P

otential National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI).............................................................................................................

(Yudono)

POTENTIAL NATIONAL SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURE (NSDI)

AND VOLUNTEREED GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION (VGI)
INTEGRATION TO ACHIEVE SEAMLESS-UPDATING-RELIABLE
SPATIAL PLANNING INFORMATION FROM NATIONAL THROUGH
LOCAL GOVERNANCE LEVEL IN INDONESIA
(Potensi Infrastruktur Data Spasial Nasional (IDSN) dan Voluntereed Geographic
Information (VGI) Integrasi untuk Mencapai-Updating-Diandalkan Mulus Informasi
Perencanaan Tata Ruang dari Nasional Melalui Tingkat Pemerintahan Daerah di
Indonesia)
Adipandang Yudono
Department of Town and Regional Planning
University of Sheffield, Western Bank, Sheffield S10 2TN-UK
E-mail: ayudono1@sheffield.ac.uk
Diterima (received): 31 Juli 2015; Direvisi (revised): 1 September 2015; Disetujui untuk dipublikasikan (accepted): 15 Oktober 2015

ABSTRACT

This paper focuses on the role of National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) in relation to spatial planning formulation
in Indonesia. The reason for selecting this topic is the fragmented manner of spatial data distribution amongst the
Indonesian government institutions responsible for spatial planning at present. Thus, spatial planning conflicts at different
levels (e.g. province and municipality) or at similar levels (e.g. regency or municipality) often occur. Furthermore, a lack
of spatial data management in spatial planning has led to the state spending considerable sums each year to produce,
process and use geographic data. Moreover, owing to a rather convoluted bureaucracy, crossjurisdictional organisational
circumstances have added a delicate political situation to accessing spatial data. Hence, this research considers the issue
of moving towards a consensus on sharing fundamental geospatial datasets to meet the public interest and geospatial
standardization to achieve the geospatial information integration amongst government institutions and private agencies in
national geospatial information provider. In addition, a traditional NSDI application using top-down approach has raised
several issues, for instance lack of up-to-date geospatial information. Which is this issue may overcome by engaging
bottom-up Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) approach. Practically, most of NSDI scholars have limited
understanding to what extent NSDI may accommodate a bottom-up VGI in terms of national/state spatial data
management. Therefore, to fill knowledge gap, this study will finding out the possibility NSDI in accommodating VGI
process and mechanism pertain national spatial data management and support accelerating geospatial information
implementation for spatial planning purposes. Keywords: NSDI, Spatial planning, VGI, Geospatial Information

ABSTRAK
Makalah ini berfokus pada peran Infrastruktur Data Spasial Nasional (IDSN) dalam kaitannya dengan perumusan
perencanaan tata ruang di Indonesia. Alasan untuk memilih topik ini adalah cara distribusi data spasial yang
terfragmentasi di antara lembaga-lembaga pemerintah Indonesia yang bertanggung jawab untuk perencanaan tata
ruang saat ini. Dengan demikian, konflik perencanaan tata ruang pada tingkat yang berbeda (misalnya provinsi dan
kabupaten) atau pada tingkat yang sama (misalnya kabupaten atau kota) sering terjadi. Selain itu, kurangnya
manajemen data spasial dalam perencanaan tata ruang telah menyebabkan pengeluaran negara dalam jumlah yang
cukup besar setiap tahun untuk memproduksi, memproses dan menggunakan data geografis. Selain itu, karena
birokrasi yang agak berbelit-belit, keadaan organisasi lintas yurisdiksi telah menambahkan secara halus situasi politik
untuk mengakses data spasial. Oleh karena itu, penelitian ini menganggap isu bergerak menuju konsensus tentang
berbagi dataset geospasial dasar untuk memenuhi kepentingan publik dan standarisasi geospasial untuk mencapai
integrasi informasi geospasial di antara lembaga-lembaga pemerintah dan lembaga swasta dalam penyediaan
informasi geospasial nasional. Selain itu, aplikasi tradisional IDSN menggunakan pendekatan top-down telah
mengangkat beberapa isu, misalnya kurangnya informasi geospasial yang up-to-date. Yang merupakan masalah ini

115
Jurnal Ilmiah Geomatika Volume 21 No. 2 Desember 2015: 115 - 130

dapat diatasi dengan pendekatan Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) secara bottom-up. Secara praktis,
sebagian besar ahli IDSN memiliki pemahaman yang terbatas sejauh mana IDSN dapat mengakomodasi pendekatan
bottom-up VGI dalam hal pengelolaan data spasial nasional. Oleh karena itu, untuk mengisi kesenjangan
pengetahuan ini, penelitian ini akan mencari tahu kemungkinan IDSN dalam mengakomodasi proses VGI dan
mekanisme yang berhubungan dengan pengelolaan data spasial nasional dan dukungan percepatan implementasi
informasi geospasial untuk tujuan perencanaan tata ruang.
Kata kunci: IDSN, perencanaan Tata Ruang, VGI, Informasi Geospasial

INTRODUCTION apply to urban and regional planning field for a couple

Geospatial data are typically used to support
decision making relevant to public sector services,
including spatial planning formulation. Studies
conducted by Nevodic-Budic et al. (1999); Rajabifard
and Williamson (2003), for example, have found more
than 80% public sector planning processes involved a
geographical information component. Furthermore,
the Chorley Report (Department of the Environment,
1987) reported that British local government used at
least 60% geographical components to display
information for their primary activities. Thus, many
nations now spend significant amounts of money to
produce, process and utilizing geospatial data (FGDC,
1997). However, many nations have very under-
developed spatial data infrastructures and this can
have a potentially negative impact upon the planning
process. One such example is in Indonesia.
To perform geospatial data for supporting the
spatial planning policy process, geographic
information systems (GIS) are now a necessary tool
(Rajabifard et al., 2003). On the other hand, many
government agencies or private sectors have little
ability or capacity to share and exchange spatial data
amongst them. Hence, most spatial data are provided
by government agencies and the private sector. Since
geospatial data are developed in a fragmented
manner, inadequate accessibility and interoperability
of the data is occurring (Bouckaert et al., 2006).
Recently, many countries have considered tackling the
fragmented manner of geospatial data development
phenomenon by reaching agreement of sharing
fundamental geospatial datasets to achieve the
geospatial information integration amongst
government institutions and private agencies at the
national level. This has resulted in the development of
a relatively new spatial data management system
which includes technology, policy, datasets criteria,
standard and people in its management: a National
Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) (Rajabifard and
Williamson, 2001; the USA executive order 12906,
1994).
The problem which a NSDI intended to address in
this study is disconnected spatial governance in terms
of spatial planning goals at different levels in
Indonesia. Spatial information as part of spatial
studies rarely examines governance processes as they
of decades (Vincent, 2008). Lack of spatial information
in terms of planning decision making process has
raised social and economic issues such as land
disputes, unbalanced state’s financial distribution from
national to local levels, economic discrepancy and
public services delivery from government to citizen
cannot be achieved appropriately.
On the other hand, a traditional NSDI
application using top-down approach has raised
several issues, for instances lack of up-to-date
geospatial information. Which is this issues may
overcome by engaging bottom-up Volunteered
Geographic Information (VGI) approach.
Practically, most of NSDI scholars have limited
understanding to what extent NSDI may
accommodate a bottom-up VGI in terms of
national/state spatial data management.
Therefore, to fill knowledge gap, this study will
finding out the possibility NSDI in
accommodating VGI process and mechanism
pertain national spatial data management and
to support accelerating geospatial information
implementation for spatial planning purposes.
METHODS
The research approach in this project will
mainly use qualitative methods. The reason for
this approach is to get in-depth understanding
of the role of NSDI and its organisational
management relevant to achieve planning
consensus from different stakeholders in
different levels regarding spatial planning
formulation in Indonesia. The methods will be
focused on three aspects: (a) examining the
role of potential NSDI increating a coherent
spatial planning system at all levels (b)
examining the appropriate Indonesian
government organization management in terms
of potential NSDI development regarding
spatial planning formulation and (c) finding
organisational management value
recommendation concerning potential NSDI
relevant to spatial planning formulation.
This research explores possibility of NSDI
in accommodating all stakeholders at different
levels to achieve planning consensus regarding

