Should the Government promote and regulate the role of spatial data

infrastructures in the digital transformation of relevant sectors like criminology for

policy and decision-making?
 Abstract
Spatial Data Infrastructures (SDI) play a relevant role since location information is relevant in
managing everything that governments manage, from roads and sewers to public health and
education. Like most infrastructure types, SDIs also offers a platform for developing the
economy but, most importantly, help manage security. After reviewing the use of SDI in 4
countries [UK, Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain], it became evident that multiple commonalities
in SDI protocols demonstrate the capacity of the Government to foster and control SDI
importance and digital transformation in economics, security, and otherwise. Some key
commonalities revolve around seeing interoperability, innovation, teamwork, plenty of benefits,
and constant strategy formation.

1
Introduction
The term ‘Spatial Data Infrastructure” (SDI) is frequently used to “denote the relevant base
collection of technologies, policies and institutional arrangements that facilitate the availability
of and access to spatial data.
In 2004, he U.S Federal Geographic Data Committee further defined National Spatial Data
Infrastructure as “the technologies, policies, and people necessary to promote sharing of
geospatial data throughout all levels of government, the private and non-profit sectors and the
academic community”.
The entirety of this paper will advocate for the Government to encourage and control the role of
spatial data infrastructures in the digital transformation of relevant sectors to make decisions and
realize the best policies. The paper will do this for criminology, as SDI has a longstanding
relevance in the profession. Suppose the UK Government invests in and controls the role of SDI
in criminology departments. The resultant digital transformation and decisionmaking policies
will be useful in the faster settlement of great workloads. When looking at the historical context
of SDI, it is important to consider that there have been first-generation, second-generation, and
third-generation. The first generation of SDI was data-driven (Barbero et a., 2019). The second
generation of SDI was process-driven. Lastly, the third generation, the present generation of SDI,
is user-driven. Data-driven SDI is hinged on the giving of explanations, papers that have been
published, and the supply of information. Process-driven SDI is constrained to making the most
of the stocking, making, and spreading of data and services. Finally, in user-driven SDI, the
involvement of users is deep, with a lot of concentration on the generation, distribution, and real
use of Geographic Information.
Notably, the researcher chose to find out the linkages between SDI, criminology, and digitization
because SDI and spatial analysis capacities are invaluable in the field. They center on outlining
the boundary of a group of incidents, finding out the crime levels in a particular area, finding
specific persons of interest, and delineating the portion of given areas whereby the greatest
number of incidents is centered.
Thesis statement concerning criminology

2
The Government ought to be a promoter and regulator of the role of spatial data infrastructures
within the digital transformation of important sectors like the security sector to make effective
policies and decisions.

3
Methodology
This section describes the methodology used for the assignment, notably how the researcher
came up with the framework for analysis and the pointers utilized for the examination, and how
the researcher gathered information.
Analytical framework development
The primary purpose of this particular study is to find out and have an improved understanding
of the present and possible responsibility of SDI within the digital change of criminology
departments in the UK and elsewhere, and for this reason, a precise framework for analytics had
to be established. To make the analytical framework, the researcher began by considering seven
topics that have proven to be central in the INSPIRE Country Reports over time. The study put
into consideration how these topics received treatment in eGovernment handouts from the UK
and three other countries (which cover a majority of them, even though differently) (Deloitte,
2018). These seven main topics resonate with:
 Governance and coordination of SDI
 Strategic planning and strategic view for the setting up of SDIs
 Innovation and functioning of the organizations committed to seamless SDI function
 Arrangements of sharing of information between SDI in different locations, regions, and
Countries
 SDI initiatives categorized as cross-border
 Use of standardized SDI structures, and
 Benefits of SDI.
In conjunction with the Global Partnership to End Violence Against Children in 2016, INSPIRE
refers to seven evidence-based methods for nations and communities to eliminate violence and
crimes against kids and crimes at large (Li et al., 2021).
For every one of the seven topics mentioned above, the researcher purposed to find out the extent
to which and how SDIs are making contributions to the transformation of digital Government
and are taking advantage of policies, components, and initiatives tied to Digital Government
Transformation and are under the alignment or integration of these other policies, components,
and initiatives. Therefore, the main aim of this particular study was never the implementation of
SDI or the realization of digital government on its own but the responsibility of SDIs in the
transformation of Digital Government (Kalogirou and Charalabidis, 2019). The scope of every
one of the seven tenets from the INSPIRE Country
Reports that revolved around the making of the framework are:
 Governance and coordination concern themselves with the functions, constructions, and
procedures for the management of the responsibility covered by SDI/INSPIRE in the
achievement of positive change in digital governments and the clear participation of all
the important stakeholder groups.
 Strategic planning and strategic view resonate with the strategic planning and process of
using experienced managers on INSPIRE/SDI in the wider context of using digitization
in Government via geographic data that has been strategically planned for e-Government
SDI and Digital Transformation (Ali and Imran, 2021).
 Innovation and workings of the standard digital infrastructure focus on the practical types
of machinery of the substructure outside the mechanisms as needed by INSPIRE
(Nazmfar et al., 2020).
 Arrangements of data sharing are centered on an assortment of arrangement types for the
sending and receiving spatial information and connected aspects like information security
and information reuse.
 Cross-border programs center on cross-national collaboration in the establishment of
SDIs together with their components and the utilization of spatial data infrastructures in
delivering services across borders.
 Utilization of infrastructure concentrates on the utilization and end-users of the SDI and
utilization of SDI services and data deciding and delivering improved or new services.
 Benefits are all about the developments brought forth by INSPIRE and SDI to the
Government and other investors like corporates and people.

