DEVELOPMENT OF SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURES LESSONS LEARNT FROM THE AUSTRALIAN DIGITAL CADASTRAL DATABASES

DEVELOPMENT OF SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURES LESSONS LEARNT FROM THE AUSTRALIAN DIGITAL CADASTRAL DATABASES by Ian P. Williamson Tai On Chan Wolfgang Effenberg ABSTRACT Over the last few years governments at state and national levels have given much attention to spatial data infrastructures (SDIs). The development of SDIs is driven by the business needs of and technological developments to support both the government and the rapidly expanding spatial information industry amid myriads of political decisions. The growth in SDIs in many developed countries worldwide is parallelled by a move to economic rationalism and microeconomic reform, both of which have had a major impact on the role of spatial data infrastructures. This paper uses the State of Victoria as a typical case to analyse the interaction of the forces that have shaped the development of SDIs in Australia, particularly the critical digital cadastral databases (DCDB), and to highlight some generic trends and lessons learnt in managing SDIs in the context of economic rationalism. INTRODUCTION There is no doubt that the development of the spatial data infrastructure (SDI) concept has been one of the most exciting and challenging initiatives in the spatial information industry over the last decade. The interest in SDIs is understandable considering the fundamental role that they play in our emerging information society. The development of SDIs is difficult and affected by many factors, including technological development and business needs. Other significant factors are political decisions and government policy, especially in an environment of microeconomic reform which has been enthusiastically embraced by many countries over the last few years. Australia, and particularly the Australian states, have been pursuing the development of components of SDIs since the early 1980s and provide a good case study to examine the difficulties involved; in particular the State of Victoria which has embraced economic rationalism more than any other state of Australia. Rather than describing the SDIs being developed, this paper aims to look at the impact of various factors, particularly micro-economic reform and economic rationalism, on the development of SDIs in Australia with a focus on the State of Victoria. This paper describes the concept of micro-economic reform and economic rationalism in the Australian context [also see Williamson et al. 1997 and Grant 1997]. It then introduces national and state SDIs with the latter distinguishable from the former by the state digital cadastral databases (DCDBs). These databases in turn were brought together to form a national data set to meet the requirements of the 1996 Australia wide census. On account of the complexity and economic significance of the development of state DCDBs both at the state and national levels, the paper concentrates on the state DCDBs in Australia (the Victorian DCDB in particular) as an illustration of the general issues involved in developing SDIs. This paper details the historical development of the DCDB in Victoria in the context of economic rationalism and the prevailing political forces. On summarising the lessons learnt, the paper

attempts to look forward at some of the changes that are occurring as a result of both technological and institutional developments. Two interesting developments are observed. One is the increasing recognition that a land titles registry plays a key role in the operation of SDIs and in fact could be considered an integral component of a SDI. The other concerns the move to integrate the cadastral and topographic data sets to form one State Digital Map Base (SDMB) and the trend to merge the mapping or spatial functions and the land title or registry functions. ECONOMIC RATIONALISM IN AUSTRALIA Since the mid 1980s it was recognised that Australia needed a major reform to its economy to maintain its standard of living. The Federal Labor government entered its third term of office in 1987 with a micro-economic reform agenda [INDECS 1990]. This paper adopts Terry and Forde s [1992, p. 10] definition of micro-economic reform as "measures which increase the ability of the economy's resources to produce goods and services efficiently". In the context of nation wide micro-economic reform, changes to the management of the Australian public sector were introduced. In the State of Victoria, an important element of the reform had been the restructuring of government departments (based on the Funder-Provider model) to sharpen their focus on core business or service delivery objectives and improve cost attribution. This is to ensure that management decisions take account of the full costs of service delivery [Vertigan 1996]. Some of the micro-economic measures adopted over the years include: down-sizing of state government through contracting out of non-core businesses, corporatisation of business units in state departments, privatisation of state owned or government business enterprises, and reducing departmental staff; reducing recurrent annual budgets; rigorous scrutiny of capital investments through application of commercial accounting and rate of return requirements; separate funding to encourage micro-economic reform initiatives in government. Concurrent with the Victorian reform was the publication of a National Competition Policy by the Federal Government in 1993 [Hilmer et al. 1993]. All State governments agreed to implement this policy in 1995. The Victorian State Government also committed itself to the introduction of competitive neutrality principles to both government-owned businesses and predominantly taxfunded general government services. The principles of competitive neutrality aim to ensure that