116
Potential National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) ........................................................................................................ (Yudono, A.)
spatial planning in Indonesia using literature
reviews from many theories, legal document
analysis, indepth interview to elites and other
NSDI stakeholders. Each of techniques will be
explained respectively. Literature reviews is
needed to finding out the appropriate grounded
theories NSDI and VGI related with spatial
planning process. The legal document collection
is needed to serve the purpose of providing a
fundamental background of the policy context
to gain a comprehensive understanding of NSDI
and spatial planning formulation that has been
done and will do in the future. Furthermore, the
interviews will be used to understand the
perspective of the government and planning
stakeholders in terms of their current strategy
and initiatives for promoting the NSDI in spatial
planning process from political and social
background.
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
What does Governance Mean in This
Context?
In terms of state management,
governance is primarily focused on creating
conducive state circumstances by ordered
policy and regulations also collective actions
(Stoker, 1998). Relevant to geographical
administrative areas, governance role
allocations can be distinguished into central and
local levels, where provides state/province,
district/regency/municipal administrative areas.
Their roles and responsibilities based on
subsidiarity, which ordered and allocated by
constitution (Rakodi, 2003).
In 1970s, governance was used by
American economists in corporate governance
and/or management with the primary goal is
creating economic efficiency by taking into
account society factors of local market prices
scale, then continued widespread to town
(urban governance) level, where the spatial
dimensions became the role of facilitator for
local actors (Vincent, 2008). Furthermore, in
1980s and 1990s, the concept of governance
moved from economics to political science and
also to the field of regional planning (Vincent,
2008). In the earlier era of governance
established in political science, they adopt
corporate governance centralized state
structure which works from the top-down
approach as a solution to cope with regional
planning issues (Vincent, 2008). However,
practices of top-down governance in several
countries demonstrated a failure to create a
democratic system to meet societal needs with
elite interest. For example, in the UK under
Thatcher’s government power entailed
inefficient and costly governance (Vincent,
2008); and Indonesia under highly Soeharto’s
regime power entailed economic disparity
between Java island and others Indonesian
islands (Moeliono, 2011).
Since 2000, world leaders have made
consensus by committed to the United Nations’
Millennium Declaration to engage the
democracy and good governance (Fukuda-parr,
& Ponzio, 2002). The consequences of the
treaty, all countries which involve under UN
members transform governance approach from
a top-down governance model to a bottom-up
model by engaging the participation within
government, private sectors and communities.
Furthermore, participation in the new
governance model should allow all stakeholders
to get access to information that concern with
their needs and interest, ones of information is
geographic information or spatial information,
particularly regarding their territorial interest
areas.
Despite the widespread acceptance of the
importance of governance, across the governance
literature, geographic information receives much less
attention in the governance process (Vincent, 2008).
This is particularly surprising in relation to the field of
spatial planning, where coordinated governance
across space is so centrally important. Hence, this
research will attempt to fill this gap in knowledge. To
incorporate spatial information into the governance
process, the next section will discuss how governance
relates to spatial governance.
From Governance to Spatial Governance
Developmental activities which involve
stakeholders (i.e. governments, private sectors and
communities) relevant to spatial context may
associate with geo-governance or spatial governance
(Vincent, 2008). Furthermore, spatial governance
goes toward to implement democratisation functions
or power sharing between the state and citizens to
achieve the goal of the decision-making and the
spatial stakes by implementing participatory planning
(Craig and Elwood, 1998). Ones of participatory
planning approaches are empowering local
governments and communities with participatory local
spatial information exploration in the decision-making
process.
Today, most spatial planning in Europe, where
influence many nations outside the European Union
(EU), traditionally involving territorial symbolic
representations in the forms of maps, graphs,
diagrams and icons (Duhr, 2007). Furthermore, she
argued the illustration of spatial policy through maps
also other spatial information media, such as GIS, very
117
Jurnal Ilmiah Geomatika Volume 21 No. 2 Desember 2015: 115 - 130
helpful in communicating essential planning strategies
messages. Moreover, Faludi (1996) and Kunzmann
(1996) argued spatial images of particular
developmental areas may easily support
understanding verbal communication describing social
and economic issues in all stakeholders to contribute
to achieving certain political goals.
To examine spatial information process may
provide achieving political consensus regarding spatial
planning formulation. The next section will explore the
relationship of spatial information with spatial
governance and communities, specifically it will
discuss the role of spatial information in the spatial
planning process.
The Relationship Between Spatial
Information and Spatial Governance
Today, the spatial information concept has been
broadened up from technology matters to social and
political process (Campbell and Masser, 1995). Since
spatial information management tends to resource-
intensive activity which required institution
collaborations, financial cost, staff time and variety
spatial information management skills; commercial
organisation sectors and government institutions
adopt GIS to achieve their goals (ibid). Furthermore,
it supports formulating public policy development and
implementation by redistribution state budget and
identifying community issues in particular
administrative territories (Haque 2001). Finally, GIS
application may increase democratic society value of
participating all stakeholders who involved in
governance to share their local areas issues
information to support decision-making activities.
How Spatial Information Influence Politics to
Achieve Spatial Planning Consensus?
In spatial planning formulation, different human
aspects which involve in the political process, such as
social, economics, history and cultural objectives will
be easily understood through maps or GIS, because
those media may illustrate abstract phenomena into
discourse visualization (Duhr, 2007). Furthermore,
spatial information visualization may assist in
mediating planning conflicting interests (Healey,
1997), setting planning agenda (Forester, 1989) and
incorporating various planning stakeholder viewpoints
(Robbins, 1997).
By spatial information visualization, all planning
stakeholders who have responsibilities to manage
their living areas can put priority objects should be
immediately implemented and understanding future
planning implications of the spatial policy decision
today by simulating planning scenarios. Furthermore,
with practices participatory mapping in local areas
may open up local spatial knowledge that support in
the decision-making process.
118
As an essential planning element, spatial
information can help to achieve consensus spatial
planning goals by shaping relevant spatial issues
attention, communicating planning strategic messages
and stimulating planning actions in different
governmental levels or within the private sectors or
amongst communities (Duhr, 2007). With this
consideration, spatial information has a significant role
to integrate different governmental levels to achieve
planning goals from central through local levels.
Furthermore, spatial information dissemination
management, have a substantial role to realize it.
The Role of Spatial Information in Spatial
Planning Process
Spatial Information has a role to play spatial
governance process by providing thematic spatial
information and analysis on all scales to local
authorities (Vincent, 2008). Furthermore, today,
spatial information is a prerequisite for any
participation in planning consensus (Campbell and
Masser, 1995). Spatial Information currently has a role
like political media to communicate all stakeholders
(i.e. local authorities, private sectors and
communities) who interest in development subjects in
particular areas to decide implementing priority
sectors in detail geographical areas (Duhr, 2007).
In specific, Vincent (2008) elucidates the
role of spatial information in the spatial
governance process in two ways, namely:
1. Spatial Information may inform to the
public who have competence in planning
projects by presenting projects virtually
more real than real (3D) as a useful
resource to make informed decisions.
2. Spatial Information may explain all
stakeholders about spatial development
issues and training them to aware more
or less long term spatial consequences in
the future from their consensus made in
the present.
In addition, Haque (2001) argues there are
three points that spatial information has a
significant implication relevant to the
governance process, namely:
1. Spatial information become substantial
media to solve land disputes with
consequences for the tax that typical
local government concerned.
2. Spatial information may present
socioeconomic population characteristic
on the maps as quickly understanding
picture of local government to propose a
developmental budget to central
government.
3. By presenting accurate and reliable
socioeconomic territorial characteristic
Potential National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) ........................................................................................................ (Yudono, A.)
data and analysis in maps and diagrams
which produced from GIS application, the
decision maker may take a critical
decision to enact planning policy and
regulations.
All in all, spatial information today has a
significant role relevant to the planning process
for exploring local knowledge in all stakeholders
to achieve consensus regarding developmental
priority implementation in the spatial planning
field. However, even though the spatial
information has benefit to support the planning
process, spatial information application will
become useless without access, commitment
and participation from all stakeholders. Thus, in
the next section, the discussion will explore
underlying concepts of Spatial Data
Infrastructure (SDI) that relevant spatial
information access and diffusion to all
stakeholders
Why and What is SDI?
Since geospatial data are developed in a
fragmented manner, inadequate accessibility
and interoperability of the data is occurring
(Crompvoets et al., 2008). Furthermore, they
argued the fragmented manner of geospatial
data development has created many issues,
such as technical problems (i.e. different
georeferenced systems, softwares and
database utility) and nontechnical problems
(i.e. economic, organisational, legal and
community elements) that inhibits integrating,
exchanging and utilizing geospatial data from
different sources. Therefore, recently, many
countries consider tackling the fragmented
(Source: Rajabifard and Williamson, 2001) Figure
manner of geospatial data development
phenomenon by reaching agreement for
sharing fundamental geospatial datasets to
achieve the geospatial information integration
amongst government institutions and private
agencies at the all levels. This phenomenon has
created the concept of the SDI.
Essentially, the SDI is intended to involve
(Source: Rajabifard and Williamson, 2001) Figure
all stakeholders who contribute to geospatial
data activities from different jurisdiction levels
not only to collaborate by sharing and
exchanging data to reduce duplication and
saving budgets, but also to interact with
technology to achieve consensus amongst
multi-level governance and other stakeholders
(i.e. private sectors and local communities) who
has interest in particular development areas.
SDI Model and Components
Following studying general knowledge,
philosophy and the substance of the
information infrastructure of the SDI, another
significant aspect of understanding the SDI
concept is the comprehensive components that
build the SDI. This section is started by
describing two approaches of SDI mechanisms
which are constructed by a series of SDI
components. The typical SDI approaches are
the Product-based model and the Process-
based model (Rajabifard, 2001; Rajabifard and
Williamson, 2001). The first model has meant
the SDI as facilitation and coordination of a
geospatial database linking people to data as
the primary object in the application with
respect to the political and administrative levels
of the geospatial community (Rajabifard and
Williamson, 2001) (see Figure 1). The model
consists of three main SDI components: People,
Technology and Data. Furthermore, the
technology is built by Policy, Access and
Standard elements. Another model more
emphasis the DataInformation-Knowledge-
Wisodm hierarchy implementation in the SDI
mechanisms. Its activities involve many steps:
awareness, knowledge infrastructure,
alignment, persuasion, decisions, participation
and utilisation (ibid) (see Figure 2).
1. The Product-based model.
2. The Process-Based Model.
In terms of the SDI definitions and approaches,
the SDI components can be related to GIS diffusion
perspectives, namely technological determinism,
managerial rationalism and social interactionism
(Campbell, 1996 in Longley et al., 1996). The first
perspective can be described as technical matters of
technology innovation; the second aspect may
represent introducing technological innovation in
organisational management, and the final perspective
has meant a set of interrelated institutions or persons
119
Jurnal Ilmiah Geomatika Volume 21 No. 2 Desember 2015: 115 - 130

