts for only 3% of the country’s area, but with a population of 4.8million is Australia’s second most populous State (see Table 1).
Area Population Roads 2 km Km Victoria 227,420 4.8M 155,079 (% of total) 3% 25% 19% Australia 7,692,030 19M 802,600 † Housing (separate houses, flats, apartments etc)
Dwellings† 1.75M 25% 6.95M
Land Parcels 2.4M
Properties 2.3M
Local Govt’s 78
11M
-
750
Table 1 – Victoria - Australia Comparisons (ABS 1999) Officially settled in the mid 1830s, Victoria’s land administration system significantly benefited from the introduction of the Torrens system of land title registration (1862) which is still in force today. Land is broadly classed as freehold (in private ownership) or Crown land (managed by the State). The latter includes National and State parks, forests and a range of other reserves set aside for public purposes. Approximately one third of Victoria’s area is Crown land, although this represents only 70,000 of the 2.4 million land parcels in the State. Significant efforts have been made since the early 1980s towards modernisation and automation of land administration in the State with one of the most recent actions being the formation of Land Victoria in 1996. This brought into one agency all mapping, surveying, land titling, valuation and Crown land management services. A key outcome from one of the largest geospatial information requirements studies ever conducted by an Australian State Government was, in part, a description and prioritisation of the fundamental data sets essential to the establishment of a Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) (OGDC, 1993a). A major challenge emerged from the detailed specification of what the study determined to be the most critical data set; the digital cadastral database. In order to fulfill the requirements of users, it was recommended that the database must include a representation of all land properties attributed by their ‘street address’ and ‘Council (Local Government) property number’ and include proposed development applications to compliment the record of approved land parcels as issued by the Titles Office. Whilst Land Victoria, the State Government agency responsible for this key dataset, had ready access to approved legal land parcels via the Titles Office, it did not have access to proposed developments or authoritative information about properties including street addresses which are allocated by the State’s 78 Local Governments. This need led to the development of the Property Information Project (PIP). PIP is an important part of Land Victoria's vision: “By the year 2002 customers will be able to point to a piece of land on an electronic map and have all the information relevant to that piece of land at their fingertips”. (Figure 1).
Page 4
T itle
Auctions / Land Sales & Valuations
Planning zones & restrictions
Ownership & occupant details
Council Rates & other information
?
Provider #3
Things we haven’t yet thought of...
Provider #2 Provider #1
Mapping & survey information
C lick here!
C lick here!
C lick here!
Transport / Infrastructure
Land rights, interests & easements
Education / Schools
Natural Resources
Health & Hospitals
Environmental Information Crime Statistics
Figure 1 – Schematic of Land Victoria’s ‘Point and Click’ Vision The establishment of a comprehensive Spatial Data Infrastructure is seen as the key to realising this goal. Land Victoria’s fourth geospatial strategic plan in the past ten years (Land Victoria 1999), focuses on the development of eight fundamental datasets in conjunction with a number of other targeted strategies. The fundamental datasets identified by the strategy are: Geodetic Control; Cadastral; Address; Administrative; Transportation; Elevation; Hydrology; and Imagery. Importantly, this is an industry strategy involving not just Land Victoria but all levels of Government within Victoria, the private sector and academia. The participation of Local Government is seen as particularly critical to the success of the strategy. Local Government is a key user and producer of these datasets, in its functions as strategic planners and providers of public amenities for their local area, as well as to dialogue with the local community, private sector, state and other local governments. For example, half of the fundamental datasets in the State SDI are dependent upon Local Government as the responsible authority for the creation of land information (eg addresses, road names, suburb and locality definitions) or for the timely notification of approvals relating to the changing status of land information (eg proposed land developments, approvals, certifications, etc, in the cadastral theme). As a key user of all of the fundamental datasets identified in the strategy, Local Government is also able to play a major role in shaping the entire SDI and providing feed back on its effectiveness. Recognising the intrinsic value of Local Government’s participation in the creation and more importantly the on-going maintenance role of the State’s geospatial infrastructure, Land Victoria conceived the Property Information Project (PIP) based on a co-operative model and commenced implementation of its first stages in 1997. In 1992, the State Government of Victoria commissioned Tomlinson Associates Ltd to develop a strategic framework for GIS development in the State. Taking over 18 months, this study was the most significant conducted in Victoria and remains one of the most comprehensive ‘whole-of-Government’ reviews ever undertaken (OGDC, 1993a).