government businesses and services do not enjoy any net competitive advantage through immunity from taxes, regulations, debt charges, and in general, full cost attribution [Department of Premier and Cabinet 1996]. It is within this economic rationalistic environment that spatial data infrastructures have developed in Australia over the last ten years. For a more in-depth review of the development of the spatial information industry within the Australian microeconomic reform environment refer to Grant and Mooney [1997]. SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURES - AUSTRALIA AND VICTORIA Australia Even though Australia has been developing components of a national spatial data infrastructure (NSDI) for decades, the concept gained a fresh momentum with the publication of the Executive Order of the President of the United States on NSDI in April, 1994 [Executive Order of the White House 1994]. The concept of spatial data infrastructures (SDIs) in Australia recognises a wide range of SDIs from global through regional, national, state to local and even institutional levels. While the focus in Australia is on national and state SDIs, other jurisdictions, such as local government or utilities have their own shared spatial databases, portions of which may be a subset or an aggregation of the national and state SDIs. The national and state SDIs play different roles based on federal and state responsibilities in

Australia. For example, the Australian Government through its Commonwealth Government organisation AUSLIG is responsible for medium to small scale mapping (mapping scales 1:50,000 and smaller) and the national geodetic network (it shares some of these responsibilities with Defence). On the other hand, land administration and cadastral matters are a state responsibility and, as such, states are responsible for medium to large scale mapping (1:25,000 and larger) and particularly cadastral mapping [ANZLIC 1996; Mooney and Grant 1997]. All the above responsibilities are coordinated by the Australia New Zealand Land Information Council (ANZLIC) which was formed in 1986 and is the peak coordinating body for land information policies at a national level. The primary objective of an Australian NSDI is to ensure that users of land and geographic data will be able to acquire complete and consistent national data sets to meet their requirements [ANZLIC 1996]. The proposed Australian NSDI model [ANZLIC 1996] is similar to the US NSDI model and has the following components: Victoria Institutional framework - defines the policy and administrative arrangements for building, maintaining, accessing and applying the standards and data sets; Technical standards - the technical characteristics of the fundamental data sets; Fundamental data sets - are produced within the institutional framework and fully comply with the technical standards; Clearing house network - is the means by which the fundamental data sets are made accessible to the community, in accordance with policy determined within the institutional framework, and to the technical standards agreed. This relies on the development of metadata and systems to manage, access and search metadata ( metadata engines ). The Victorian SDI is made up of the Geospatial Information Network (GISNET) and the Geodetic Information Network (GPSNET). GISNET is managed by Geospatial Policy and Coordination Victoria (GPAC), the State SDI coordinating agency which is also the Victorian representative on the ANZLIC Advisory Committee. GPSNET is managed by the Office of Surveyor General. The components of the SDI are similar to the ANZLIC model but at a larger map scale and in more detail. The State s fundamental spatial data sets include the cadastral layer (DCDB), the digital topographic data base (DTDB), digital elevation model and digital road network, administrative boundaries, geographic names gazetteer and the geodetic framework (linked to the national network). Details of GISNET are available on the WWW Home Page (http://www.gisnet.vic.gov.au/). An important element which distinguishes the state SDI from the national SDI is that the state SDI includes the cadastre which is made up of the spatial (DCDB) and textual (land titles) components. The cadastre accounts for two important complexities not found at a national level. First, it is dynamic due to the daily subdivision of land. Second, it has a very high integrity with the title (textual) component guaranteed by the Government. As the cadastre underpins a state's land market and economic activity, the state governments of Australia in general now recognise DCDBs as the most important component of the core spatial data sets in a state wide spatial data infrastructure [Price Waterhouse Economic Studies and Strategies Unit 1995; Tomlinson Associates Ltd. 1993]. Managing both the spatial (DCDB) and textual (land titles) components of the cadastre while embracing micro-economic reform present some of the biggest hurdles in introducing the State's SDI. The more generic issues involved in the management of SDIs are illustrated by the experience of developing and managing Victoria s cadastre, particularly the DCDB, in the context of micro-economic reform. FACTORS AFFECTING DEVELOPMENT OF DCDB IN AUSTRALIA Historically the Surveyors General s offices have controlled the alienation and management of Crown land, the licensing of cadastral surveyors and some quality assurance of cadastral

