Speakers
Description
Since the early 1990s, there has been a global trend towards creating fully
digital cadaster systems as a part of a larger group of Digital Tools for Planning,
which are increasingly becoming an integral part of the city’s digital infrastructure (Enemark and Sevatdal (1999)). However, this group of tools is not the end
goal, but rather the means to streamline larger socioeconomic developments (Enemark and Sevatdal (1999)). In this way, digital ecosystems of cities are usually
structured around and represent the national development policies and stakeholders’ groups. In the context of Ukraine, aside from a digital transformation
policy, a transition to post-Soviet methods is highlighted in planning processes.
This shift in planning tends to focus on the construction of new identities to replace the ideologies of the Soviet rule and into more European ones through the
use of urban spaces (Melnychuk and Gnatiuk (2019)). Another evident obstacle
resulting from this transition, more specific to the Ukrainian context, is the detangling of the complex layers of engagement in the development process, which
are reflected in old planning documents including cities’ masterplans. (Anisimov
et al. (2024)). This transition to post-Soviet decentralized planning regimes,
coupled with recent Russian aggression in Ukraine which calls for centralized resource mobilization, brings the focus onto the new digital infrastructure ecosystem and the role it plays in the planning process.
In Europe, examples of application of the digital cadasre platforms are abundant. One notably comprehensive system is the one deployed in Germany, and
more specifically in the city of Hamburg. This system allows for a closer look on
the construction of integral national cadaster systems based on a decentralized
bottom-up process. Our research, as part of the GIZ-funded project Sustainable
Urban Planning and Resilient Reconstruction in Ukraine with Spatial Data Science (SURPRISE), deals with the knowledge transfer between digital Cadaster
systems in Germany and its Ukrainian counterparts that are currently under development. It focuses on the stakeholders and the data structures of the Urban
Planning Cadaster (UPC) and puts forth a framework for evaluating cadaster
systems. In addition, the research maps out the hierarchy of stakeholders and
authorities shaping the cadaster ecosystem in both countries, showcasing the
implications of both centralized and decentralized approaches that share the objective of a digital streamlining of planning processes. At the end we evaluate
the degree of efficacy in reference to the needs of the local and state governments in our four study cities (Vinnytsia, Chernivtsi, Poltava, and Zhytomyr).
Here, digging deeper, we present the results of a digital maturity assessment that
is conducted for each of the cities in order to find potentials for alignment that
could lead to the easy integration of local-level tools into these Cadaster systems.
Lastly, we propose an evaluation methodology that focuses on the transparency,
maturity and collaborative potential of Digital Cadaster systems and aim to establish the extent to which these systems support in (de)centralizing planning
processes.
References
Anisimov, O., Smirnova, M. and Dulko, I. (2024), ‘Spatial planning in ukraine:
2023 country profile’.
Enemark, S. and Sevatdal, H., eds (1999), Cadastres, Land Information Systems
and Planning: Is decentralisation a significant key to sustainable development?
Melnychuk, A. and Gnatiuk, O. (2019), ‘Public perception of urban identity
in post-soviet city: the case of vinnytsia, ukraine’, Hungarian Geographical
Bulletin pp. 37–50.
| Keywords | Decentralisation; Digital Cadaster Systems; Planning Infrastructure; Stakeholder Hierarchy; Digital Maturity |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