Page 5
The Tomlinson review assessed 61 information products in State Government made up of 270 datasets. The datasets were also assessed against a number of criteria including their frequency of use and contribution to downstream benefits. On virtually all measures the digital cadastral mapbase came through as the highest priority geospatial dataset for the State (see Table 2). Dataset 1. State Digital Cadastral Mapbase 2. Digital Road Centreline Network 3. Digital Topographic Mapbase (1:100,000 scale) 4. Planning Zones & Controls Layer 5. Digital Topographic Mapbase (1:25,000 scale)
Use (as a % of the sample) 36% 28% 33% 21% 26%
Comparative Rank Value 7.1 4.8 3.9 3.8 3.1
Table 2 - Five highest priority geospatial datasets based upon frequency of use and aggregated downstream benefits (OGDC 1993a, Appendix 4.1) As early as 1993, a clear consensus was forming as to the content and quality that would be required in a State-wide digital cadastral mapbase to support modern land administration systems: • • • • • •
an authoritative State-wide coverage of the distribution of land units in the State, with standards for accuracy, quality and data transfer; clear, current, and correct identification of both parcel and property land units; supporting land unit attributes, eg area and dimensions, with other attributes accessible via linkages to various agency databases; centralised data set maintenance and the communication of updates to land unit boundaries, unit identifiers and related attributes; support for the communication of land information between agencies; and, the ability to perform topologic (spatial) analyses. (OGDC 1993b, pp. 45-6)
The obstacles to be overcome in achieving these goals may be broadly grouped under the headings of custodianship, and outsourcing, re-engineering and on-going maintenance. The single largest barrier to implementing the recommendations of the Tomlinson report with respect to the cadastral mapbase in the early 1990’s was that there was not a single custodian responsible for this database. This was not resolved until May 1994 when a negotiated agreement between the State and Melbourne Water Corporation (MWC) placed the cadastral mapbase under the control of Land Victoria. (Note: Numerous organisational reforms over the last five years have seen responsibility for the core geospatial datasets reside with a number of offices in the Victorian State Government, including Survey & Mapping Victoria, Office of Geographic Data Co-ordination, Geographic Data Victoria, Geospatial Information and the Land information Group. The umbrella agency for these groups became Land Victoria which for simplicity will be used in this paper to describe the responsible agency.). Prior to this, cadastral mapping of the Melbourne metropolitan area involving approximately 15,000 km2 and 1.5 million parcels of land had been performed by MWC. During the latter half of 1994, digital cadastral mapping of all rural areas (approximately 0.9 million parcels) was completed. Victoria was the last Australian State to achieve full digital cadastral coverage, primarily because it committed to complete its cadastral mapping at
Page 6
reasonably large scales, a minimum of 1:2,500 in rural townships and 1:25,000 in all other areas including deserts and highlands. In becoming custodian for the entire cadastral mapbase for the State, Land Victoria faced a number of significant challenges. The State had been focused on its task of completing the initial cadastral mapping of rural Victoria and had invested little effort into the on-going maintenance of this data set. It was now faced with having to maintain 2.4 million land parcels and add to it at least 50,000 new parcels each year. Land Victoria assessed its existing operational capacity as being unable to meet the demands of this new activity and a decision was made to outsource the management and on-going maintenance of the cadastral map base to the private sector. Land Victoria would remain as custodian and owner of all intellectual property. It would play a key role in specifying the service and data quality standards required to be met by the contractor but it would not prescribe specific technology (especially hardware and GIS software). Following an open public tender, an initial contract for management and maintenance of the Melbourne metropolitan component of the cadastral mapbase was let and after this successful trial the entire mapbase was outsourced, again via public tender for a period of three years, with a further three year option subject to satisfactory performance of the contract. This outsourcing gave Land Victoria the opportunity to re-engineer critical aspects of how the State’s digital cadastral data would be structured and to specify new functional requirements. Major features to be provided for in the re-engineered mapbase were: • • • • • •
All spatial data to be stored in a single database, not in a proprietary GIS; Land parcels and properties were to be catered for, and their relationship correctly modelled; Proposed land parcels must also be catered for in the database; The cadastral base must be topologically structured (polygonised); All data must be uniquely identified and time stamped (data would be retired – never deleted from the database); The cadastral database must be capable of providing incremental or ‘change-only’ updates to users.