that are engaged in problem solving in typical spatial
objectives (see Table 1.).
Referring to a significant number of the SDI
definitions, approaches and perspectives, there are
five typical factors which become the essence of SDI
components: data, people, technology, policy and
regulation, and organisation. Relevant to this study, all
factors affect the government organisational
management and performance assessment to
determine role of the government to develop a NSDI
capacity and the readiness regional planning boards to
adopt the system in the planning process.
Underlying Concepts of Voluntereed
Geographical Information (VGI)
Essentially, VGI distinguish into two primary
terms, namely voluntereed and Geographical
Information (GI). Voluntereed has meant particular
community members contribute to particular activities
to achieve main organisation goals. The organisation
in this context refers to the spatial governance
structure which involve government and citizens.
Furthermore, GI has meant as information system
regarding spatial
context by operating particular organisations to solve
and wiki mapia (Rouse et al, 2007; Goodchild 2007b;
Tulloch, 2007). Relevant to democratic spatial
planning action, VGI consider as an effective
voluntarily method of facilitating people feel
comfortable to interact with the tool and other co-
participants in order to shape coalitions of local
knowledge (Craig and Elwood, 1998). Furthermore,
coalitions may build upon communities strength bond
with similar visions across members to achieve their
goals (Jankowski and Nyerges, 2003).
As voluntarily manner, VGI use sharing and
exchange spatial information activities to interact with
other stakeholders to create spatial narratives (DiBiase
et al., 1992). With this perspective, VGI may
contribute creating spatial local knowledge by
examining, synthesizing and formulating spatial data
and information related to communities’
neighbourhood issues (Elwood, 2006).
Cinderby (2004) argued that participation in VGI
can be categorized into four level intensities:
1. Information sharing
Each participant only disseminating spatial
information regarding their local conditions to
wider communities (from local neighbourhood
level
spatial issues.

Table 1. GIS Diffusion Perspective.

Assumption Technological determinism Managerial rationalism Social Interactionism
Perception of Technology Machine and methods Machine and methods Machine, methods and
knowledge
Perception of Machine System Cultures
organisations
Decision-making style Rational/Comprehensive/optimising Procedural/rational/orderly Fluid/confrontational/
entailing negotiation and
compromise
Style of implementation Technical process Guided by rational Organizational process
management strategy
Constraints on Technical worth of Poor management/ Interaction between
implementation innovation/stupidity of users technical worth of innovation social and political
process
Likely outcome of Positive Positive Uncertain/probably
implementations mixed
Institutional Greater efficiency/more rational Greater effiency and/or more Reflection of
consequences decision-making rational decision-making organizational practices
and values
Source: Campbell (1996) in Longley et al. (1996) escalate to the regional level).
2. Consultation
VGI emerges as a useful democratic planning tool Spatial data and information, which
to empower community members participating in the provided by local stakeholders can be used as
decision-making process (Weiner et al., 2002). In consultation media to cope with local issues. 3.
advanced, the use of technological innovation of VGI Involvement in Decision-making by all actors
offer possibility in intense and mass involvement in Local spatial data and information will create
spatial policy process (Jankowski, 2009; Kingston et local knowledge to support spatial analysis in
al., 2000). Since World Wide Web (WWW) technology terms of decision-making process.
emerges, the interaction between information 4. Initiating actions
providers and users has increased globally. Across VGI has the role as mediator tool to
local communities may engage to produce and share connect what local communities need and
spatial data to inform their territorial information on elite interest to develop particular areas.
the web mapping application programming interfaces With this consideration, VGI will fill the
(APIs) public, such as google maps, OpenStreetMap communication gap amongst stakeholders.

120
Potential National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) ........................................................................................................ (Yudono, A.)