surveys [Williamson and Enemark 1996]. Surveyors General have also had the responsibility for compiling cadastral overlays for topographic maps, and the creation of DCDBs, as well as managing the surveying and mapping infrastructure. The Land Titles Offices historically have had responsibility for the titles and deeds associated with all freehold, alienated or private lands and have usually been responsible for examining records of cadastral surveys of these lands as a result of their historical development. The Land Titles Offices paramount concern being individual land transactions in support of an efficient land market means that Australia lacks a European style cadastral office providing a complete cadastral record. Historically subdivisions of private lands were charted in Land Titles Offices on low spatial integrity index maps which were often copied from approximate valuation maps, which were also used by local government and utilities. With twenty to thirty different base map series being maintained in each state there was considerable duplication and the maps were rarely if ever kept up-to-date. The integrity of the cadastral system however was based on the individual accurate cadastral surveys and plans kept in the Land Titles Offices and those relating to Crown land kept in the Department of Lands or Offices of Surveyor General. While the state Land Titles Offices have been responsible for checking or maintaining cadastral surveys of private land, the Surveyors General of each Australia state have usually had responsibility for some related cadastral activities concerned with Crown land and for the quality assurance of cadastral surveys often in association with state or territory Boards of Surveyors. This has often created confusion and tension in Australian states and territories between the titling, and survey and mapping organisations, particularly regarding the creation and maintenance of DCDBs. A situation made more complex in recent years by the introduction of new players in the creation and management of DCDBs. Most computerised cadastral maps in urban areas were initially prepared by water utility authorities in response to their requirement for digital maps to manage their underground assets and services. The metropolitan water utilities of Melbourne (Victoria) and Sydney (NSW) originally captured and managed their state s metropolitan digital cadastral map, collectively representing the majority of land parcels (with the focus on properties, not necessarily legal land parcels) in Australia [Wan and Williamson 1995]. The national trend for each state to establish chief information officers to centrally coordinate information policy creates a further stakeholder in the DCDB development process. The creation and maintenance of DCDBs as a mapping function has meant that the DCDBs operate increasingly at "arms length" from the land titles function. Technological Development - Computerisation The typical technique for establishing digital cadastral maps or DCDBs has been to first fit together the best available individual cadastral survey plans or original alienation maps onto a topographic base map using a graphic rubber sheeting technique and then digitising the resulting paper cadastral map. For rural areas the source maps were generally at a scale of 1:25000, while the metropolitan paper maps ranged from 1:5000 down to 1:200 and in urban areas the scales were usually 1:500-4,000. Concurrent with the development of DCDBs it became obvious that the state Land Titles Offices could not continue to operate massive and growing paper systems and still provide an efficient service. The Land Titles Office in Victoria maintains a register of over 3 million live titles and 26 million paper instruments (ie., registered mortgages, transfers, caveats, etc.).the ongoing process of the computerisation of state Land Titles Office started by the introduction of a computerised tracking system to determine the location of documents. Today most states and territories in Australia have developed complete automated land titles systems supported by systems which replace all paper originals with databases of scanned images.

With the availability of individual, digital title information, a DCDB can be used as a graphical interface for indexing and checking cadastral surveys. The linking of titles systems and DCDBs data sets allows all title and survey searching to be undertaken in real time at remote locations. This is forcing a closer working relationship between the mapping and land title functions, and the integration of DCDB and a state s land information database. See for example the fully integrated Basic Land Information Network (BLIN) in the State of Queensland [Rush, 1997]. Technological Development - Data Accuracy The derivation of DCDBs from paper cadastral maps means that cadastral boundaries are represented at a graphical accuracy ( 1mm at map scale ie., 25m at 1:25000). Since the initial creation phase, the task of updating the state DCDBs to ensure that all new legal subdivisional activity is recorded and that the existing DCDB is complete, has taken up most of the resources of the custodians of the state DCDBs [Effenberg and Williamson 1996].The outlying suburban areas and some rural areas of high subdivisional activity with low DCDB accuracy, represent the major requirement to upgrade the DCDB. In the past GIS users were satisfied with graphically accurate DCDBs. Widespread use of GIS software and GPS surveying means that these users are now increasingly demanding greater accuracy ( 0.3m in urban areas) and more sophisticated spatial data structures. Williamson and Hunter [1996]maintain that for future development there is the need for: coordinated cadastres, where all cadastral surveys are carried out on state coordinate systems; digital lodgement of cadastral surveys to the state cadastral office; automated checking of cadastral surveys against the state DCDB; and state DCDBs representing survey accuracy. These developments are again forcing a closer working relationship between the custodians of DCDBs and land titles registry functions in the Australian context. The Business Need for National Digital Map Data The reality is that there are currently eight different cadastral systems in Australia, all with different standards, albeit