Of the technical reforms made to the cadastral mapbase, the introduction of ‘property’ and ‘parcel’ as entities and the establishment of three key linkages: street address; Council (Local Government) property number; and, a standard parcel identifier have been significant. It is these linkages or ‘foreign keys’ that provide the connectivity between the cadastral mapbase and ‘other’ databases as expressed in Land Victoria’s vision (above). Ensuring that these linkages function correctly requires the relationships between the main entities (parcel and property) to be correctly understood and managed. The following brief description of land parcels and properties expands on how this important inter-relationship operates in Victoria. Land Parcels The land parcel in the Victorian cadastral system (as in most Torrens registration of title systems) is typically the smallest land unit capable of transfer and is often used as the basic spatial unit in land information systems. A significant advantage in using the land parcel as the basic spatial unit is that they are usually very accurately described through the cadastral survey requirements of the Torrens system for the purposes of title registration.
Page 7
Victoria’s land parcels are described by a lot number referenced to a plan (see Figure 2). Land is either freehold or Crown, with a land title typically referring to one or more freehold land parcels.
PROPERTY INFORMATION • Street Address • Council Property Number
Figure 2 – Parcel & Property Information
PARCEL INFORMATION • Lot / Plan Number • Crown Land or Freehold Land
Another major advantage in basing a land information system on land parcels is that the Land Titles Office becomes the primary source for virtually all changes that occur in the system through the processes of subdivision and consolidation of parcels. All Australian digital cadastral mapbases depend upon ready access to, and supply of parcel change information from their respective Land Titles Offices. This is essential to maintain the current status of the cadastral map. Properties A property describes land under common occupation particularly for the purposes of rating, billing or habitation. Properties, rather than land parcels are used predominantly as the basic record by Local Governments, utilities (water, power, telecommunications), postal and electoral authorities. Whilst there is a strong correlation between parcels and properties, the relationship may be ‘many to many’. A typical urban configuration would see a direct correlation between the parcel and property (in Victoria, with its highly urbanised population approximately 75% of its land records would be in this ‘one to one’ form). A common example of where many parcels make up one property occurs in more rural areas, typically with farms. The reverse (many properties on one parcel) is a less frequent occurrence, an example may be a shopping complex owned by a developer which has numerous tenants or occupants. The importance of managing properties, as well as parcels, in the cadastral mapbase emerged through analysis of the contents of the rural and metropolitan mapbases and by studying the flow of land information through the Victorian cadastral system which was conducted as part of the re-engineering effort. Examples of key supporting evidence for the inclusion of property in the cadastral database include: •
The metropolitan mapbase was originally compiled by Melbourne Water Corporation (MWC), one of the State’s largest utilities with extensive business systems dependent upon high quality land information. The base record used by MWC is the ‘street address’.
Page 8
•
•
In effect the ‘basic spatial unit’ in the metropolitan and urban areas was the property, not the parcel. A number of Local Governments have since the late 1980s acquired a copy of the digital cadastral mapbase under licence from Land Victoria. Very few Local Governments have also taken up the maintenance service from Land Victoria usually choosing to maintain a local copy of the mapbase themselves. A key reason for this is the substantial effort required to match the cadastral mapbase with Local Government’s property based information systems: resupply of the cadastral mapbase as part of a maintenance service would necessitate constant rematching. Local Government, not State Government in Victoria (and most of Australia) is the responsible authority for the allocation of street address information, including house numbers, most road and suburb names. This key piece of information is seen increasingly as fundamentally important to a range of existing and new users, particularly those outside of the traditional land administration disciplines. If Land Victoria hopes to grow the number of users of its cadastral data, particularly in the general and business community, it is essential to secure a consistent supply of current State-wide property information.
By including ‘parcel’ and ‘property’ as entities in the cadastral mapbase and ensuring the (sometimes complex) relationships that exist between them were able to be managed, Land Victoria had significantly improved the database’s capability. But it is important to note that this was only a technical reform which created an improved data structure. The real challenge was how to populate that database with quality parcel and property information and ensure its effective maintenance. This resulted in the Property Information Project. The Property Information Project The objectives of the Property Information Project (PIP) were to establish a common geospatial infrastructure between Local and State Government based around the digital cadastral mapbase. The outcome planned from PIP was to completely map for the first time all of Victoria’s properties, to store these spatially in the cadastral mapbase together with their relationships to land parcels. This would be done in alliance with the State’s 78 Local Governments over an initial two year period. This establishment phase was planned to transition into an on-going maintenance regime which would be secured by a data exchange agreement between the State and each of the Local Governments. Land Victoria’s proposal was a simple one: the State would provide funding (approximately US$3M State-wide) to match or reconcile the Council’s rating database with the cadastral mapbase - creating the property layer; each Council would be allowed use of the mapbase at no charge; and Land Victoria would provide the Council with a fully maintained copy of the cadastral mapbase at a frequency to be agreed. In return, Council was asked to agree to: adopt one version of the cadastral mapbase (Land Victoria’s); allow key property information owned by Council to be incorporated into the mapbase; and provide Land Victoria with early advice of all proposed plans of subdivision and changes to property information (for example, new street addresses) to fuel the maintenance process. The most important characteristic of the project was that a Local Government’s involvement is voluntary. From Land Victoria’s perspective, this was also PIP’s greatest risk. Without legislative support, the success of the project depended upon Councils agreeing to join and remain in the project based solely on the project’s merits.