Hence, initiating actions amongst should be comprehensively solved from various

stakeholders can be implemented. data sources
Although VGI gives a useful approach to (Schrenk, 2011). To achieve planning
empower local stakeholders in terms of spatial harmonisation, all planning aspects such as
planning, VGI participants from different social, economic and environment should be
professions, ages and education levels will integrated with all levels. Therefore, the spatial
influence less spatial quality data, such as less planning is a set of concepts, procedure and
accurate, various georeferenced systems, and tools that should be tailored to particular
various scale aspects. Therefore, spatial data circumstances to achieve successful planning
coordination should be needed it to overcome implementation (Vancutsem, 2011).
this issue. This solution can be solved if VGI To attain planning programmes
may integrates into SDI system. implementation in particular areas, a planning
consensus from politics, other relevant planning
Why spatial planning? institutions and communities should be taken
(Vancutsem, 2011). One alternative way to
Space is seen as a place where overall
achieve planning consensus is a massive digital
social systems do interaction by involving
spatial data utility to describe before and after
humans with social, economic and
planning circumstances in particular areas
environmental aspects. This interaction does
(Kafka and Charvat, 2011). A comprehensive
not always taking place balanced automatically
spatial and non-spatial data for planning can be
and mutually benefit all parties, because of
obtained quickly by sharing and exchanging
spatial aspects have different capabilities,
data amongst government institutions and
interests and the cumulative nature of
communities who involved in the planning area.
economic development. Hence, the space
Relevant to the interests of spatial
needs to be organised so as to maintain
planning, the formulation of the spatial master
ecological balance and provide convenient
plan should be supported by reliable, up-to-
support for humans and other living organisms
date and accurate geospatial data and
in conducting and maintaining optimal survival
information. The synchronisation of geospatial
(Faludi, 2000).
information amongst government ministries
Spatial planning should be based on
and institutions needs to generate reliable and
understanding the potential and limitations of
appropriate geospatial information to support
nature and socioeconomic development
coherent spatial planning from national through
activities in particular areas, as well as the
the local levels (Schrenk et al., 2011). This
demanding needs of today's life and the
objective can be achieved by implementing
preservation of the environment in the future.
integration a top-down SDI in the governance
Thus, the space utilisation effort and
process and a bottom-up VGI spatial sharing
environmental management are set out in a
and exchange.
coherent spatial planning system from the
Historically, planners were most prominent users
highest to lowest administrative levels
of geospatial technologies to help planning analysis
(ibid).
became more widely accessible and affordable to
A living place as a dynamic circumstance
obtain spatial data started in early 1980s (Masser and
needs to plan not only reflects the quality and
Craglia 1997, Warnecke et al., 1998). Furthermore, in
coherence of hierarchical planning
the last three decades, the planner habit that is always
programmes, but also reflects the quality of
analysing with spatial data has changed by working
spatial planning components. The qualities of
from standalone GIS to participatory GIS, including the
the space itself are determined by the
SDI (Masser, 2005b). This management approach
realisation of the harmony and balance of the
changing has purposed to promote economic
utilisation of space considering the economic,
development and to support environmental
social and environmental carrying capacity
sustainability, which very closely related to the general
factors (Meadowcroft, 1999 in Kenny and
planning goals (Masser, 2005b).
Meadowcroft 1999; Faludi, 2000).
The interoperability of spatial data with spatial
What is the Relationship Between the
planning
SDI, VGI and Spatial Planning
Formulation? Since the amount of spatial data dissemination
goes to a public domain and the usage of GIS emerges
Spatial planning considers a holistic
rapidly, organisation who involved in a spatial data
activity, thus, all planning tasks and process
management have become interested to share and

121
Jurnal Ilmiah Geomatika Volume 21 No. 2 Desember 2015: 115 - 130

exchange the data amongst other parties. This ready for sharing and exchanging data for public
phenomenon has led to the evolution of geospatial domain yet.
technology rely on web service facility and
• Stage II: Exchange and standardisation on a
standardised spatial data with user-friendly formats to
technical level
allow stakeholders for download and use the data
In this stage, organisations or communities
regarding spatial analysis interest (Schrenk et al.,
initiate to collaborate along common interest to
2011). Technologically, the SDI development is
achieve short-term goals. Relevant to the NSDI
primarily based on user-friendly web mapping and
context, the exchange data has existed in internal
services oriented architecture that facilitate interactive
groups.
data sharing, user centred design and spatial data
interoperability for typical software and hardware • Stage III: Intermediary
(ibid). In this step, the organisations or communities
have aware for doing collaboration to achieve
Organisational concept regarding spatial data their goals. Relevant to the NSDI, the
sharing and exchange willingness stakeholders who participate in the NSDI
custodians has started to exchange data, but still
Relevant to the organisational concept regarding
exist in small groups.
spatial data sharing and exchange willingness, this
discussion will adopt Boonstra’s organisational theory • Stage IV: Network
and Kok and Loenen’s organisational models. The In this class, the organisations have a positive
reason taking these approaches because of the theory response and full support to contribute in the
and models represents the NSDI characteristic by change process. In terms of the NSDI context,
involving stakeholder who requires a particular the stakeholders who participate in the NSDI
level/stage of changing process development custodians have worked with sharing and
organisation or community. exchanging data for public domain.
The Boonstra’s theory categorising three For a clear illustration of the organisational maturity
organisational change approaches to: planned level pertains NSDI context can be seen in Figure 3.
change, organisational development and continuous
changing. Each approach has a different meaning.
Firstly, the planned change has aimed to create
economic values with a focus on formal structures and
systems. This approach is driven a top-down method
in a decision-making process. Secondly, the purpose
of organisational development is finding out the
efficiencies of the structural system by merging social
and technical systems. Finally, the continuous
changing has an aim to examine the influences
interactions of people and organisation who involved
in a particular system (in this case, the researcher can Figure 3. The Organisational Maturity Level
be thought as the NSDI and spatial planning system) Regarding NSDI Development.
(Boonstra, 1998).
Kok and Loenen (2005) introduced the Information Organisational Management in
organisational models that adopted from Boonstra’s Spatial Data Dissemination Context
organisational change theory to describe the
organisational maturity levels regarding willingness for A typical organisation structure in more
sharing and exchanging information for public domain. general information system scale and level
Kok and Loenen distinguish four stages of presents a triangular structure (see Figure 4).
organisational maturity levels into a stand alone Figure 4 can be explained that the typical
category, exchange and standardisation on a technical triangular information system organisation
level, intermediary and network. Each category will management may categorise into three main
explain as follows: sections. The base level is information
operation, which has a function to produce and
• Stage I: Stand Alone
process digital data.
At this level, the organisation behaviour can be
described as conservative, self-seeking and less
willingness to transform into a different system.
In terms of the NSDI context, the organisation
who involved in spatial data diffusion still not

122
Potential National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) ........................................................................................................ (Yudono, A.)

Figure 6. Typical Information Flows in

Traditional Information Organization
Structure.

In terms of information flows, the

Figure 4. Typical Information.
operational level will create spatial data.
Furthermore, in the middle level, managers and
The middle level is research and researchers will process spatial data into spatial
management, which consists of managers, information and spatial knowledge. At the top
researchers and administrators who have the level, decision makers will formulate strategic
task to monitor information operational level, policy. Feedback from spatial information flows
researching and preparing policy options to the is policy enactment from executive to be
top level. Finally, at the top level information implemented as strategic actions by the
system organisation, the position will be seated community (Reeve and Petch, 1999). Along
by executive level, which consists of small with the embrace of the internet in governance
decisionmaking groups determine organisation activities, GIS organizational management in
strategic directions (Reeve and Petch, 1999). one institution has developed to build
Specifically, in GIS context, GIS organisation communication inter-organisations (see Figure
structure can be illustrated in Figure 5. 7).
Theoretically, operator spatial data in one
institution will cooperate amongst other
operator levels to complement substantial
relevant spatial data and amongst middle
organisation level will cooperate to complement
substantial relevant spatial information.