some differences are seemingly minor although they can create significant administrative differences. The business need to provide individually designed large scale national mapping products sourced from state DCDBs and state digital topographic data sets is an issue of increasing importance. The main users of a national DCDB are the Bureau of Statistics, the Federal Electoral Commission, defence and national utilities such as telecommunication companies [Baker 1997; PSMA 1996a; PSMA 1996b].The integration of the state large scale data bases within the NSDI will be one of the most challenging developments facing the geomatics industry over the next decade. The 1996 Australian Census was the impetus to overcome the technological and organisational barriers posed by eight state and territory cadastral systems to provide the first national DCDB product integrated with aspects of each state s topographic data sets. Despite the cooperation of eight willing mapping agencies, it took 90 man-years of effort to produce this "one-off" national data set. Another impetus has been the demand for digital road networks, which increasingly rely on DCDBs for their integrity. The need for national products increases pressure for standards, which ensure that national products can be cost effectively produced and maintained from individual state data sets. The experiences with the national DCDB product used for the census indicates the complexity of developing NSDIs and national standards, and highlights the practical issues involved in making functional NSDIs [Mooney and Grant 1997].The institutional arrangements are particularly interesting since the first national DCDB was produced by the Public Sector Mapping Agencies (PSMA), an organisation comprised of the state, territory and federal mapping agencies. This results in two players at the national mapping level: the PSMA and the federal AUSLIG. FORCES THAT SHAPE SDI/DCDB DEVELOPMENT IN VICTORIA

In the context of micro-economic reform worldwide and economic rationalism in the public sector of Victoria, developing the Victorian SDI has been a turbulent process. The process can be studied in terms of three epochs named after the lead agencies in GIS coordination in the respective era: LANDATA, OGDC (for Office of Geographic Data Co-ordination), and GPAC/GDV (for Geographic Data Victoria). LANDATA Era (Early 1980s - 1991) In the mid-seventies, the Victorian government was already aware of the significant duplication in the maintenance of computerised land information. Due to the scale of the problem, it was only after a decade of deliberation in 1984 that the State government finally agreed to establish an agency called LANDATA to coordinate the development of a common land information system [Rakkar et al. 1984]. However, LANDATA was ahead of its time. The extent of the problems (technical, political and organisational) in achieving the vision were under-estimated. It was under-resourced by government which viewed it as a mechanism to achieve land administration reform [Chan and Williamson 1995b]. The LANDATA system produced digital map data in a format unsuitable for modern GIS applications. By far the most significant blow to the success of LANDATA was the cost recovery policy adopted by government at that time. LANDATA was unable to deliver sufficient of the predicted tangible benefits to satisfy government. By early 1990s, LANDATA was reduced to a public inquiry service of land ownership information in the State s Land Titles Office; government support for GIS development was limited and fragmented with no GIS strategy. In 1991, frustrated by not having the right digital map base to support their GIS, a group of nine agencies from the natural resources sector pooled their resources together to hire an international consultant to review the State s GIS/LIS policy. Much of the background that led to this initiative is described in Williamson [1992]. Tomlinson Associates Ltd. [1991] produced a report recommending a thorough GIS planning exercise using a consistent cost-benefit analysis for the justification of GIS expenditure. The report took an economic rationalist approach and gained the acceptance of the then cost conscious state Labor government. As a result the Office of Geographic Data Co-ordination (OGDC) was established under the Department of Finance in late 1991 to oversee a more detailed GIS planning study of the government. OGDC Era (1991-1996) The planning study adopted a thorough and rigorous methodology for user needs and costbenefit analyses and a report was produced in 1993. In the process there was a change of government from Labor to Liberal which came in with micro-economic reform high on its agenda. The consultant recommended an investment of A$56 million over a period of six years to develop 270 data sets that would generate 61 information products for use by 39 state agencies. In return, the consultant predicted a fully discounted benefit of up to A$312 million [Tomlinson Associates Ltd. 1993], albeit the returns were subject to achieving many technical, institutional and administrative reforms [Chan and Williamson 1995a]. The rigorous approach of economic rationalism adopted in the report was in tune with the Liberal government s microeconomic reform policy. OGDC was put in charge of formulating and implementing the State s detailed GIS strategy. Being located within the Department of Finance (occasionally Department of Treasury) gave OGDC a neutral status, not being perceived to affiliate with any special government business function. However, it was also placed at the forefront of economic rationalism spear-headed by its parent department. As a model for other offices, OGDC was expected to remain small, to contract out its business operations, to manage the fundamental data sets in a commercial manner, and to be self-sufficient as soon as possible.

