Mainstreaming Spatial Data Infrastructures in Land Management and Administration David N. Siriba1 and Hussein O. Farah2 Department of Geospatial & Space Technology University of Nairobi – Kenya
[email protected] 2 Regional Centre for Mapping of Resources for Development (RCMRD)
[email protected] 1
Abstract While Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDI) play a much broader role than supporting land administration, land administration is considered a key driver in SDI evolution. However, in most cases the development of SDI is not aligned with the development of land administration and management systems. In order to determine how to mainstream SDI in land administration, a framework for the integration is required, so as to exploit the potential benefits of SDI in supporting more effective and efficient land administration. This study identifies opportunity areas in land administration systems where SDI would play an important role and highlights the particular SDI elements that would be considered and how they need to be structured/ implemented in the context of land administration systems. The elements include: the recognition of SDI in supporting land administration; the development of infrastructures versus business systems; the role of parcel layer in SDI and the hierarchy and dynamic nature of SDI. Keywords: SDI, Land Administration, integration framework, mainstreaming 1.
Introduction Several strategies have been used to ensure that the potential in land information is exploited, and also that it is well managed. The strategies for land information management have evolved from mere computerization of cadastral records through computerized land information systems (LIS) to the current Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) initiatives, which are expected to enhance efficiency and effectiveness in the process of determining, recording and disseminating information about tenure, value and use of land. Although the introduction of computerized land information systems and SDI are generally accepted as the most appropriate technologies in the reformation of the cadastral systems and land administration, it however will not automatically induce development. It is part of the institutional development that must be combined with other resources such as planning controls to give high quality results. Towards realizing this, the provision of online databases for land information by governments is therefore seen as the ultimate reformation of cadastral systems and by extension land administration and management within the framework of the Spatial Data Infrastructure, one of the e-government strategies. The problem however is that, SDIs in some jurisdictions are considered as new concepts and therefore not aligned with other information management systems, for example, land management information systems. Budhatholic and Nedovic-Budic (2006) observed that SDI development efforts are excessively driven by either technology or application and
are therefore unlikely to become fully operational and serve the expected purposes. This is the basic problem addressed in this study, with the objective of developing a conceptual framework for mainstreaming SDI is land administration. 2.
Land Management and Administration and Spatial Data Infrastructures Land management, the process by which the resources of land are put into good effect (UN-ECE 1996) encompasses all activities associated with the management of land and natural resources that are required to achieve sustainable development. The key components include land policy, land administration and land information infrastructure (Enemark, 2004). Dale and McLaughlin (1999) define land administration as "the process of regulating land and property development and the use and conservation of the land, the gathering of revenues from the land through sales, leasing, and taxation, and the resolving of conflicts concerning the ownership and use of the land." Like the UNECE, Dale and McLaughlin identify ownership, value, and use as the three key attributes of land. Actually land administration functions can be divided into four functions: juridical, fiscal, regulatory, and information management. The first three functions are traditionally organized around three sets of organizations while the latter, information management is integral to the other three components" (Figure 1). Figure 1: The four basic components of land administration (Steudler et al., 2004)
Juridical Component (Ownership)
Fiscal Component (Values)
Regulatory Component (Use)
Information Management Component
Various approaches have been used for information management, but the more recent are the e-government strategies. The e-government strategies that jurisdictions have put in place are meant to improve delivery of services, manage information and to tap potential synergy from the interaction between the strategies and an educated population. Some of the strategies include the advanced ones such as the provision online database of geoinformation for example geodetic, cadastral and topographical by government agencies through SDI. As SDI become the dominant mechanisms that countries are putting in place to achieve their geospatial information management, it has however been noted that most countries are faced with difficulties in designing appropriate spatial data infrastructures to support effective land administration, and in integrating cadastral data and topographic spatial data especially in topographic form (Parker and Enemark, 2005). There is therefore need to design, build and manage land administration systems which incorporate appropriate spatial data infrastructures, because land administration functions are based on and are facilitated by appropriate land information infrastructures. Though there are different land administration arrangements in different countries, Williamson (2001) proposed a range of “best practices” that are useful in undertaking the re-engineering of land administration. The principles are considered major components of a land administration and they provide a suitable basis for
identifying indicators and establishing the evaluation aspects for land administration systems. The cadastral template (Steudler et al., 2004b), which provides a framework for evaluating land administration and therefore the basis for improving land administration is limited because it focuses more on cadastral aspects. An evaluation of the cadastral arrangements from various countries that have responded to the cadastral template reveals that SDI is yet to be recognized as an enabling platform for land administration. Although many of the 40 countries that have provided their cadastral arrangements recognize the role of cadastral layer in SDI (Steudler, 2006), by the same token a quick analysis of the operational SDI nodes (FGDC, 2007) shows that out of the 442 nodes in the GSDI registry, less than 5% SDI nodes support land administration. Therefore, it is yet to be understood how SDIs are integral in land administration arrangements. To develop an integration framework, it is important first to understand the complex relationship between cadastral, land administration system and National SDI. Rajabifard and Williamson (2006) developed a model that shows the integration of foundation data in a National SDI facilitates better decision making in disciplines such as Land Administration. Therefore, the information infrastructure/ management component of land administration systems provides the interface with SDI as illustrated in Figure 2. Figure 2: Relationship between SDI and Land Administration Attribute Information on land Ownership
Attribute Information on land Value
Attribute Informatio n on land Use
S on Land Spatial Data Spatial Data Infrastructure DB
Built data
Other Data
Natural data
3.