The Relationship between the

Figure 5. GIS within the Organizational Triangle. Organisation, NSDI and Spatial Planning
Where Figure 5 can be explained that the In the NSDI context, the spatial data
base level has a function to operate and process management in a particular country has
spatial data. Furthermore, the spatial data allowed users and providers to access spatial
which produces at operator level will use by data distribution across-jurisdictional
managers or researchers to present a spatial organisations (Schrenk et al., 2011). At the
analysis that prepare policy scenarios for the beginning of the NSDI establishment, the
executive level as a decision-making group. At primary concerns focus on the available spatial
the top level, the executive group will decide data dissemination. Afterwards, the issues
appropriate strategic planning regarding escalate to political circumstances that discuss
middle-level policy scenario options (Reeve and stakeholders who have the responsibility of
Petch, 1999). Practically, typical GIS spatial data management. The political issue
organisation management has characteristics regarding spatial data management is a part of
like Figure 6. the organisation component (Loenen, 2006).

123
Jurnal Ilmiah Geomatika Volume 21 No. 2 Desember 2015: 115 - 130
Figure 7. Data Sharing and Exchange
InterOrganizations.
In addition, Masser (2005b), Rajabifard and
Williamson (2003), Craig and Elwood (1998), Elwood
(2006) argued an institutional nature is a substantial
part of the successful spatial data sharing
implementation rather than a purely technical matter.
Furthermore, Barrero (1998) claimed the principal
barrier of spatial data sharing and exchange
implementation is a mismanagement organisational
aspect. Moreover, in spatial planning context, the
interaction between structural driving forces and
governance capacity require high level
institutional/organisational practices (Healey, 1997;
Healey, 2003).
In essence, organisational context regarding the
NSDI and spatial planning phenomena can be
examined if an organisation always has a rational and
logical composition in less cost and efficiency work. In
line with such objectives, the NSDI and spatial
planning mechanisms also act in a rational procedure.
By the organisation, the structure and implementation
of actors who involved in the NSDI implementation
can be run based on the appropriate procedure to
achieve the goal. Furthermore, the activities of the
organisation in the role of spatial planning formulation
have a clear coordination and management of the
development implementation in
planningimplementation-monitoring-evaluation
phases.
Indonesian NSDI Initiative Background
The impact of GIS utility for spatial activities
purposes in developing countries occurred since the
United Nations Centre for Regional Development
(UNCRD) launched a series of adoption and diffusion
of information systems in urban, regional and
development planning agency’s studies in developing
countries in 1986 (Batty, 1992). This had implications
for Indonesia, which is still included in the developing
124
country category that is embracing the geospatial
information technology faster.
After accomplishing the UNCRD programme in
the early 1990s, the advance of GIS technology has
been embraced rapidly in Indonesia. Furthermore,
cheaper GIS devices in the present period have
supported widespread GIS activities for various
purposes. This phenomenon has discouraged better
spatial data management, such as spatial data
duplicates and less reliable spatial data (for detail
issues, see section 1.2 for geospatial information
issues in Indonesia). In terms of geospatial
information management solutions, the Indonesian
government considered applying the effective and
efficient geospatial information procedure for spatial
planning formulation by implementing NSDI
mechanism. However, until today, the Indonesian
government is still formulating the appropriate
organisational management structure to facilitate
NSDI implementation. Therefore, this research will
focus on examining the optimal organisational
management approach in NSDI implementation in
Indonesia.
NSDI initiatives in Indonesia have emerged since
1991, when Forum SigNAS (National Geographical
Information System forum) establishment. SigNAS
forum initiated by BAKORSURTANAL, which at the
time has role to tackle difficulties to obtain spatial
data, spatial data standardisation and avoiding
duplication spatial data provision projects by
government institutions (Lilywati and Gunarso, 2000).
However, due to lack of coordination and less of law
enforcement, the SigNAS forum did not existed almost
a decade. In 2000, Spirit to manage national spatial
data has resurgent. At this year, national surveying
and mapping coordination workshops had held which
were organised by the BAKORSURTANAL. The
workshop gave a critical result of the vision: To realize
the reliable NSDI in Indonesia (Matindas,
2003). Furthermore, to support NSDI implementation,
the President of Indonesia enacted Presidential
Decree. No 85/2007 concerning the National Spatial
Data Network, this is the first legal document which
has become to starting point to perform NSDI in
Indonesia.
In terms of strengthening the role of
geospatial information in regional development,
BAKORSURTANAL had formulated the
geospatial information law since 2007. Through
a long and tough negotiation in convincing the
House of Representatives regarding the
importance of the role of geospatial information
for regional development programmes, finally in
2011, the National Assembly passed Law No.
4/2011 concerning the Geospatial Information
(Amhar, 2013). To support NSDI activities, the
Indonesian President issued a Presidential
Decree No. 27/2014 regarding the National
Potential National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) ........................................................................................................ (Yudono, A.)

Geospatial Information Network as an

amendment of the Presidential Decree
No.85/2007.

Indonesian Spatial Planning Policy Today

The Indonesian spatial planning system

has a hierarchical structure, which is started at
national, provincial and regency/municipal
levels. The spatial planning system in provincial
and regency/municipal levels give guidelines in
spatial structures and sustainable land use Figure 8. Indonesian Spatial Planning System
Hierarchy.
planning pattern to achieve the efficient
planning process that appropriate to the
national spatial planning vision goals (Djunaedi,
2012). For clear Spatial planning system
Hierarchy, can be seen in Figure 8.The process
of spatial planning in Indonesia has set the
guidelines created by the Indonesian Ministry of
Public Works in the No. 15, 16, And
17/PRT/M/2009. Broadly speaking, spatial
planning activity at the provincial, regency and
municipal level in Indonesia covers 1)
Preparation, 2) Spatial planning formulation, 3)
Figure 9. The general spatial planning process at
draft spatial planning policy and 4) Spatial province, regency and municipality
planing policy ratification (see Figure 9). level in Indonesia.
In the diagram, the instrument of
geospatial information will play a role in the In a spatial planning activities, geospatial
formulation of spatial planning which covers data and information not only as spatial
sub-activities in the data and information planning information that can be seen in paper
collection, analysis and a concept plan maps, but also as political communication
formulation. media for decision makers formulating planning
Since the independence period until today, policies and regulations. Furthermore, the role
Indonesia has experienced in implementing of geospatial data and information pertain
four different spatial planning system formulating planning policies and regulations
approaches (1) master plan; (2) the not only limited into planning phase, but also
comprehensive rational planning; (3) Strategic support in governments’ programmes
planning and (4) implementation phase in the field and as media
Participatory planning (Djunaedi, 2012).In the for territories development control and
law no.26 of 2007 about spatial planning in evaluation phase.
Indonesia (in national, province, regency
(kabupaten) and municipality (kota) Indonesian Spatial Planning Data and
governance level) must develop spatial pattern Information Issues Today
and structure themes to describe development
Today, Indonesia has 34 provinces, 398
needs in their own territories. The product of
regencies (Kabupaten) and 93 Municipalities
spatial planning documents must be attached
(Kota). In addition, there are 76 National
spatial planning maps. The Spatial planning
Strategic Site (KSN) (consist of 10 border KSN,
docmuents can be existed when enacted by
Island spatial planning) that must enact as
Regional Regulation (Perda). A spatial planning
spatial planning regulation. These situations
documernts needs accurate, reliable and up-to-
need basic and thematic geospatial information
date basic and thematic geospatial information.
in terms of spatial planning formulation
Therefore, providing basic and thematic
supporting to enact as a master plan.
geospatial information is one of the
Based on The Law no.26 of 2007, article
requirements in spatial planning formulation in
78, paragraph 4 mentions that All regional
Indonesia.
regulations for kabupaten/kota level about
kabupaten/kota spatial planning documents
must be enacted at least 3 years since this law
enacted. Furthermore, for provincial spatial