By that time, the DCDB was divided into two sets, metropolitan and rural, developed respectively by the Melbourne Water Corporation (MWC) and a State agency called Survey and Mapping Victoria. After much negotiation, in May 1994, an establishment agreement was signed between OGDC and MWC to bring the two databases together under government ownership at no cost, but under certain conditions. A special branch called Geographic Data Victoria (GDV) was created under OGDC to manage the new state wide DCDB in a commercial manner. In line with the attitude of many national governments, the State government developed a pricing policy under which all users apart from the state departments, academic and education institutes, were charged for using the DCDB and other digital map data. No additional resources were given to staff of GDV which contracted out the management, maintenance and distribution of the state DCDB. Qualified private sector organisations were to be sought to provide distribution services. As a result the government's role in managing the DCDB is increasingly focused on output and performance and is less prescriptive in respect to hardware and software. In 1995 the State government moved the mapping function from Survey and Mapping Victoria to OGDC. With DCDB, DTDB and the digital road network under its charge, and considering the commonalities in their content and administration, OGDC grouped them into the State Digital Map Base (SDMB). The increased authority for OGDC came with the requirement to downsize the mapping section and generally prepare it for privatisation, amounting to additional duties without a corresponding increase in management resources. Another outcome of the government's economic rationalism policy was to utilise universities and other research bodies to a far greater extent for its research needs. One result has been a major six-year contract of research between OGDC and the Department of Geomatics at the University of Melbourne, which commenced in 1996. GPAC/GDV Era (1996-Now) Current Development By April 1996, immediately after its re-election, the state Liberal government initiated an economic rationalist move to re-engineer the management of the state s data and information resources, particularly in the areas of land administration and natural resources. OGDC, together with the agencies responsible for managing the state s land and natural resources information, were put under a line department, the Department of Natural Resources and Environment. This led to OGDC being perceived as losing some independence since it was now part of an operational government department. To complete the transition to the funder-provider model, OGDC was split into two offices: GPAC and GDV. The former is the funder, responsible for policy and coordination, and the latter is the provider, responsible for the management of the SDMB. Initially two independent offices, GDV was brought under the control of GPAC in 1997. GPAC completed six minor consultant studies to provide a vision statement for each of the key program areas in government, namely, land administration, socio-economic planning, environment and heritage, emergency management, industry development, and transport. Based on much of the previous work by OGDC, GPAC also consolidated the concept of the state s SDI into GISNET, with the development of a draft Geospatial Information Strategic Plan and a draft Geospatial Data Pricing Policy for Victorian Government. The strategic plan recognises the role of the Government to promote, facilitate, coordinate and own the fundamental spatial data sets while embracing the Government's commitment to microeconomic reform. It appears that the GPAC/GDV era will be short lived. The government has recently carried out an extensive review to re-organise and rationalise the land related activities in Victoria. Although not officially announced by the responsible Minister, this will result in the Land Victoria era. In the new structure, which was implemented in late 1997, the separate offices of Land Titles, Surveyor General, Valuation and Crown lands administration have been amalgamated into

Land Victoria. The objective is for this organisation to have one face and one corporate voice, although operational details were still being resolved when this article went to print. The final Strategic Plan (Land Victoria, 1997a) and Pricing Policy (Land Victoria, 1997b) have now been published by Land Victoria. Changes in The Spatial Information Industry in Victoria The spatial information industry in Victoria is made up of three integrated sectors, namely, government, private and academic. Their relationship is so intertwined that changes caused by economic rationalism in one sector has resulted in changes in the others. In the period from 1985 to 1997, the Victorian spatial information industry changed dramatically from being public sector dominated to private sector dominated [Marwick 1997]. The public sector no longer has large capital and organisations to collect, maintain, and produce maps, develop computerised systems and manage mapping programs. Now it is lean and mean, plays a strategic and policy development role, coordinates across the industry, and manages contracts to the private and academic sectors. Many of its previous roles are being taken over by a vibrant and growing private sector. Further the spatial information industry is less dominated by traditional professions, with the private sector assuming a broader role, investing in research and development, and exporting overseas. In the past, the public sector used to undertake extensive applied research and development. These activities are now contracted out to the academic sector and complemented by private sector research. As a result, the academic sector, as represented by the Department of Geomatics at The University of Melbourne (formerly the Department of Surveying), has grown in size and research capacity. The Department now generates over one third of its budget from external sources through contracts and consultancies, and has a close working relationship with both the government and private sectors. LESSONS LEARNT FROM DCDB DEVELOPMENT The development of SDI/DCDB in Australia and Victoria has been affected by technological developments, business needs