Integration Framework Integration Framework enables the integration of applications and data across the extended enterprise, thus maximizing an agency’s ability to improve operational efficiencies. In this section, are identified the elements that needs to be addressed in order to mainstream SDI and land administration. While most SDIs are nearing their completion stage, most of them will however require re-engineering in order to transform them into SDI capable of providing services demanded by current and future users. In order to re-engineer SDI so as to support land administration, it is important to evaluate them in terms of efficiency and effectiveness. An evaluation of efficiency refers to the measuring of an SDI to determine if it is achieving its objectives in the most economical manner, while
evaluation of effectiveness refers to the measuring of an SDI to determine if it is achieving its goals along with having the predicted impact on society. Against this background, Giff (2006) and Eelderink et al. (2006) proposed a number of performance indicators (PI) and key variable that can be used to assess, evaluate and report on National SDIs. Among them, availability of digital data, capacity building, willingness to share, human capital, SDI awareness, delivery mechanism, funding, leadership, vision, institutional arrangement, socio-political stability, interoperability, metadata (availability) and initiatives connected to SDI in the respective country. A number of items can be used to assess SDIs and they include: the status of geospatial datasets, status of GDI technology, status of geoinformation policy, status of institutional arrangements and the human resource capacity. Masser (1999) identified three elements that are key to successful National SDIs: the identification of core datasets for wide range of users; development of meta-datasets and a coordination framework to develop the infrastructure. Crompvoets (2004) additionally emphasizes the inclusion of web services in SDI. Najar et al (2006) extends the specialized framework for evaluating land administration to SDI, in which about 16 indicators were identified, which include among others: quality and consistency of spatial data, reference data, conceptual model for SDI and geo-web services. In order to mainstream SDI in land administration, first, it is important to determine the aspects/elements of SDI that can be taken advantage of, to facilitate land administration. Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDI) principle is one of the toolbox aspects identified by Steudler et al. (2004) that can be used to evaluate land administration systems. This study build on the work done by Steudler (ibid) and the aspects include: the recognition of SDI in supporting land administration; the development of infrastructures versus business systems; the role of parcel layer in SDI and the hierarchy and dynamic nature of SDI. 3.1 Role of SDI in supporting Land Administration and Management In most cases the difference between SDI and LIS/GIS is not clear (Nedovi_-Budi_ N. and Budhathoki, 2006). Whereas in some cases the two are taken to be synonymous, elsewhere they are understood to be different, in which case, then there is often the question, which one comes first? While GIS is a specialized information systems that manages, manipulates and analyzes spatial data (LIS is a special GIS that deals with parcel data), SDI provides a base or structure of practices and relationships among data producers and users that facilitates data sharing and use. Therefore SDIs are established to facilitate and resolve various technical and non-technical obstacles to data sharing. SDIs are therefore easier to build from the substantial interorganizational GIS base In land administration and management, the strategies have evolved from mere computerization to the current SDI initiatives (see figure 3). Figure 3: SDI and Land information management
Computerization of Records
Computerized LIS
e-government SDI
In SDI, there should be nodes dedicated to land administration and management, in which case, the already existing LISs should be restructured to be included in the SDI or for the ones planned to be established, they should be structured so that they
can easily be incorporated (Figure 4). The role of SDI in land administration is to provide a platform for sharing of data/information for land management and administration. Figure 4: Land information management SDI node and other SDI nodes
LIS
SDI
SDI
(WATER)
(ENVI.)
SDI (LAND)
LIS
LIS
SDI (ROADS)
3.2
Role of Parcel Layer in SDI Cadastral data is one of the framework data identified by many jurisdictions because it provides thematic information and also provides a framework for integration. The role of the parcel layer in SDI depends on how the cadastral map is used for national, state, or local land information systems, and if it is used additionally for other purposes, for example utility mapping, sustainable development or other similar purposes. Administrative boundarie(s) is one of the core data in the SDIs and it must be coordinated if effective data integration and analysis is to be realized. However, most organizations have established independent administrative, planning and political boundaries that rarely coincide. In most cases though, cadastral/ land parcel is used as the bottom layer in GIS analysis. The spatial hierarchy problem, which is about incompatible boundary alignment, has been addressed differently. But (Eagleson et al., 1999) proposed model where a cadastre, common to all states, provides the foundation for delineation of boundaries with the national boundary at the top level of the spatial hierarchy. 3.3
Development of “Infrastructure” Vs Business Systems As initially conceived, SDI had the main objective of ensuring that users are able to acquire, at the right time, complete and consistent geospatial data sets of the highest quality, which focused on “infrastructure”. However, currently, there is a paradigm shift - from data to service, similar to what Todd (2005) refer to as a Service Oriented Spatial Infrastructure. This shift in focus will ensure that SDI is an integral information infrastructure for governance (De Man, 2006). Typical services include tasks performed by humans and those performed by computers. Within SDI, system functions used within a service could be available at different SDI nodes, thus ensuring that business services are incorporated. If SDI is to be integrated with LAS, then SDI must support business systems and therefore business systems become the driving force behind the development of SDI.
3.4
Hierarchy and Dynamic nature of SDI SDI is dynamic in nature and unless it is conceived and constructed on the basis of some model, it will remain largely independent of land administration systems. Figure 5 relates the components of a land administration system (LAS) and those of SDI. To achieve effective integration, these components need to be aligned properly. Figure 5: Land Administration System (LAS) and SDI Land administration functions
Services
Information Infrastructure
Technology Data
Land Policies
Policies
Institutional framework
Institutional framework
At the bottom of figure 5 is the institutional framework for both SDI and LAS, which considers such aspects as how is the SDI/LAS to be organized? and whether and how to involve the private sector? SDI is not solely for land administration, there has to an agreement with other participating organizations on the structure. Since in most countries LAS have been in existence, the organizational structure of SDI should be similar to the one for LAS and evolve with it. This will avoid a situation where, say LAS is centralized, while the SDI is decentralized. Whereas integrated land management depends on land policies laid down in the overall land policy laws such as Land Registration, Planning/Building Acts, SDI policies are meant to facilitate effective and efficient spatial data management, and address issues like: public access to spatial information, data privacy and security, copyright, cost recovery among others. Therefore during the preparation of SDI policies, reference has to be made to the existing land policies to avoid possible conflict and duplication. Land information infrastructure (LII) as the other component that supports land administration functions, corresponds to data and technology components of SDI. While land information infrastructure includes cadastral and topographical datasets and the provision of access to complete and up-to-date information about the built and natural environment, SDI considers data as the main subject and the technology to facilitate the access to the data. Effective SDI depends on standardized data sets and interoperable technology. To mainstream SDI in LAS, either the SDI adopts the data models and technology used by LAS or otherwise. At the highest level of figure 5, are the land administration systems functions and services for LAS and SDI respectively. LAS are implemented to support land tenure, land value, land use and land development, while in SDI, services are the basic units of processing that are considered to make available operations; they are a collection of functions, organized in such a way that they exhibit behaviour of value to a user (Morales, 2004). In designing and implementing SDI, the land administration functions should be designed and provided as SDI services. 4
Discussion and Conclusion SDIs are indispensable in Land Administration Systems. As LAS and SDIs continue to evolve, there is need to design and implement them in a way that takes advantage of each. This study has identified aspects both in SDI and LAS that can provide basis for integration, and these include: understanding the role of SDI in land
administration, the role of cadastral data in SDI, shift of focus from ‘infrastructures’ to services (business systems) and the hierarchy and dynamism of SDI and LAS. While the role of SDI in land administration cannot be over-emphasized, during the design and implementation of SDI, a number of nodes have to be established that support land administration functions. As much as it is appreciated that cadastral data supports many functions, this can only be possible by developing a reliable and cadastral database, where data for the database from different sources need to be integrated. Where the systems are not aligned, there is a likelihood of conflicts and duplication. Therefore, to ensure that SDI is mainstreamed in LAS, the following aspects need to be aligned. • LAS and SDI Institutional framework • Land policies and SDI policies • Land information infrastructure and SDI data and technologies • Land administration function and SDI services In conclusion, this study has only identified the general aspects that need to be addressed as attempts are made to mainstream SDI in land administration. Specific issues will depend on specific country cases. References
Budhathoki, N. R. and Nedovic-Budic, N. 2006. Towards an Extended SDI Knowledge Base and Conceptual Framework. In the Proceedings of GSDI-9 Conference. Santiago, Chile. 6-10 November. Crompvoets, J., Bregt, A, Rajabifard, A and Williamson, I. 2004. Assessing the worldwide developments of national spatial clearinghouses. International Journal of Geographical Information Science. Vol. 18 No. 7, pp. 665-689. Dale, P. and McLaughlin, J.D. (1999). Land Administration Systems. Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, ISBN 0-19-823390-6, 169 p. De Man, W.H. E. (2006). Beyond Spatial Data Infrastructures there are no SDIs – so what. In the International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2007, Vol. 2, 1-23. Eagleson, S., Escobar, F. J. and Williamson I. P. (1999). Hierarchical Spatial Reasoning Applied to the Automated Design of Administrative Boundaries Using GIS. Presented at the 6th South East Asian Surveyors Congress, Fremantle, 1 - 6 November Eelderink Lyndale, Crompvoets and Man Eric. 2006. Towards Key Variables to Access NSDI’s in Developing Countries. In the Proceedings of GSDI-9 Conference. Santiago, Chile. 6-10 November. Enemark, S. (2004): Building Land Information Policies. Proceedings of Special Forum on Building Land Information Policies in the Americas. Aguascalientes, Mexico, 26-27 October 2004. http://www.fig.net/pub/mexico/papers_eng/ts2_enemark_eng.pdf FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee. 2007. The FGDC Clearinghouse Registry. () last accessed 11January 2007.
Giff Garfield. 2006. The value of performance Indictors to Spatial data Infrastructures Development. In the Proceedings of GSDI-9 Conference. Santiago, Chile. 6-10 November. Masser, I. 1999. All Shapes and Sizes: the first generation of national spatial data infrastructures. International Journal of GIS, (13): 67-84. Nedovi_-Budi_, N. and Budhathoki, N. R. 2006. Technological and Institutional Interdependences and SDI – The Bermuda Square? In the International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research, 2006, Vol. 1, 36-50. Parker, R. John and Enemark Stig. 2005. Land Administration and Spatial Data Infrastructure: Special Forum on the Development of land Information Policies in the Americas. Eighth United Nations Regional Cartographic Conference for the Americas New York, 27 June-1 July 2005 Morales J., 2004. Model-driven Design of Geoinformation Services. Ph. D Thesis, International Institute for Geoinformation Science and earth Observation, Eschede, The Netherlands. Rajabifard A, and Williamson, I. 2006. Integration of Built and Natural Environmental Datasets within National SDI Initiatives. Seventeenth United Nations Regional Cartographic Conference for Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok, 18-22 September 2006. http://www.geom.unimelb.edu.au/research/SDI_research Steudler, Daniel Rajabifard Abbas and Williamson Ian P. 2004. Evaluating Land Administration Systems. Journal for land Use Policy. Vol. 21, pp. 371-380. Steudler, Daniel Williamson Ian P., Rajabifard Abbas and Enemark Stig. 2004b. The Cadastral Template Project. In the Proceedings of the FIG Working Week, Athens, Greece, 22-27 May. Todd, P. 2005. Impact of Uncertainty on Governmnce strategies for integrated coastal zone management. Presentation at the Marine Cadastral Workshop, 2005. Sydney, Australia. (http://www.geom.unimelb.edu/maritime/workshop2005.htm). Williamson, Ian P. 2001. Land administration "best practice" providing the infrastructure for land policy implementation. Journal for Land Use Policy, Vol. 18, pp. 297-307. http://www.geom.unimelb.edu.au/research/publications/IPW/2_01_ipw_LandAdminB est Practice (JLUP00)2.pdf
Copyright Notice As a condition for inclusion in the GSDI 10 Conference Proceedings, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/. Any use of the work in contradiction of the Creative Commons License requires express permission by the authors of the article.