Page 9
Project Stages From the outset of PIP it was clear that effective communications between Land Victoria and the 78 Local Governments in the State would be essential to the project’s success. A major commitment was made to face-to-face meetings in the first few months of the project, following up on a letter of introduction and a project ‘kit’ sent to each Council’s Chief Executive Officer. A formal presentation was made to every Local Government in the State between July and December 1997. The objective of this step was to establish a key contact in each Council and to seek Council’s ‘in-principle’ agreement to proceed to the next stage of the project (see Figure 3). A dedicated project team was established in Land Victoria and as each Council came into the project a ‘liaison’ officer from Land Victoria was assigned. As questions and issues began to emerge from the Councils about various aspects of the project, these were documented in ‘Fact Sheets’ and a regular newsletter was established to aid communications. A dedicated email address was also established for PIP. The high level of communication developed in this introductory period remains a feature of the project today.
INTRODUCTION
“IN-PRINCIPLE AGREEMENT”
CONSULTANCY: COUNCIL ANALYSIS
The first few stages were designed to present the project as a very low-risk to Councils and to engender their support for PIP. By ‘gating’ the project in this manner, particularly in seeking ‘in-principle’ agreement at a very early stage the objective was to gain senior endorsement as well as to highlight and address any barriers or issues that a Council may have with the project.
In the third stage Land Victoria funded a brief fact-finding consultancy. This confidential PROPOSED WORKS PLAN study was designed to identify the current status of each Council with respect to its use Refinement of GIS and to try and ascertain its future directions. This analysis took between two WORKS days and a week to perform. The outcome of the study demonstrated a number of significant differences between Local Governments across the State beyond the ON-GOING MAINTENANCE obvious variations of geography, population or land use. In particular, major differences Figure 3 – PIP Stages were found in the knowledge and understanding of GIS technology and the extent to which Local Government saw GIS being utilised in its future operations. An interesting example of these variations may be seen where Local Governments choose to organisationally locate their GIS activities. Whilst most saw GIS as an extension of its IT departments, there appears to be a trend to establish ‘stand-alone’ GIS departments as corporate units. The more traditional location of GIS activities was as an adjunct to engineering, planning or rating functions (refer to Figure 4).
Page 10
Planning Other 7% 10%
IT 36%
Engineering 19%
Figure 4 – Departmental location of GIS units in Local Government
GIS 28%
The analysis stage resulted in an excellent understanding of the priorities and technical capability of each Council. This information was used to design a program of works. The main focus of the works program was around the reconciliation of property and parcel information. This task to establish the property layer in the cadastral mapbase involves automatic matching of spatial records in the Council’s rating database with attributes available in the cadastral mapbase. This would usually generate a match rate of between 50% and 80%. Refined automatic matching and manual record reconciliation would follow. The available funding typically enabled PIP to establish a 90% to 95% match rate at the end of the contracted works stage. Data may remain unmatched for a number of reasons with these unmatched records being identified as part of the PIP program and prioritised for further investigation. In many cases they may not be resolved without a title search or field examination which may be scheduled as part of Council’s other activities or dealt with if and when they arose as part of on-going maintenance. Data reconciliation was not the only task undertaken as part of the Works program. Other activities that were undertaken include the allocation of addresses to properties, the identification of Crown land and its inclusion in Council’s rating database and the establishment of processes to aid the on-going maintenance of the cadastral mapbase. It was not unusual for there to be several iterations of the proposed Works program between Land Victoria and a Council. The final program also details the level of funding to be provided by Land Victoria and indicates how the works are to be completed. In many instances, the works programs were tailored to compliment tasks already underway within Council. In many cases, Councils indicated a preference to undertake aspects of the work themselves. Alternatively, Land Victoria would tender the work to a panel of private sector providers especially established as part of PIP. Importantly, at this point, all works and their funding are specified in a contract to be executed by the State and the Council. This agreement explicitly details each party’s tasks and responsibilities including the on-going supply of information from Council to Land Victoria and Land Victoria’s provision of the updated cadastral mapbase back to Council (schedules in the Contract specify formats, frequencies, etc). The term of the agreement was three years. A number of Councils expressed concern on this point and sought significantly longer terms. In recognition of this, Land Victoria amended the agreement to a ‘rolling three year term’ to be renewed every 12 months.