of the jurisdictions, political decisions and economic rationalism. Economic rationalism has had an overarching impact, helping to consolidate the changes initiated by technological and business factors. Economic rationalism has left its mark in three main areas: GIS/SDI management mechanisms in the public sector, the spatial information industry in general, and the composition of the SDI. Public Sector To the public sector, micro-economic reform has resulted in changed employment conditions, a greater focus on economic and financial issues, and a more pragmatic approach to system development and implementation. Agencies responsible for SDI coordination and management faded in and out of existence as economic rationalism evolved within government. Though frequent change is perceived to be bad for continuity in strategy formulation and implementation, change in the SDI coordinating and management agency has helped to refocus and reinvigorate the process of SDI development. The perception of SDI actually widened from a set of intra-government GIS capabilities in the LANDATA era to a currently state wide mechanism to support the spatial information industry and to deliver spatial information to the community. Spatial Information Industry The changes in the spatial information industry in Victoria under the micro-economic policy of the State government suggest that the industry is more complex and no longer the primary domain of surveyors and cartographers. The changes have improved the capacity for the private and academic sectors to grow and invest in new technologies, and to contribute to the development of the industry and the State s economy. The industry is in a more healthy and

vibrant condition, and more evenly supported by the three sectors. Spatial Data Infrastructure There are three significant outcomes in the development of SDI in Victoria and its cadastral component. One is the increasing recognition that the land titles function plays a key role in the operation of the state and national SDIs. In fact it is an integral component, as a direct result of the computerisation of the cadastre, and the inherent strong linkage between the DCDB and land titles components through the land administration processes. The second concerns the move to integrate the DCDB, the DTDB, and the digital road network to form a single digital map base, the SDMB. This move together with the push for coordinated cadastres, and the quest for an efficient infrastructure under economic rationalism, provide the impetus for the institutional change that brings the inter-dependent mapping and land titles functions together. This change also makes textual and spatial cadastral data a key component of the jurisdictions SDIs. And finally there has been a recognition that spatial data infrastructures are only half the story. By themselves they contribute little to society or the economy. The other half of the story is the spatial information business systems supported by the spatial data infrastructures. It is the business systems, such as those using the national DCDB products, which provide the economic and social benefits. As a result there is increasing attention to these business systems with an increasing focus on the users of spatial data. This has resulted in the traditional surveying, mapping and land titles focus having moved away from being provider driven to now being clearly user driven. In his Land Information Vision for Victoria commissioned by the State Government of Victoria (GPAC), Williamson [1996] included a conceptual model of a parcel based geographic information system based on a legal cadastre shown below as Figure 1 in a modified form. This vision and model support the above three outcomes. The model emphasises the importance of the land registry function as a key component of a state's SDI and proposes an optimal institutional structure to provide the core spatial data sets. The shaded activities indicate one organisation having a single public image, being a single budgetary unit and having a reasonable amount of government budget independence. Unfortunately this database oriented diagram focuses on cadastral entities and consequently does not highlight the critical importance of developing appropriate cadastral processes. In any cadastral reform, it is the cadastral processes of land transfer and subdivision which are the determining factors in the efficiency of the overall system, not the design of the individual components. The institutional change suggested in the model reflects trends in Australia and internationally, provides an efficient mechanism for both types of cadastral data as a key component of SDIs and meets the needs of an economic rationalistic approach to organisational restructuring. The model also highlights the importance of the legal land parcel (which is the primary concern of cadastral surveyors and land titles registries) and properties linked to street addresses (which are the primary concern of local government, utilities and valuation authorities). In most Australian jurisdictions these two data sets are 80-90% in common. Ensuring both data sets are linked is an essential task within current developments. CONCLUSIONS This paper has shown that technological developments, political decisions and business needs have been important driving forces in the development of spatial data infrastructure in Australia and its cadastral systems in particular. The climate of change engendered by the far reaching impact of micro-economic reform has clearly impacted on the development of the SDI. Without a nation wide emphasis on micro-economic reform and economic rationalism to promote the