For every one of the seven topics above, the researcher developed several indicators to give
guidance and support to collecting data [through desk research] and analysis to ensure that all
important aspects will be investigated and further explored. Beginning with many different
indicators, only 17 proved valid. These were restructured around a triad of categories.
The institutional setting: collects indicators tied to the authority, legal framework, and strategy
that underpins the liaison between Digital Government Transformation and SDI.

1
Technical infrastructure: includes the entirety of all the technical aspects tied to the SDI. For
example, for the spread of SDI infrastructure, the level of interoperability initiative spread
together with the uniqueness of the method.
Impact: pieces together the indicators tied to both the width of the usage of the SDI and the
benefits sourced from it, even from a cross-border point of view (Schrotter and Hürzeler, 2020).
Implementation
In the search for information that is relevant to the study, the researcher began from the
analytical framework described above and made a decision to center around two primary phases:
 A general explorative analysis of SDI implementing nations in scope
 In-depth analysis of SDI in 4 different countries [UK, Netherlands, Belgium, and
Spain]

The framework for this study guided the research questions thereof that the researchers utilized
in the collection of data. The reasearcher mainly gathered data by means of desk research. For all
the desk research carried out, the researcher concentrated on the gathering of information and
documents connected to the implementation of SDI and stemming from any literature related to
SDI and INSPIRE (Ke et al., 2021). Information and documents tied to Digital
Government/eGovernment developments and digital government transformation were also
involved. In addition, a diversity of primary sources [such as portals, websites, and platforms]
that are connected to the national strategies, evaluations, reviews, and research were consulted
after collection.
Table-desk research information sources
Key documentations of INSPIRE Fact sheets from eGovernment
conference [2018 and past editions]
2016 and 2013 INSPIRE County Reports eGovernment strategies from national
INSPIRE Country fiches governments (Nambisan et al., 2019).
JRC webinars (Barbero et a., 2019)
Other information sources
Primary [national websites and portals]
Source: Deloitte and KU Leuven, 2019

2
The advantage of the desk research data collection methods applied by the researcher is that real
time information was used from databases of organizations such as INSPIRE and real nations.
The weaknesses of the methods utilized for the gathering of data resonate with the fact that the
countries reviewed were less than 30 [the researcher used only four countries]. A sample size of
less than 30 is not sufficient and does not guarantee statistical
validity.

Results and Critical Analysis

From the desktop research conducted, it became apparent to the researcher that there are a lot of
commonalities involved when it comes to how countries [the four countries selected as the
sample size- UK, Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain], use spatial data infrastructure and data in
finding solutions. This is irrespective of whether the Government involved set up the SDI to deal
with matters of insecurity against citizens and children in the first place or otherwise [e.g., trade].
The lengths that many governments have gone to secure SDI is a testament that the UK
government and other governments are in the best position to promote and regulate SDI in the
digital transformation of pertinent areas for strategy and the making of decisions. In fact, owing
to the resources that many world governments have in comparison to the private sector is a
testament that they are best suited for the job. The four tables below show the common factors
that were discovered by governments
Table 1-general structure of the desk search framework used to investigate the use of
SDIs in the UK, Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain

Source: Deloitte and KU Leuven, 2019

3
 Every one of the groupings of the background above has several sub-categories that go from a
duet [for indicators categorized as impact] to three [for the technical infrastructure indicators and
organizational environment]. The tables shown below are a presentation of groupings and related
sub-groupings of indicators proposed for the framework.