Page 11
Progress to Date The focus of the project in the first twelve months was clearly on the introductory stage with 53 Councils agreeing ‘in-principle’ to enter PIP by June 1998 and all Councils agreeing by December 1998 (see Figure 5). Contracts began being signed by Councils in the latter half of 1998 with 46 in place by the end of that year. Upon signing, funding to commence work on the agreed Works Program became available, which in turn led to reconciled property data being loaded into the cadastral mapbase, quality assured and finally a Council entering the on-going maintenance phase. As at August 2000, a total of 71 Councils had entered formal contracts with Land Victoria, 58 Councils had completed data reconciliation activities and 53 had entered the on-going maintenance phase. 78
78
78
78787878
78
7069
70 Local Governments
78
7171
66 62
60
58
5656
53
50
46 43 39
40 30 21
20
18
16
10
4
PIP Milestones
"in-principle" agreement PIP contract signed program of works underway ongoing maintenance
7
0 Dec 97 Jun 98 Dec 98 Jun 99 Dec 99 Jun 00 Dec 00 Jun 01
Figure 5 – Progress of PIP – number of Local Governments reaching key milestones Lessons Learnt Local Government’s involvement in GIS and acceptance of the State’s previous geospatial strategies has been mixed. Without legislative support requiring agencies to adopt the State’s geospatial strategy, progress is dependent upon co-operation between participants based upon mutual advantage. Clearly, unless participants derive value or benefit from these initiatives there will be limited involvement and a lack of commitment. Benefits of PIP to Local Government The diversity of Local Government in Victoria with respect to GIS approach and implementation which has been highlighted in this paper also results in a mix of benefits for respective Councils. Clearly there are direct benefits for Local Government in the project. The most obvious relate to licence fees, monetary assistance with data reconciliation and ongoing maintenance of the cadastral mapbase. Prior to the PIP initiative, Local Government was treated identically to any other prospective user or licensee of the State’s cadastral mapbase. Licence fees for initial access were charged and for an average sized Council these would be around US$30,000. Approximately one
Page 12
third of the State’s Local Governments were not utilising the mapbase in any form – the initial licence fees were a major barrier to entry for many users. But there was also a degree of uncertainty amongst many Local Governments about the best way to introduce GIS. PIP provided a structured and well supported approach that was seen by Councils as vendor independent and a lower risk path to GIS implementation. PIP also brought some capital funding to assist mostly in the data reconciliation stage which resulted in the establishment of the property layer. Based upon agreed recommendations in the Works program between US$10,000 and US$25,000 was made available to Councils for these tasks. One of the Councils which has completed the reconciliation phase reported ‘finding’ 400 land parcels which were not included in their property database, which when amended generated an additional US$65,000 pa income for that particular Council (increasing their annual budget 3%). Beyond the establishment phase and particularly for half of the State’s Local Governments which were already involved in maintaining their own copy of the cadastral mapbase the main benefit is in free on-going maintenance. Comparisons are difficult between Councils for reasons already cited, however, one metropolitan Council reported to have had reduced the labour allocated to cadastral maintenance by 30 hours per month following the introduction of the full PIP maintenance regime. If the experience of that Council was averaged across Victoria the potential saving in duplicated activity would be approximately 17 person years pa. Given the higher degree of change in the urban compared with rural areas the project team believes the savings from duplicated effort would be around half of that figure, ie 8 person years pa. Numerous benefits were also identified during the consulting stage of PIP, which fall into the general categories of administration, decision making, operations management and service delivery: 1. Administration • •
• • • • • • • •
rates information is more complete and accurate through correct identification of all properties and land parcels within properly defined Council boundaries; costs of acquiring and maintaining high quality property information are minimal because of Land Victoria's entry assistance to Councils and on-going maintenance of integrated map data; higher quality information creates possibilities for generating income through selling information; improved staff productivity and customer satisfaction due to quick access to quality, electronic information; comprehensive, quality information provides protection against loss of staff with 'local knowledge'; all properties within the municipality are allotted street addresses, benefiting a range of Council and general services from emergency response to goods delivery; all Crown land within a municipality is correctly defined; electronic, high quality map information provides consistent up-to-date maps across the Council's operations; electronic information minimises data duplication; and contract management is made easier.
Page 13
2. Decision making • •
produces better analysis of development applications; and provides better response to potential business investors.
3. Operations management • • • • •
assists in asset management and planning; facilitates better development of tourism areas; helps environment management; helps align open spaces with resident needs; and assists in achieving statutory compliance (to AAS27 standard) for asset management and strategic asset planning.
4. Service delivery •
quick access to quality, electronic information provides better responses to enquiries and improved customer service; • electronic information can create opportunities for council to provide remote access for information customers such as surveyors; and • higher quality information helps identify and track service levels, boosting development of customer service charters. (Land Victoria 1997) Additional Benefits of PIP to State Government In addition to PIP providing the means to populate the State’s re-engineered cadastral mapbase and deliver a key component of Victoria’s SDI, there are numerous other benefits to the State that are emerging. There are presently over 500 agencies and organisations using the State’s cadastral mapbase. Many of them have a critical need for up-to-date property data, including planners, valuers, estate agents and other land professionals. Perhaps the most critical users of all are the State’s emergency services (fire, police and ambulance) which utilise address data in their computer aided dispatch system. Clearly all of these users will benefit significantly from the current, secure, higher quality data generated through PIP. By adopting a centralised data maintenance model in PIP, Land Victoria has also been able to significantly decrease the amount of duplicative maintenance activity that was occurring across Local Government and ensure that an agreed standard of data quality is achieved (there are currently only four Councils maintaining the mapbase by other means compared to 37 in 1997 – see Figure 6). Whilst PIP cannot claim to be the sole factor in introducing digital mapping and GIS to Local Government in the last two years, it has been a significant contributor particularly in rural Victoria where communities tend to be more sparse, widely dispersed and their local governments generally more poorly resourced. Also, these rural communities often need the spatial data for better land management and agri-business. This opportunity has proven to be of significant interest to the State’s growing geospatial information industry keen to provide further value added services.
Page 14
60 50 40
Figure 6 – Change in Local Government’s utilisation of the cadastral mapbase 1997 to 2000
30 20 10 0
Not Using Vicmap Property
Nonmaintained Use
Maintained by Others
Maintained by Land Victoria
Start of project
24
13
37
4
Dec 00
7
3
4
71
To date, this paper has discussed the Property Information Project’s primary relationship between Local Government and the State Government (Land Victoria). The successful completion of the project and establishment of a fully maintained mapbase in conjunction with all Local Governments in the State provides an excellent opportunity to leverage PIP into other areas and improve the flow of information to a wider group of stakeholders and investigate opportunities for broader scale process re-engineering. Future Developments for the Property Information Project The current forecasts for PIP plan to have signed agreements in place with all 78 Councils by February 2000 and for all to have entered on-going maintenance by July 2001. This will remain the project’s highest priority, however, a number of other developments are being pursued in parallel. By broadening the scope of PIP beyond the immediate relationship between Local and State Government and mapping the information flows through the land development cycle it is clear that there are a number of other stakeholders that would benefit from a common geospatial infrastructure being established (see Figure 8). These stakeholders include developers and survey consultants who frequently collect digital data as part of their operations but are then required under existing procedures to provide hardcopy plans and forms to Local Government. There is a clear preference amongst survey consultants and Local Government for this information to move around digitally according to a standard. As a consequence PIP has identified a sub-project to establish a protocol for the transfer of digital spatial data dealing with proposed plans of subdivision. It is proposed that this data, with Council’s approval, could be submitted directly to Land Victoria for inclusion in the cadastral mapbase (see Figure 3 – Step 3). Upon entering the data, Council and other interested parties, particularly referral authorities such as Water Boards and other utilities may be advised electronically of the development significantly shortening the time involved in processing this information. A discussion paper on this subject is currently being developed by Land Victoria and progress can be monitored on our web site: http://www.land.vic.gov.au/SPEAR
Page 15
Ultimately, PIP represents a fundamental institutional arrangement from which to build the vision of a spatial data infrastructure that will properly support the complexity of decisionmaking demanded by the challenges that sustainable development poses for dialogue between every level of community, private sector and government.