necessary institutional changes, the development of the spatial data infrastructure might well have foundered due to traditional institutional barriers. Micro-economic reform has had a dramatic effect on the spatial information industry which has evolved in conjunction with the SDI. As the private and academic sectors of the industry have seen slower and more incremental changes, the government sector has seen major policy shifts and re-engineering of institutional structures. While there may be opposing views regarding the merits of the reform, the viability and competitiveness of the private and academic sectors in the spatial information industry has no doubt been dramatically improved. Recognising the importance of SDIs in promoting economic development and environmental management, governments in Australia are committed to establishing and maintaining SDIs at both state and national levels. At the state level, this has led to the integration the fundamental data sets such as the cadastral, topographic, and road network databases into one digital map base using one data model. The state DCDB is now recognised as an integral component of SDIs at both state and national level. The traditional state land titles activities (textual databases), through its close relation with the DCDB in the land administration process, has also become key components of SDIs. Prompted by economic rationalism, government agencies responsible for managing the fundamental data sets, including the traditional mapping and land registration (titles or deeds) offices, are being brought together to facilitate the development of state SDIs. Historically the development of SDIs in Australia has gone through different epochs as exemplified by the three eras of the State of Victoria and the now emerging fourth era. It is important for the current players to understand history and recognise the pitfalls of the past. Fortunately the current SDI coordinating agencies now have the advantage of complete digital fundamental data sets or at least a first cut to build upon. The future however will continue to change. What is certain is that the introduction of the spatial data infrastructure concept within an era of economic rationalism has provided a major boost to the GIS and spatial information industry - the future looks promising for those who are prepared to embrace the change. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to gratefully acknowledge the support of Land Victoria (previously Geospatial Policy and Coordination Victoria (GPAC) and Geographic Data Victoria (GDV)) of the Victorian Government, the Surveyor General s Department (SGD) (previously the Land Information Centre (LIC)) of the New South Wales Government, and the Australian Research Council (ARC) (Grant No. C19700324), and suggestions and comments from colleagues in the spatial information industry in Victoria, in the preparation of this paper and the associated research. However, the views expressed in the paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Land Victoria, SGD, ARC or any other agencies mentioned. This paper is a significantly revised version of a presentation at the URISA 97 Conference held in Toronto, Canada, July 21-24, 1997. REFERENCES ANZLIC 1996. National Spatial Data Infrastructure for Australia and New Zealand. Paper presented at the National Spatial Data Infrastructure Summit, Canberra, 27th September, 18 pages. Baker, H. 1997. Towards a national cadastre, GIS User, April-May, pp. 22-24. Chan, T. O. and I. P. Williamson. 1995a. A review of the planning methodology for Victoria. Proceedings of the 1995 New Zealand Conference on Geographical Information Systems and Spatial Information Research incorporating the 7th Annual Colloquium of the Spatial Information Research Centre, Massey University, 26-28 April, AURISA (NZ) and SIRC, pp. 37-46.

Chan, T. O. and I. P. Williamson. 1995b. A review of the planning methodology for Victoria: its relevance to real life situations. Proceedings of the 5th South East Asian and 36th Australian Surveyors Congress, Singapore, 16th-20th July 1995, Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers and the Institute of Surveyors, Australia Inc., Vol. 1, pp. 185-212. Executive Order of the White House 1994. Co-ordinating geographic data acquisition and access: the national spatial data infrastructure, Office of the Press Secretary, USA, 11 April 1994. Department of Premier and Cabinet 1996. Competition Neutrality: A Statement of Victorian Government Policy/Competition Policy, Melbourne: Department of Premier and Cabinet. Effenberg, W. W. and I. P. Williamson. 1996. Data flows, standards and incremental cadastral update. Proceedings of the 8th Annual Colloquium of the Spatial Information Research Centre, Dunedin, New Zealand, 9-11 July, University of Otago, pp.53-59. Grant, D. M., D. J. Mooney 1997. The state and the business of spatial information. Proceedings of ikusasa CONSAS 97, Durban, South Africa, 24-28 August, 11pages. Hilmer, F. G., M. Rayner and G. Taperell. 1993. National Competition Policy, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. INDECS 1990. State of Play 6: The Australian Economic Policy Debate, Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Land Victoria 1997a. Geospatial Information Strategic Plan. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Government of Victoria. Land Victoria 1997b. Geospatial Data Pricing Policy. Department of Natural Resources and Environment, Government of Victoria. Marwick, B. 1997. Providing Victoria s spatial data infrastructure: the changed role of the private sector. Presentation by Brian Marwick, President of the Institution of Surveyors, Australia Inc and Director of Dataflow to the final year Geomatics students of the University of Melbourne. Mooney, J. D. and D. M. Grant. 1997. The Australian Spatial Data Infrastructure. In D. Rhind (Ed.), Framework of the World. Forthcoming. Price Waterhouse Economic Studies and Strategies Unit 1995. Australian Land and Geographic Data Infrastructure Benefits Study, Australia New Zealand Land Information Council. PSMA 1996a. A Mapping Revolution - The Public Sector Mapping Agencies and the 1996 Census, Bathurst, NSW (LIC): Public Sector Mapping Agencies, Canberra. PSMA 1996b. Report of the PSMA/ICSM Workshop on Digital Cadastral Data Bases Melbourne, 5-7 August, Canberra: Public Sector Mapping Agencies. Rakkar, S. D. S., R. A. Eddington, P. S. Ralton and D. L. Gung. 1984. LANDATA Corporate Plan, Department of Crown Lands and Survey. Rush, G. 1997. Land information management in Queensland. Proceedings of ikusasa CONSAS 97, Durban, South Africa, 24-28 August, 12 pages. Terry, C. and K. Forde. 1992. Microeconomics: An Introduction for Australian Students, (3rd ed.) Sydney: Prentice Hall. Tomlinson Associates Ltd. 1991. GIS Situation Report, State Government of Victoria - Strategic Framework for GIS Development, State Government of Victoria.