125
Jurnal Ilmiah Geomatika Volume 21 No. 2 Desember 2015: 115 - 130

planning documents must be enacted at least 2 2. Lack of GIS professionals in

years since the law enacted. local governments and local planning
However, in terms of Indonesian Directorate consultants lead to less quality geospatial
General of Spatial Planning’s report, Ministry of Public informationa regarding spatial pattern and
Work’s, not all Indonesian territories have enacted structure maps in a spatial master plan
their spatial planning documents yet. Until today document.
(December 2014), there are 26 provinces, 317 3. Lack of Basic and Thematic Geospatial
kabupaten and 81 kota that have enacted their spatial Information with appropriate map scale
planning documents by Indonesian House of provider.
Representative. Furthermore, other Indonesia areas 4. Less of guidance pertains spatial master plan
have low progress in terms of spatial planning maps maps development lead to lack of quality of
development, due to lack of supports pertain reliable spatial master plan documents.
data, technology and human resources. This situation Moreover, detail spatial digital map provision from BIG
has meaning that comparing between Indonesian have not covered a whole Indonesian country yet (see
territories that have enacted their a spatial master Table 3).
plans already (26 provinces, 317 kabupaten and 81 Table 3. Basemap Geospatial Information
kota) with total 34 provinces, 398 kabupaten and 93 Availability by BIG.
kota, still 26,4% for provinces, 32,1% for kabupaten
and 23,6% for kota have difficulties pertain spatial No Map scale National Availa Not Percent
planning maps approval from Indonesian National Coverage bility accomplish age (%)
Geospatial Agency (BIG) (for detail information can ed yet
see in Table 2). 1 1:5,000 379,012 539 378,473 0.14
2 1:10,000 91,547 1,074 90,473 1.17
Table 2. Spatial planning maps Status in Provincial, 3 1:25,000 13,020 3,894 9,126 29.91
Regency and Municipality level. (Per 29 4 1:50,000 3,899 2,837 1,062 72,76
December 2014) 5 1:100,000 975 19 956 1,95
6 1:250,000 309 309 0 100
No Spatial Province Regency Municipality 7 1:500,000 94 94 0 100
planning maps 8 1:1,000,000 37 37 0 100
status
1 Maps have not 9 73 18
consulted yet
Source: Suprajaka (2014)
2 Socialisation 6 113 24
3 Basemap 4 49 17 Thematic Geospatial Information Availibility
availability
4 Thematic 2 19 6 A spatial master plan formulation cannot be
maps separated from thematic geospatial information
availability provision. In the law no.4 of 2014 about Geospatial
5 Planning maps 4 16 6
Information, mentions that sectoral ministries and
availability
6 ATLAS 9 128 22 agencies have responsible to create thematic
(Recommenda geospatial information. This situation has asked
tion) sectoral ministries and agencies should make
TOTAL 34 398 93 coordination with Indonesian National Mapping
Mapping 26.4% 32.1% 23.6% Agency. However, in fact, there are several
Progress impediments to achieve thematic
geospatial information. Based on interviews and
observations, several impediments can be
Source: Suprajaka (2014)
identified as
The table has meaning that several areas in 1. Lack of custodian determination for the
Indonesia have not enacted their spatial planning overall thematic geospatial information and
documents regarding limited time periodic that has integration amongst them
mentioned in the law no.26 of 2007. Based on 2. Lack of thematic geospatial information
interviewed and observation process, slow spatial provision in each sectoral ministry and
planning maps approval from BIG can be identified agency, also integration amongst them
into four main categories, namely: 3. Lack of guidance to provide thematic
1. Local governments do not give attention yet geospatial information from Indonesian
about how important of geospatial data and National Mapping Agency
information in terms of spatial master plan 4. Lack of guidance to integrate thematic
formulation. geospatial information in terms of a spatial
master plan formulation.

126
Potential National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) ........................................................................................................ (Yudono, A.)

5. Lack of action plan to accelerate thematic management incorporation model. Only

geospatial information provision in terms of Budhathoki et al. (2008) has initiated to
spatial master plan enactment that engage all reconceptualize potential the NSDI and VGI
sectoral ministries and agencies who provides integration regards national spatial data
spatial data and information. management. Therefore, to fill knowledge gap
Re-conceptualisation of NSDI and concerning the organisational bureaucracy
Volunteered Geographic Information (VGI) mechanism in the NSDI implementation, this
study will adopt Budhathoki’s reconceptualise
Varying scholars have studied typical NSDI and VGI integration model in spatial
organisational and collaboration management planning process.
(Axelrod 1997; Lorange et al. 1992; Child et al. Budhathoki et al. (2008) illustrate typical
2005). Their studied highlighting the nature of current NSDI worldwide model such Figure 10.
organisational behaviour rather than in-depth
of particular factors. In specific research
relevant to organisational management in the
NSDI context has developed by several SDI
scholars such as Rajabifard et al. (2003),
Masser (2005a), Dessers et al. (2009), and Kim
(2010). In order to examine understanding
organisational bureaucracy mechanism, they
focus on top-down mechanism towards
successful NSDI implementation. Practically,
their approach is limited understanding to what
extent the NSDI mechanism can accommodate
a bottom-up Volunteered Geographical Figure 10. Conception of the Contemporary NSDI
Information (VGI) approach. Mechanism.
Since emergence of internet, tablets and
cell phones that incorporate with Global Figure 10 can be explained in the
Positioning System (GPS); the interaction contemporary NSDI mechanism in many
amongst spatial information providers and nations; spatial data and information are
users has increased globally. Across local provided by expert organizational producer
communities may engage to create and share which majority led by national mapping
spatial data to inform their territorial agencies (NMA). Spatial data dissemination will
observations on the web mapping application flow from formal and a topdown environment
programming interfaces (APIs) public, such as that strongly distribute to expert organizational
Google Maps, Wiki Mapia, OpenStreetMap and users, which one of the institution is planning
Microsoft’s Virtual Earth (Rouse et al, 2011; board, and less distribute to amateur individual
Goodchild 2007; Tulloch, 2007). Currently, users. Moreover, Organisation and individual
citizens in many nations voluntarily disseminate users contribute to share their local spatial
spatial data using social media networks, which knowledge to organisational producers. In this
correlates with VGI. Practically, VGI mechanism case, individual producers do not have
gives highly update spatial data contribution in contribution regards spatial data dissemination.
social life. However, this technique does not Thus, Budhathoki et al. (2008) suggested to
replace the need for spatial data coordination. reconceptualize NSDI mechanism by
Therefore, accommodating VGI in NSDI accommodating all stakeholders with an equal
framework is likely possible future scenario of level in Figure 11.
spatial data being much more widely available
online from (global) private sector actors.
In terms of potential the NSDI and VGI
incorporation relevant to state spatial data
management, several scholars has initiated to
explore it, such as Craglia (2007), Goodchild,
(2007), Budhathoki et al (2008), Coleman
(2010), Miranda et al (2011) and Sutherland et
al (2013). However, mostly, their studies mainly
discussed in a potential general issues of the
NSDI and VGI integration rather than particular
the appropriate NSDI and VGI organisational

127
Jurnal Ilmiah Geomatika Volume 21 No. 2 Desember 2015: 115 - 130
Figure 11. Reconceptualise producer-user spatial
data dissemination resulting from the
VGI phenomenon.
Theoretically, Budhathoki’s ideas to
empower all stakeholders in spatial data
sharing and exchange have appropriate
concept. However, the researcher argues, if this
concept implemented in the real practice, the
NSDI concept will not be compromised, due to
less quality spatial data and information, for
instance, less accurate and reliable data.
Therefore, to overcome these negative
implications, the study proposes new
reconceptualise potential the NSDI and VGI
organisational management incorporation
model such Figure 12.
Figure 12. Reconceptualise the potential NSDI and VGI
organisational management incorporation
model suggestion in this study.
Figure 12 can be explained if the illustration has
a similar opportunity with Budhathoki’s ideas to
empower all stakeholders in spatial data sharing and
exchange, but in organisational level, there is an
additional quality control management to monitor
keep quality spatial data and information regards the
NSDI standards. Furthermore, there is limited spatial
data flow from organisational producer to individual
user level and from individual producer to the
organisational user with one direction way only, this
purpose to keep spatial data quality maintenance.
Thus, with this in mind, this reconceptualise NSDI and
VGI integration model to implement in Indonesian
spatial planning system can be seen in Figure 13.
128
Figure 13. NSDI and VGI Integration model in terms of
sustainable spatial data and information
provision for Indonesian spatial planning
system formulation.
Figure 13 can be explained that to provide
update spatial data for accelerating spatial planning
enactment in provincial and
regency/municipality levels, a traditional TopDown
NSDI approach can be implemented for data sharing
amongst Indonesian ministries and other government
agencies in different levels. In reality, one of the
weaknesses of NSDI, namely an up-dating spatial data
always occur. Therefore, one of solutions to overcome
lacking of updating spatial data in local level is
involving VGI in spatial planning process. In terms of
research observation, NSDI and VGI, each of them has
benefit and drawbacks. NSDI has a good quality
spatial data, but not in a quantitative spatial data. On
the other hand, VGI has a good quantitative data, but
not in a qualitative data. The crucial point for
combining a top-down NSDI and a Bottom-up VGI
approach is the law enforcement, data standardisation
and interoperability. A collaboration Top-Down and
Bottom-Up organisational management approach
leads to create the efficient of spatial data sharing and
exchange in transvertical and transhorizontal also
transsectoral institution frameworks.
CONCLUSION
The problem, which spatial data sharing and
exchange amongst governments, private sectors and
communities intended to solve in this study is
disconnected spatial governance in terms of spatial
planning goals in different levels. Spatial information
as part of spatial studies, rarely study of the
governance process to apply in urban and regional
planning field for a couple of decades (Vincent, 2008).
Currently, spatial government connectivity platform is
pre-requisite to achieve social and economic growth.
Thus, the government relationship and understanding
territorial information knowledge needs to be involved
in spatial planning formulation. Some countries, such
as UK, USA, Australia and India have started to look
at spatial data infrastructure (SDI) as the underlying
platform to deliver connectivity which is coordinated
national mapping agency.
The new model Spatial data and information
provision by integration SDI and VGI will empower all
stakeholders in spatial data sharing and exchange with
an additional quality control management from VGI to
SDI to monitor keep quality spatial data and
information regards the National spatial data and
information standards. Furthermore, by collaborating
Top-Down and Bottom-Up organisational
management approach leads to create the efficient of
spatial data sharing and exchange in transvertical and
Potential National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) ........................................................................................................ (Yudono, A.)

transhorizontal also transsectoral institution Available on

frameworks. http://www.gsdi.org/gsdiconf/gsdi12/papers/9
05.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT pdf access on 7th December 2014 at 01:10 pm
Craglia, M., (2007), Volunteered Geographic
I would like to thanks to The Indonesian Information and Spatial Data Infrastructures:
Endowment Fund for Education (LPDP When do Parallel Lines Converge? Available
Scholarship) to support this financial research, also from
http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/projects/vgi/docs/
thank you to my supervisor, Dr. Alasdair Rae, with his
posit ion/Craglia_paper.pdf Accessed 07th
patient, always support and motivate me to do this
December 2014 at 01:01 pm
research. Craig, W. J., & Elwood, S. a. (1998). How and Why
Community Groups Use Maps and Geographic
REFERENCES Information. Cartography and Geographic
Axelrod, R. (1997), The Complexity of Cooperation: Information Science, 25(2), 95–104.
Agent Based Models of Competition and doi:10.1559/152304098782594616
Collaboration, Princeton University Press, Crompvoets, J., Bouckaert, G., Vancauwenberghe,
Princeton, New Jersey. G., Orshoven, J. Van, Janssen, K., Dumortier,
Batty, M. (1992). SHARING INFORMATION IN THIRD J., … Brussel, V. U. (2008). Interdisciplinary
WORLD PLANNING AGENCIES: Perspectives on research project : SPATIALIST ; Spatial Data
the Impact of GIS. New York, National Center Infrastructures and Public Sector Innovation in
for Geographic Information and Analysis State Flanders (Belgium). In GSDI 10 World
University of New York at Buffalo. Conference (pp. 1–24). St. Augustine, Trinidad.
Boonstra, J. J., & Gravenhorst, K. M. B. (1998). Dessers, E., Hendriks, P. H., Crompvoets, J., & Van
Power Dynamics and Organizational Change, : Hootegem, G. (2009). Analysing organisational
European Journal of Work and Organisational structures and SDI performance. In 11th GSDI
Psychology, 7, 97–120. Conference, Rotterdam, the Netherlands,
Borrero, S. (1998). Case study of transnational GSDI.
initiatives; Latin America. Proceedings 3rd GSDI Dühr, S. (2007). THE VISUAL LANGUAGE OF
conference, Canberra, Australia. SPATIAL, Routledge, Oxford.
http://www.gsdidocs.org/docs1998/canberra/borr DiBiase, D., MacEachren, A. M., Krygier, J. B., &
ero.html Reeves, C. (1992). Animation and the Role of
Bouckaert, G., Van Orshoven, J., Dumortier, J., Van Map Design in Scientific Visualization.
Hootegem, G. and C. Macharis (2006). Spatial Cartography and Geographic Information
Data Infrastructure and Public Sector Science, 19(4), 201–214.
Innovation, SBO Project Proposal of January doi:10.1559/152304092783721295
2006. Djunaedi A. (2012). Proses Perencanaan Wilayah dan
Box, P., and A. Rajabifard. (2009). NGII governance: Kota (Urban and Regional Planning Process),
Bridging the gap between people and Gadjah Mada University Press, Yogyakarta,
geospatial resources. GSDI-11. Rotterdam, The Indonesia
Netherlands. Elwood, S. (2006). Beyond Cooptation or Resistance:
Budhathoki, N.R., Bruce, B. and Nedovic-Budic, Z., Urban Spatial Politics, Community
(2008), Reconceptualizing the Role of the User Organizations, and GIS-Based Spatial
of' Spatial Data’Infrastructure, GeoJournal, Narratives. Annals of the Association of
Vol.72, p149-160. American Geographers, 96(May 2005), 323–
341.
Campbell, H. (1996). Institutional consequences of
the use of GIS. In D. w. Longley, P.A., Faludi, A., (2000), The Performance of Spatial
Goodchilid, M.F., Maguire, D.J., Rhind (Ed.), Planning, Journal of Planning Practise and
Geographical Information Systems: Principles, Research Vol.15, No.4, pp. 299-318.
Techniques, Management and Applications (pp. FGDC 1997, Framework, introduction and guide,
621–632). Book of Federal geographic data
Campbell, H., Masser, I. (1995). GIS_In_Organizations. committee,Washington Forester, J. (1989). Planning
CRC Press. in the Face of Power. Barkeley, Los Angeles, London:
University of California Press.
Child, J., Faulkner, D., Tallman, S. (2005).
Cooperative Strategy: Managing Alliances, Fukuda-parr, S., & Ponzio, R. (2002). Governance :
Networks, and Joint Ventures. Oxford: Oxford Past , Present , Future Setting the governance
University Press. agenda for the Millennium Declaration. New
York.
Cinderby, S. (1999). Participatory Geographic
Information Systems ( GIS ): The future of Goodchild, M. 2007. Citizens as voluntary sensors:
environmental GIS ? International Journal of spatial data infrastructure in the world of web
Environment and Pollution, 11(3), 304–315. 2.0. International Journal of Spatial Data
Coleman, D.J., (2010), Volunteered' Geographic Infrastructures Research, 2, pp.24-32.
Information in Spatial Data Infrastructure: an Goodchild, M. F. (2007b). Citizens as voluntary
Early Look at Opportunities and Constraints. sensors: Spatial data infrastructure in the world

129
Jurnal Ilmiah Geomatika Volume 21 No. 2 Desember 2015: 115 - 130
of Web 2.0. International Journal of Spatial
Data Infrastructures Research, 2, 24–32.
Haque, A. (2001). Public the Issue of Democratic
Governance GIS : An Overview. Public
Healey, P., (1997). Collaborative Planning. UBC
Press, Vancouver-Canada.
Healey, P. (2003). Collaborative Planning in
Perspective. Planning Theory, 2(2), 101–123.
Jankowski, P. (2009). Towards Participatory
Geographic Information Systems for
community-based environmental decision
making. Journal of Environmental
Management, 90(6), 1966–71.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.08.028
Jankowski P and Nyerges T 2003 Toward a
framework for research on geographic
information- supported participatory decision-
making. URISA Journal 15 (APA I): 9–17
Kafka, S. and Charvat, K., (2011), The role of
metadata and GI in spatial planning and SDI in
Salvemini, M., Vico,F., Lanucci,C., (ed) Plan4all
Project:Interoperability for Spatial Planning,
Plan4all Consortium, The EU.
Kingston, R., Carver, S., Evans, a., & Turton, I. (2000). Web-
based public participation geographical information
systems: an aid to local environmental decision-
making. Computers, Environment and
Urban Systems, 24(2), 109–125.
doi:10.1016/S0198-9715(99)00049-6
Kim, E.H, (2010), National Spatial Data Infrastructure: The
Case of the Republic of Korea, Report by The World
Bank, International Finance Corporation and infoDev.
Kok .B and Loenen BV (2005). How to assess the success of
National Spatial Data Infrastructure ?,
Journal of Computer, Environment and Urban Systems
25:2005
Kunzmann, K. R. (1996) Euro-megalopolis or Themepark
Europe? Scenarios for European spatial development.
International Planning Studies, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 143–
163
Lilywati H and Gularso, S.K, (200) SIGNas sebagai Landasan
Informasi Spasial untuk Menunjang Manajemen
Pembangunan (SIGNas as spatial information
foundation to support developmental management) ,
Pusdignas – Bakorsurtanal,
Cibinong, Indonesia
Lorange, P., Roos, J., Bronn, P. S. (1992). Building
Successful Strategic Alliances. Long Range Planning
Journal, 25(6), 10–17.
Masser, I., Rajabifard, A. & Williamson, I., 2008. Spatially
Enabling Governments Through SDI implementation.
International Journal of Geographical Information
Science, 22(1), 5-20.
Masser, I. (2005b). GIS Worlds: Creating Spatial Data
Infrastructures, ESRI press, The USA
Masser I, Craglia M, 1997, The diffusion of GIS in local
government in Europe in Eds M Craglia,M., and H
Couclelis, C., , in Geographic Information Research:
Bridging the Atlantic, Taylor & Francis, London
Meadowcroft, J.,(1999), Planning for sustainable
development: what can be learned from the critics? in
Kenny,M., and Meadowcroft, J., (ed) (1999), Planning
Sustainability, Routledge, London and New York.
130
Miranda.T.S.,,Lisboa-Filho,J., de’Souza,W.D., da’Silva,O.C.,
and Davis Jr,C.A.,(2011), Volunteered Geographic
Information in the Context of Local Spatial Data
Infrastructures. Proceedings Urban Data Management
Society Conferences Delft,Netherlands,2011,16 pages.
Moeliono, T. P. (2011). Spatial Management in Indonesia:
From Planning to Implementation. Faculty of Law.
Leiden, University of Leiden.
Nedovic-Budic, Z. and J.K. Pinto (1999). Interorganizational
GIS: Issues and prospects, The Annals of Regional
Science, 33(2).
Rajabifard, A., and I. Williamson (2003). Asia-Pacific region
and SDI activities. GIS@development: the Asian GIS
monthly, 7(2003)7.
Rajabifard A, M. E. Fenney. F., I Williamson (2003). Spatial
Data Infrastructures: Concept, Nature and SDI
hierarchy in Williamson, I., Rajabifard, A., and Feeney,
M.-E.F (ed) Developing Spatial Data Infrastructures:
From Concept to reality, Taylor & Francis, London,
Rajabifard, A. & Williamson, I. P. (2001) Spatial Data
Infrastructures: Concept, SDI Hierarchy and Future
Directions. paper presented to
Geomatics'80 Conference. Tehran, Iran.
Rajabifard, A. (2001), SDI Hierarchy from local to global SDI
initiatives, Paper conference on SDI in Asian and the
pacific regions 7th PCGIAP meeting, Tsukuba, Japan
Rakodi, C. (2003). Politics and performance: the implications
of emerging governance arrangements for urban
management approaches and information systems.
Habitat International, 27(4), 523–547.
Reeve, D., and Petch, J., (1999) GIS Organisations and
People: A Socio-technical Approach, Taylor and
Francis, London-UK
Robbins, E., Cullinan, E. (1997). Why Architects Draw.
Cambridge MA, London: MIT Press.
Rouse, L. J., Bergeron, S. J., & Harris, T. M. (2007).
Participating in the geospatial Web: Collaborative
mapping, social networks and participatory GIS. In A.
Scharl & K. Tochtermann (Eds.), The geospatial Web:
How geo- browsers, social software and the Web 2.0
are shaping the network society (pp. 153–158).
London: Springer-Verlag.
Schrenk, M., Neuschmid, J., Patti, D., Wasserburger,
W.,(2011), Interoperability, SDI and Spatial planning
in Salvemini, M., Vico,F., Lanucci,C., (ed) Plan4all
Project:Interoperability for Spatial Planning, Plan4all
Consortium, The EU.
Stoker, G. (1998). Governance as theory: five propositions.
International Social Science Journal, 50(155), 17–28.
Suprajaka (2014), Grand Design Percepatan
Penyelenggaraan Informasi Geospasial tata ruang
dalam kerangka pogram kebijakan satu peta
(Geospatial Information Accelerating
Implementation Grand Design for Spatial
Planning pertain One Map Policy Framework),
Slide presentation in Badan Informasi
Geospasial on 31st December 2014, Cibinong,
Indonesia
Sutherland. M., Tienaah. T., Seeram. A, Ramlal. B.,
Nichols. S., Public Participatory GIS, Spatial
Data Infrastructure, and Citizen-Inclusive
Collaborative
Governance, available on
Potential National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI) ........................................................................................................ (Yudono, A.)

http://www.gsdi.org/gsdiconf/gsdi14/papers/1
55Chapter7.pdf access on 7th December 2014
at 01:19 pm.
The USA executive order 12906, 1994
Tulloch, D. L. (2007). Many many maps: Empowerment
and online participatory mapping. First Monday.
Vancutsem, D., (2011) Spatial planning and ICT in
Salvemini, M., Vico,F., Lanucci,C., (ed) Plan4all
Project:Interoperability for Spatial Planning,
Plan4all Consortium, The EU.
Vincent, M.M, 2008, Governance and Geography
Explaining The Importance of Regional
Planning to Citizens, Stakeholders in Their
Living Space, Boletin de la A.G.E.N, No.46-2008
pp. 77-95
Warnecke L, Beattie J, Kollin C, 1998 Geographic
Information Technology in Cities and Counties: a
Nationwide Assessment (Urban and Regional
Information Systems Association, Chicago IL)
Weiner, D., Harris, T. M., & Craig, W. J. (2002).
Community Participation and Geographical
Information Systems. (T. Harris, W. Craig, & D.
Weiner, Eds.) (pp. 1–18). CRC Press.
doi:10.1201/9780203469484.

131