C
Rates Database
Mapbase Copies
Local Government
Digital Transfer 6
B
Developers
Referral Authorities Mapbase Maintenance 5
Mapbase Mirror 4
1
A
Certified Plan - Lodged Digitally
2 way maintenance
7
Survey Consultants Mapbase Master
Digital Transfer
Proposed Plan 2 of Subdivision
Registered Plan Notification
3
LAND VICTORIA
LAND VICTORIA Land Titles Office Freehold (& Crown Land)
8
Data Access / Distribution Value Add 9 (Private Sector)
9
Geospatial Information Users
Registered Plan
GI Applications
PIP Establishment Stage A Master copy of the State’s Digital Cadastral Mapbase B Duplicate or ‘Mirror’ copy of the Cadastral Mapbase held by Council C Key Linkages (Council Property Number) exist between the mapbase and Council’s Property or Rates Database Information Flows 1. Land Developers in conjunction with Surveyors prepare Proposed Plan of Subdivision 2. Proposed Plan of Subdivision in Digital Form (geometry only) 3. PPS is transferred electronically to Land Victoria for entry into the State’s Digital Cadastral Mapbase 4. Local Govt. is notified of the Development Application electronically 5. Referral Authorities are notified of the Development Application electronically (mapbase maintenance) 6. Referral Authorities provide Local Government with input on the Development Application 7. Local Govt. Certifies the Development Application for lodgement electronically at the Land Titles Office 8. Plan is Registered at the Land Titles Office and all interested parties are notified electronically 9. Other users of the Geospatial Infrastructure monitor, or are advised as changes / transactions occur
Figure 7 – Property Information Project, Stakeholders and Information Flows
Page 16
Conclusions A significant number of the general trends in SDI development are reflected in the Victorian initiatives towards developing a common spatial data infrastructure to better support public and private sector activities. Land Victoria has as one of its goals the achievement of a high quality Spatial Data Infrastructure for the State Government of Victoria. A major component of that infrastructure is the digital cadastral mapbase, which it has been consolidated and updated. Another major component is the property information data, which was dispersed among 78 Local Government authorities. Over the last five years, Land Victoria has managed to ensure a single custodian for the digital cadastral database and re-engineer its technical content and structure through outsourcing. It has also, through the Property Information Project achieved mutual institutional co-operation with Local Government that in turn achieves a definitive, secure and reliable source of property information for the use of all Victorians. The development of single custodianship has had significance from a technical perspective in that this also paves the way for improved uniformity of standards of metadata, fundamental datasets, administrative policies as well as accessibility issues. Together, these aspects will form the foundations for the interoperability of datasets and the healthy growth of the spatial data infrastructure. Whilst much remains to be done (there is significant scope for improved processes to be developed in related areas and the diversity of stakeholders expanded), the basis of the project’s success will be the common SDI formed between State and Local Government through a continued cooperative partnership approach. In the final analysis, the success of an initiative like PIP is essential to the establishment of an effective spatial data infrastructure. Together with progressive legal and institutional infrastructure to assure equitable access, an effective spatial data infrastructure has the potential to form an important supportive pillar for good governance and to facilitate the informed dialogue that is necessary for sustainable development. Acknowledgement The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the support of Land Victoria (LV) of the Victorian Government in the preparation of this article. The authors also acknowledge the support of the Australian Research Council (ARC) (Grants C19700324 and C49930403) in supporting the research mentioned in the paper and the assistance provided by their colleagues at the Department of Geomatics, the University of Melbourne in the preparation of the paper http://www.geom.unimelb.edu.au/research/SDI_research/ . However, the views expressed in the paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of LV and the ARC. References ABS (1999). Pocket Year Book of Australia. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. AUSLIG (2000). Australian Spatial Data Infrastructure (12 August, 2000).
Page 17
Coleman, D. J. and McLaughlin, J. (1998). “Defining global geospatial data infrastructure (GGDI): Components, stakeholders and interfaces.” Geomatica Vol. 52, No. 2, pp. 129-43. Federal Geographic Data Committee (2000). Federal Geographic Data Committee (3 August 2000). Mooney, J. D. and Grant, D. M. (1997) The Australian Spatial Data Infrastructure. In Framework of the World, edited by D. Rhind. (Cambridge: GeoInformation International), pp. 187-201. Land Victoria (1997). Property Information Project Fact Sheet No 1. Land Victoria, Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Land Victoria (1999). Victorian Geospatial Information Strategy 2000-2003. Land Victoria, Department of Natural Resources and Environment. Masser, I. (1998). An International Overview of Geospatial Information Infrastructures: Lessons to be Learnt for the NGDF (14 August 2000). OGDC (1993a). GIS Strategy Report 1993, State Government of Victoria Strategic Framework for GIS Development. Victoria, Australia: Tomlinson Associates Ltd - Office of Geographic Data Coordination, Department of Treasury and Finance. OGDC (1993b). Report No 2, GIS Planning - Land Status and Assets Management, State Government of Victoria Strategic Framework for GIS Development. Victoria, Australia: Tomlinson Associates Ltd - Office of Geographic Data Coordination, Department of Treasury and Finance. Onsrud, H. J. (1998). A global survey of national spatial data infrastructure activities (2 August, 2000). Rajabifard, A., Williamson, I., et al. (2000). From local to global SDI initiatives: a pyramid to building blocks. 4th Global Spatial Data Infrastructure Conference, Cape Town, South Africa. Tosta, N. (1997). Building national spatial data infrastructures: Roles and Responsibilities (17 February, 1999). Suwarnarat, K., Karuppannan, S., Haider, W., Yaqub, H.W., Escobar, F.E., Bishop, I., Yates, P.M. and Williamson, I.P., 2000. Spatial Data Infrastructures for Cities in Developing Countries: Lessons from the Bangkok Experience, Cities. 17(2) 85-96. Williamson, I. P., Chan, T. O., and Effenberg, W. W. (1998) Development of spatial data infrastructures - lessons learned from the Australian digital cadastral databases. Geomatica, 52(2), 177-187.
