Potentials, problems and possibilities for developing New Zealand’s built environment through high-value geospatial information

References

• 100 Resilient Cities. 2018. 100 Resilient Cities [Internet]; [accessed 2018 May 15]. https://www.100resilientcities.org/.
   Google Scholar
• ACILTasman. 2009. Spatial information in the New Zealand economy. Realising productivity gains. Wellington: LINZ.
   Google Scholar
• Bernknopf R, Shapiro C. 2015. Economic assessment of the use value of geospatial information. ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information. 4:1142–1165. doi: 10.3390/ijgi4031142
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blakely T, Atkinson J, Kvizhinadze G, Nghiem N, McLeod H, Davies A, Wilson N. 2015. Updated New Zealand health system cost estimates from health events by sex, age and proximity to death: further improvements in the age of ‘big data.’ New Zealand Medical Journal. 128:13–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Blakely T, Salmond C, Woodward A. 1999. Anonymous record linkage of 1991 census records and 1991-94 mortality records. [Internet]. Wellington: Department of Public Health, Wellington School of Medicine, University of Otago; [accessed 2018 Jan 22]. http://www.otago.ac.nz/wellington/departments/publichealth/research/hirp/otago023986.html.
   Google Scholar
• Bowker GC, Baker K, Millerand F, Ribes D. 2009. Toward information infrastructure studies: ways of knowing in a networked environment. In: Hunsinger J, Klastrup L, Allen M, editors. International handbook of Internet Research. Dordrecht: Springer; p. 97–117.
   Google Scholar
• Bureau of Communications Research. 2016. Open government data and why it matters: a critical review of studies on the economic impact of open government data. [place unknown]: Australian Government; Department of Communications and the Arts.
   Google Scholar
• Canterbury Maps. [date unknown]. [accessed 2018 Oct 15]. https://canterburymaps.govt.nz/.
   Google Scholar
• Chan TO, Williamson I. 1999. Spatial data infrastructure management: lessons from corporate GIS development.
   Google Scholar
• Constantinides P, Barrett M. 2014. Information infrastructure development and governance as collective action. Information Systems Research. 26:40–56. doi: 10.1287/isre.2014.0542
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Damian DE, Zowghi D. 2003. Requirements engineering challenges in multi-site software development organisations. Requirements Engineering. 8:149–160. doi: 10.1007/s00766-003-0173-1
   Google Scholar
• Ferriss S, Erasmuson M. 2016. The Canterbury earthquake recovery authority spatial data infrastructure: A model for government information and communications technology delivery. Wellington: Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority.
   Google Scholar
• Frohlich KL, Corin E, Potvin L. 2001. A theoretical proposal for the relationship between context and disease. Sociology of Health & Illness. 23:776–797. doi: 10.1111/1467-9566.00275
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Giff G, Coleman D. 2002. Funding models for SDI implementation: From local to global. In: Proc GSDI6 Conf SDI. [place unknown].
   Google Scholar
• Gil-Garcia JR, Sayogo DS. 2016. Government inter-organizational information sharing initiatives: understanding the main determinants of success. Government Information Quarterly. 33:572–582. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2016.01.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graham SR, Carlton C, Gaede D, Jamison B. 2011. The benefits of using geographic information systems as a community assessment tool. Public Health Reports. 126:298–303. doi: 10.1177/003335491112600224
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hall P. 2005. Interprofessional teamwork: professional cultures as barriers. Journal of Interprofessional Care. 19:188–196. doi: 10.1080/13561820500081745
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Henderson JV. 1986. Efficiency of resource usage and city size. Journal of Urban Economics. 19:47–70. doi: 10.1016/0094-1190(86)90030-6
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hendriks PH, Dessers E, Van Hootegem G. 2012. Reconsidering the definition of a spatial data infrastructure. International Journal of Geographical Information Science. 26:1479–1494. doi: 10.1080/13658816.2011.639301
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ivory VC, Russell M, Witten K, Hooper CM, Pearce J, Blakely T. 2015. What shape is your neighbourhood? investigating the micro geographies of physical activity. Social Science & Medicine. 133:313–321. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.11.041
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnston EW, Hansen DL. 2011. Design lessons for smart governance infrastructures. In: Ink, Balutis A, Buss T, editors. Transform American Governance: rebooting the public Square. [place unknown]: National Academy of Public Administration; p. 197–212.
   Google Scholar
• Jonientz-Trisler C, Simmons RS, Yanagi BS, Crawford GL, Darienzo M, Eisner RK, Petty E, Priest GR. 2005. Planning for tsunami-resilient communities. In: Bernard EN, editor. Developing tsunami-resilient communities. Dordrecht: Springer; p. 121–139.