Tomlinson Associates Ltd. 1993. GIS Strategy Report, State Government of Victoria - Strategic Framework for GIS Development, Office of Geographic Data Co-ordination. Vertigan, M. 1996. Choice and Contestability: Keys to Effective Public Sector Performance. Paper presented to the Institute of Public Administration Australia Leadership Forum, 19 pages. Wan, W. Y. and I. P. Williamson. 1995. A Review of Digital Cadastral Databases in Australia and New Zealand. The Australian Surveyor, 40(1), pp. 41-52. Williamson, I. P. 1992. Cadastral reform and the politics of Land and Geographic Information Systems, Proceedings of the International Conference on Cadastral Reform 92, Melbourne, Australia, 29 June - 1 July, pp. 24-31. Williamson, I. P. 1996. A land information vision for Victoria. A position paper prepared for Geospatial Policy and Co-ordination Victoria. Williamson, I. P. and S. Enemark. 1996. Understanding cadastral maps. The Australian Surveyor, 41(1), pp. 38-52. Williamson, I. P. and G. J. Hunter. 1996. The establishment of a coordinated cadastre for Victoria - A scoping study for the Office of Surveyor General and Office of Geographic Data Coordination, Department of Treasury and Finance, Government of Victoria. Williamson, I. P., T. O. Chan, and W. W. Effenberg. 1997. Economic rationalism in managing spatial data infrastructure the Australian experience. Presented at the URISA 97 Conference, Toronto, 20th - 24th July, 15 pages. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Ian Williamson holds the Chair of Surveying and Land Information in the Department of Geomatics at The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. He holds bachelors, masters and doctorate degrees in Surveying and is a Registered Professional Land Surveyor and a Chartered Professional Engineer. Professor Williamson is both a Fellow of the Institution of Surveyors, Australia and the Institution of Engineers, Australia. Prior to his academic career, he worked for a state government in Australia, an American engineering corporation based in the USA and ran his own consultancy practice. He is Chairperson (1994-98) of Commission 7 (Cadastre and Land Management) of FIG. He has consulted widely to state and federal governments in Australia and overseas, United Nations agencies and the World Bank on the establishment of cadastral, land and geographic information systems. Professor Williamson can be reached at the epartment of Geomatics, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia. Ph.: +61-3-9344-4431, Fax.: +61-3-9347-4128, E-mail: i.williamson@engineering.unimelb.edu.au. URL: http://www.sli.unimelb.edu.au/people/ipw.html Tai On Chan obtained his Bachelor degree in Biology at the University of Hong Kong in 1978, and then another Bachelor degree in Forestry at the University of Wales, United Kingdom in 1983. He is also a Chartered Biologist. From 1983-94, he worked for the Hong Kong Government as a Forestry Officer with responsibilities of planning, conservation, management and training inside country parks. He obtained his M.Phil. at the Hong Kong Polytechnic University in 1994 for his research on justification of GIS. He is currently a PhD candidate in the Department of Geomatics at the University of Melbourne. His research interests are in planning, management and implementation of spatial information systems. Mr. T.O. Chan can be reached at Department of Geomatics, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, Australia. Ph.: +61-3-9344-4431, Fax.: +61-3-9347-4128, E-mail: tch@sunrise.sli.unimelb.edu.au. Wolfgang Effenberg is a lecturer in Information Technology at Latrobe University, Bendigo, Victoria, Australia. Prior to his current academic career he worked for six years as a software engineer and consultant in the digital mapping, CAD and CAD/CAM industry. He obtained his

Masters at Melbourne University in 1994 with research into temporal considerations of digital road networks. He is also a part time PhD candidate in the Department of Geomatics at The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. His current major research focus is the investigation and utilisation of current computing technologies and communication in managing the update and upgrade of spatial data. Mr. W. Effenberg can be reached at Tel. No.: +61-3-5444-7993, Fax No.: +61-3-5444-7998, E-mail: wolf@sunburn.sli.unimelb.edu.au.

Minerva Access is the Institutional Repository of The University of Melbourne Author/s: Williamson, Ian P.; Chan, Tai On; Effenberg, Wolfgang Title: Development of spatial data infrastructures: lessons learnt from the Australian digital cadastral databases Date: 1998 Citation: Williamson, I. P., Chan, T.O., & Effenberg, W. (1998). Development of spatial data infrastructures: lessons learnt from the Australian digital cadastral databases, Geomatica, 52(2), 177-187. Publication Status: Published Persistent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/33999 File Description: Development of spatial data infrastructures: lessons learnt from the Australian digital cadastral databases Terms and Conditions: Terms and Conditions: Copyright in works deposited in Minerva Access is retained by the copyright owner. The work may not be altered without permission from the copyright owner. Readers may only download, print and save electronic copies of whole works for their own personal non-commercial use. Any use that exceeds these limits requires permission from the copyright owner. Attribution is essential when quoting or paraphrasing from these works.