Page 18
T itle
Auctions / Land Sales & Valuations
Planning zones & restrictions
Ownership & occupant details
Council Rates & other information
?
Provider #3
Things we haven’t yet thought of...
Provider #2 Provider #1
Mapping & survey information
C lick here!
C lick here!
C lick here!
Transport / Infrastructure
Land rights, interests & easements
Education / Schools
Natural Resources
Health & Hospitals
Environmental Information Crime Statistics
Figure 1 – Schematic of Land Victoria’s ‘Point and Click’ Vision
Page 19
PROPERTY INFORMATION • Street Address • Council Property Number
PARCEL INFORMATION • Lot / Plan Number • Crown Land or Freehold Land Figure 2 – Parcel & Property Information
Page 20
INTRODUCTION
“IN-PRINCIPLE AGREEMENT”
CONSULTANCY: COUNCIL ANALYSIS
PROPOSED WORKS PLAN
Refinement WORKS
ON-GOING MAINTENANCE
Figure 3 – PIP Stages
Page 21
Planning Other 7% 10%
IT 36%
Engineering 19% GIS 28%
Figure 4 – Departmental location of GIS units in Local Government
Page 22
78
78
78
78
7069
70
78787878
7171
66 62
60 Local Governments
78
58
5656 53
50
46 43 39
40 30 21
20 10
18
16
PIPMilestones "in-principle" agreement PIP contract signed program of works underway ongoing maintenance
7 4
0 Dec 97 Jun 98 Dec 98 Jun 99 Dec 99 Jun 00 Dec 00 Jun 01
Figure 5 – Progress of PIP – number of Local Governments reaching key milestones
Page 23
60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Not Using Vicmap Property
Nonmaintained Use
Maintained by Others
Maintained by Land Victoria
Start of project
24
13
37
4
Dec 00
7
3
4
71
Figure 6 – Change in Local Government’s utilisation of the cadastral mapbase 1997 to 2000
Page 24
C
Rates Database
Mapbase Copies
Local Government
Digital Transfer 6
B
Developers
Referral Authorities Mapbase Maintenance 5
Mapbase Mirror 4
1
A
Certified Plan - Lodged Digitally
2 way maintenance
7
Survey Consultants Mapbase Master
Digital Transfer
Proposed Plan 2 of Subdivision
Registered Plan Notification
3
LAND VICTORIA
LAND VICTORIA Land Titles Office Freehold (& Crown Land)
8
Data Access / Distribution Value Add 9 (Private Sector)
9
Geospatial Information Users
Registered Plan
GI Applications
PIP Establishment Stage A Master copy of the State’s Digital Cadastral Mapbase B Duplicate or ‘Mirror’ copy of the Cadastral Mapbase held by Council C Key Linkages (Council Property Number) exist between the mapbase and Council’s Property or Rates Database Information Flows 10. Land Developers in conjunction with Surveyors prepare Proposed Plan of Subdivision 11. Proposed Plan of Subdivision in Digital Form (geometry only) 12. PPS is transferred electronically to Land Victoria for entry into the State’s Digital Cadastral Mapbase 13. Local Govt. is notified of the Development Application electronically 14. Referral Authorities are notified of the Development Application electronically (mapbase maintenance) 15. Referral Authorities provide Local Government with input on the Development Application 16. Local Govt. Certifies the Development Application for lodgement electronically at the Land Titles Office 17. Plan is Registered at the Land Titles Office and all interested parties are notified electronically 18. Other users of the Geospatial Infrastructure monitor, or are advised as changes / transactions occur
Figure 7 – Property Information Project, Stakeholders and Information Flows
Page 25