   Google Scholar
• Kaisler S, Armour F, Espinosa JA, Money W. 2013. Big data: issues and challenges moving forward. In: 2013 46th Hawaii International conference on system sciences HICSS. [place unknown]: IEEE; p. 995–1004.
   Google Scholar
• Koordinates. 2018. Koordinates [Internet]; [accessed 2018 Oct 15]. https://koordinates.com/.
   Google Scholar
• LINZ. 2010. Capturing economic benefits from location-based information. Wellington: New Zealand Government; Land Information New Zealand.
   Google Scholar
• LINZ. 2011. Spatial data infrastructure cookbook. Wellington: New Zealand Government; Land Information New Zealand.
   Google Scholar
• LINZ. 2012. New Zealand SDI state of play report 2012: 2012 NZSDI benchmark exercise. Wellington: New Zealand Government; Land Information New Zealand.
   Google Scholar
• LINZ. 2015a. Property data management framework for LINZ-Canterbury spatial data infrastructure: framework and data model report. Wellington: New Zealand Government; Land Information New Zealand.
   Google Scholar
• LINZ. 2015b. Property data management framework for LINZ-Canterbury spatial data infrastructure: framework and data model report. Wellington: New Zealand Government; Land Information New Zealand.
   Google Scholar
• LINZ. 2016. Overview of open data NZ’s work in 2016. Wellington: New Zealand Government; Land Information New Zealand.
   Google Scholar
• Loenen B. 2006. Developing geographic information infrastructures: the role of information policies. [place unknown]: IOS Press.
   Google Scholar
• McLaughlin J, Nichols S. 1994. Developing a national spatial data infrastructure. Journal of Surveying Engineering. 120:62–76. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9453(1994)120:2(62)
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ministry for Business, Innovation & Employment. 2018. New Zealand Geotechnical Database. NZGD [Internet]; [accessedd 2018 Jan 15]. https://www.nzgd.org.nz/HelpSupport/AboutNZGD.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Mora K, Chang J, Beatson A, Morahan C. 2015. Public perceptions of building seismic safety following the Canterbury earthquakes: a qualitative analysis using twitter and focus groups. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction. 13:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.ijdrr.2015.03.008
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Musa GJ, Chiang P-H, Sylk T, Bavley R, Keating W, Lakew B, Tsou H-C, Hoven CW. 2013. Use of GIS mapping as a public health tool – from cholera to cancer. Health Services Insights. 6:111–116. doi: 10.4137/HSI.S10471
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• My Waikato. 2018. Waikato Reg Counc [Internet]; [accessed 2018 Jan 11]. https://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/community/your-community/my-waikato/.
   Google Scholar
• NAO. 2012. Geographic information strategy: department for environment, food and rural affairs. Great Britain: National Audit Office UK.
   Google Scholar
• Nextspace, Auckland Council. 2018. Digital Auckland. Nextspace Digit Auckl [Internet]. [accessed 2018 Oct 15]. http://www.nextspace.co.nz/case-studies/digital-auckland.
   Google Scholar
• Niazi M, Babar MA, Verner JM. 2010. Software process improvement barriers: A cross-cultural comparison. Information and Software Technology. 52:1204–1216. doi: 10.1016/j.infsof.2010.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NRC. 2012. Advancing Strategic Science: A Spatial Data Infrastructure Roadmap for the U.S. Geological Survey [Internet]. Washington, DC: National Research Council, The National Academies Press; [accessed 2018 Feb 14]. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/13506/advancing-strategic-science-a-spatial-data-infrastructure-roadmap-for-the.
   Google Scholar
• Nykiforuk CIJ, Flaman LM. 2011. Geographic information systems (GIS) for health promotion and public health: a review. Health Promotion Practice. 12:63–73. doi: 10.1177/1524839909334624
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Oertig M, Buergi T. 2006. The challenges of managing cross-cultural virtual project teams. Team Performance Management: An International Journal. 12:23–30. doi: 10.1108/13527590610652774
   Google Scholar
• Opus International Consultants. 2015. Public attitudes to data integration: report prepared for statistics New Zealand [internet]. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand. www.stats.govt.nz.
   Google Scholar
• Phillips D, Watson L, Willis M. 2011. Benefits of comprehensive integrated reporting: by standardizing disparate information sources, financial executive can eliminate the narrow perspectives of the elephant and the blind man parable – and “see” beyond merely information silos or reports. Finance Executive. 27:26–31.