Table 2- Updated framework – Institutional setting indicators in the UK, Netherlands,

Belgium, and Spain
Indicator Group Sub-category Number Indicator
Setting or institution Governance 1 A structure of governance/mechanism
is in a place
where different communities,
administrative levels,
domains, and sectors are involved in
making
decisions on the purpose of SDI in
digital
transformation (Engin & Treleaven,
2019).
Governance 2 A primary organization charged with
the work of
SDI implementation and Digital
Transformation
through policy is present (Barbero et
a., 2019).
Strategy 3 Strategy present on spatial data role
and SDI in
digital transformation (Barbero et a.,
2019) information collection flows
(Barbero et a.,
2019).
Strategy 4 A strategic approach to skills and

4
 training tied to
innovative geospatial solutions exists
(Barbero et a.,
2019).
Legal framework 5 The utilization of SDI for
eGovernment services is
defined and mandated by law (Barbero
et a., 2019).
Legal framework 6 A well-defined government-wide
policy regarding
open data matters exists and applies to
geospatial
information (Barbero et a., 2019)
Source: Deloitte and KU Leuven, 2019

Table 3 – Indicators of technical infrastructure the researcher looked out for in the four
Countries
Indicator Group Sub-category Number Indicator
Technical infrastructure Extended 1 The SDI went past what a traditional
infrastructure INSPIRE or SDI needs by developing
additional components within the
infrastructure (Barbero et a., 2019).
Extended 2 APIs have been made on top of
Infrastructure SDI/INSPIRE (Hao et al., 2022).
InteroperabilitY 3 Joint efforts have been sought to better
the
interoperability of core/reference
thematic information and/or factor in
different
information collection flows (Barbero
et a.,

5
 2019).
Interoperability 4 Different platforms exist, and catalogs
and
portals are operational catalogs that
connect
and exchange information and other
components for the stimulation, reuse,
and
uptake of geospatial information
(Barbero
et a., 2019).
Innovation 5 Like those fashioned by the ISA/ISA²
program, generic solutions in ICT are
(re- )
used in the SDI (Barbero et a., 2019).
Innovation 6 A procedure exists for discovering,
exploring, and incorporating new
features
in technology or emergent
technologies.

Source: Deloitte and KU Leuven, 2019

Table 4-Primary indicators of impact the researcher looked out for in the UK,
Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain.

Indicator Group Sub-category Number Indicator

Impact Usage 1 Public administration offices tied to
security

6
 consistently make use of SDI in the
making of
security decisions and the delivery of
services
(Barbero et a., 2019).
Usage 2 There is a meaningful proportion of SDI
taken up in
NGOs and in the private sector for the
accurate
delivery of innovative and newfound apps,
services,
and products for guarding security
(Barbero et a.,
2019).
Usage 3 The nation utilizes SDI for the deployment
of
eGovernment services across borders
(Barbero et a.,
2019).
Benefits 4 The utilization of SDI has delivered
benefits that are
measurable to the administration of public
services
(Barbero et a., 2019).
Benefits The utilization of SDI has been involved
in the
5 The utilization of SDI has been involved
in the giving of important benefits to
citizens, businesses,
and society at large (Barbero et a., 2019).

7
Source: Deloitte and KU Leuven, 2019
For the many governments that the researcher reviewed and the four that took center stage [UK,
Netherlands, Belgium, and Spain], it became apparent that the capability to promote and regulate
the role of spatial data infrastructure in the digital transformation of the relevant sector for the
making of policies and decisions depended on common governance indicators.

Conclusion
As it has become apparent in this particular paper, government criminology departments would
play a very important role if they embraced the SDI technologies fully, as that would lead to the
digital transformation of relevant sectors to realize policies and decisions that work. The benefits
of the Key Performance Indicators that this study looks at resonate with the meaningful
outcomes of implementing SDI from the viewpoint of all existing and prospective investors and
stakeholders involved (citizens, public figures, and the private sector). A limited number of
nations depend on Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA) to quantify and note down such effects, whereas
others privilege purely qualitative methods. Generally, there is minimized dependable and
standard monitoring/benefit measuring, which makes data that is quantifiable to be scarce. This
is also because many public administrators never entirely decipher the measurement of benefits
in a similar fashion and never always concentrate on evidence that is quantitative. Thus far,
analyses carried out in this study show that the benefits for businesses, citizens, and public
figures can be split into macro-categories and analyzed at a greater level for the available
instances.
Regarding public figures, the primary aids connected to SDI are connected to a) gains in
efficiency, b) seamless, improved, and/or optimized procedure [also because of increasingly
informed decisions grounded on the factoring in of information], c) More exchange and
cooperation for different investors, d) increasingly advanced processes/service areas and more
investments and attention towards invention and e) improved outcomes in policies made. Nations
have many a time examined and measured the feature of competence advantages. In contrast,
other benefits are less explored even though equally important (such as the question of whether
the betterment of commercial processes is possible because of the procedures of SDI).
For businesses and citizens, the benefits recognized from SDI use reflect somewhat those noted
down for civic authority. They happen to be notably: extra effective interactions with

8
administrations [saving money and time] and reducing the problem, improved access to data and
partaking in community life, better policymaking results and evolution in the market, and job
creation. It also demonstrates that one of the expected merits of developing SDI, i.e., betterment
in policy outcomes, is not explored sufficiently within the study frameworks tied to benefits. In
conclusion, the government should promote and regulate the role of spatial data infrastructures in
the digital transformation of relevant sectors for policy and decision making. By doing so, they
can enhance data accessibility, improve data interoperability, facilitate evidence-based decision
making, enable collaboration and coordination, and ensure data privacy and security. This will
ultimately lead to more effective and informed policies and decisions in various sectors.

Reference List
EU Publications
Barbero, M., Potes, M.L., Vancauwenberghe, G. and Vandenbroucke, D., 2019. The role of
spatial data infrastructures in the digital government transformation of public
administrations. Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg.
Deloitte, Study to support the review of Directive 2003/98/EC on the reuse of public sector
information, 2018, https://publications.europa.eu/en/publicationdetail/-/publication/
45328d2e-4834-11e8-be1d01aa75ed71a1/language 12
Kalogirou, V. and Charalabidis, Y., 2019. The European union landscape on interoperability
standardisation: status of European and national interoperability frameworks. In
Enterprise Interoperability VIII (pp. 359-368). Springer, Cham.
Others
Ali, A. and Imran, M., 2021. National Spatial Data Infrastructure vs. Cadastre System for
Economic Development: Evidence from Pakistan. Land, 10(2), p.188.
Engin, Z., & Treleaven, P. (2019). Algorithmic Government: Automating public services and
supporting civil servants in using data science technologies. The Computer Journal,
62(3), 448-460.
Hao, Y., Guo, Y. and Wu, H., 2022. The role of information and communication technology on
green total factor energy efficiency: Does environmental regulation work?. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 31(1), pp.403-424.

9
Ke, X., Wang, X., Guo, H., Yang, C., Zhou, Q. and Mougharbel, A., 2021. Urban ecological
security evaluation and spatial correlation research-----based on data analysis of 16 cities
in Hubei Province of China. Journal of Cleaner Production, 311, p.127613.
Kennedy, L. (2007). Regional industrial policies driving peri-urban dynamics in
Hyderabad,India. Cities, 24(2), 95-109.
Li, J., Ma, J., Miao, Y., Yang, F., Liu, X. and Choo, K.K.R., 2021. Secure semantic-aware search
over dynamic spatial data in VANETs. IEEE Transactions on Vehicular Technology,
70(9), pp.8912-8925.
Nambisan, S., Wright, M. and Feldman, M., 2019. The digital transformation of innovation and
entrepreneurship: Progress, challenges and key themes. Research Policy, 48(8),
p.103773.
Nazmfar, H., Alavi, S., Feizizadeh, B., Masodifar, R. and Eshghei, A., 2020. Spatial analysis of
security and insecurity in urban parks: A case study of Tehran, Iran. The Professional
Geographer, 72(3), pp.383-397. 13
Schrotter, G. and Hürzeler, C., 2020. The digital twin of the City of Zurich for urban planning.
PFG–Journal of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Geoinformation Science, 88(1),
pp.99 112.

10