   Google Scholar
• Rajabifard A. 2008. A spatial data infrastructure for a spatially enabled government and society. In: Crompvoets J, Rajabifard A, van Loenen B, Delgado Fernandez T, editors. A Multi-view framework to assess SDIs. Melbourne: Wageningen University & University of Melbourne; p. 11–22.
   Google Scholar
• Rajabifard A, Williamson IP. 2001. Spatial data infrastructures: concept, SDI hierarchy and future directions. In Proceedings, of GEOMATICS'80 Conference, Tehran, Iran.
   Google Scholar
• Robertson C, Feick R. 2016. Bumps and bruises in the digital skins of cities: unevenly distributed user-generated content across US urban areas. Cartography and Geographic Information Science. 43:283–300. doi: 10.1080/15230406.2015.1088801
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roche S. 2016. Geographic information science II: less space, more places in smart cities. Progress in Human Geography. 40:565–573. doi: 10.1177/0309132515586296
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roche S, Rajabifard A. 2012. Sensing places’ life to make city smarter. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGKDD International workshop urban computing. [place unknown]: ACM; p. 41–46.
   Google Scholar
• Rydin Y, Bleahu A, Davies M, Dávila JD, Friel S, De Grandis G, Groce N, Hallal PC, Hamilton I, Howden-Chapman P. 2012. Shaping cities for health: complexity and the planning of urban environments in the 21st century. Lancet. 379:2079. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60435-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SaferMe. 2018. Mobilizing hazard data to make people safer. SaferMe [Internet]; [accessed 2018 Oct 15]. https://www.safer.me/.
   Google Scholar
• Sawyer S, Jarrahi MH. 2014. Sociotechnical approaches to the study of information systems. In: Topi H, Tucker A, editors. Computing handbook set. 3rd ed. Vol 2, Part 5. Florida: Chapman and Hall/ CRC; p. 1–27.
   Google Scholar
• Schindler M, Dionisio R, Kingham S. 2018. A multi-level perspective of a spatial data ecosystem: needs and challenges among urban planning stakeholders in New Zealand. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research [Internet]. [accessed 2018 May 15]; 13. http://ijsdir.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.php/ijsdir/article/view/480.
   Google Scholar
• Scholl HJ, Scholl MC. 2014. Smart governance: a roadmap for research and practice. In: IConference 2014 Proceedings. [place unknown]; p. 163–176.
   Google Scholar
• SSC. 2016. Open Government Partnership: New Zealand Action Plan 2014-2016. State Serv Comm Website.
   Google Scholar
• Statistics New Zealand. 2017. How the IDI and LBD work. IDI LBD Work [Internet]; [accessed 2017 Dec 18]. http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/snapshots-of-nz/integrated-data-infrastructure/idi-how-it-works.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Statistics New Zealand. 2018. DataHub Table Viewer [Internet]; [accessed 2018 Oct 15]. http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Steiniger S, Hunter AJ. 2012. Free and open source GIS software for building a spatial data infrastructure. Geospatial Free Open Source Software 21st Century. 247–261.
   Google Scholar
• Teng AM, Blakely T, Ivory V, Kingham S, Cameron V. 2017. Living in areas with different levels of earthquake damage and association with risk of cardiovascular disease: a cohort-linkage study. Lancet Planetary Health. 1:e242–e253.
   Google Scholar
• Teng AM, Milne B, Walker P, Blakely T. 2017. Open data, transparency and power – role of the Virtual Health Information Network – Public Health Expert, University of Otago, New Zealand. Public Health Expert [Internet]; [accessed 2017 Dec 12]. https://blogs.otago.ac.nz/pubhealthexpert/2017/06/14/open-data-transparency-and-power-role-of-the-virtual-health-information-network/.
   Google Scholar
• Value Stories. [date unknown]. Open Data Handb [Internet]; [accessed 2018 Apr 2]. http://opendatahandbook.org/value-stories/en/.
   Google Scholar
• Villagra P, Rojas C, Ohno R, Xue M, Gómez K. 2014. A GIS-base exploration of the relationships between open space systems and urban form for the adaptive capacity of cities after an earthquake: the cases of two Chilean cities. Applied Geography. 48:64–78. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2014.01.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Virtual Health Information Network. 2018. [cited 2018 Jan 22]. https://vhin.co.nz/.
   Google Scholar
• Welch EW, Feeney MK, Park CH. 2016. Determinants of data sharing in U.S. city governments. Government Information Quarterly. 33:393–403. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2016.07.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang T-M, Wu Y-J. 2016. Examining the socio-technical determinants influencing government agencies’ open data publication: a study in Taiwan. Government Information Quarterly. 33:378–392. doi: 10.1016/j.giq.2016.05.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar