A Comparison between Cadastre 2014 and Cadastral Systems of Different Countries

Sajid Manzoor, Taimur A. Qureshi, Muhammad D. Liaqat, Muhammad K. Farooq and Shafay Shamail
LUMS, DHA Lahore, Pakistan

{08030047, 08030022, 08030037, kashiff, sshamail}@lums.edu.pk ABSTRACT

Land record management system is an important area for internal government management and e-government services for citizens. Its related processes and applications are dependant on the legal framework of land affairs. Many a times, land disputes are resolved using cadastre as a fundamental source of data. However, technological progress, social change, globalization, and the increasing interconnection of business relations with their legal and environmental consequences put a strain on the traditional cadastral systems. Cadastre 2014, proposed by FIG-Commission 7 of the International Federation of Surveyors, is a framework with a vision for future trends. Based on the six statements of Cadastre 2014, we compared the current cadastral systems of 41 countries with Cadastre 2014. Attempt has been made to nd gap, compare and rank objectively, cadastral systems of different developing as well as developed countries. According to the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) [1][10]: "a cadastre is normally a parcel based and up-to-date land information system containing a record of interests in land (ie rights, restrictions and responsibilities). It usually includes a geometric description of land parcels linked to other records describing the nature of the interests, and ownership or control of those interests, and often the value of the parcel and its improvements. It may be established for scal purposes (eg valuation and equitable taxation), legal purposes (conveyancing), to assist in the management of land and land use (eg for planning and other administrative purposes), and enables sustainable development and environmental protection" [5]. Using the pen and paper technology for the land record management system of a whole region can be a very tedious task. It takes a long time to build and maintain such systems. Furthermore, the prompt availability and updating of data also present a problem in such a manual system. With the advent of technology, it has become possible to computerize such a system. This improvement also helps developing countries in their social and economic development [14][15]. The traditional cadastral systems have been considered very well dened, reliable, and secure for many decades [10]. But the tremendous growth in technology has put a pressure on traditional cadastre systems [9]. These systems were unable to adapt to all the new developments and subsequently many reforms were introduced. Commission 7 of FIG [1] setup a working group in 1994 to look into the trends in this eld and develop a vision [10]. Outcome of this activity was Cadaster 2014, dened as: "a methodically arranged public inventory of data concerning all legal land objects in a certain country or district, based on a survey of their boundaries. Such legal land objects are systematically identied by means of some separate designation. They are dened either by private or by public law. The outlines of the property, the identier together with descriptive data, may show for each separate land object the nature, size, value and legal rights or restrictions associated with the land object" [10]. Based on their study the working group proposed six statements for the development of the future cadastre. These are given by Kaufmann and Steudler [10] as: 1) Cadastre 2014 will show the complete legal situation of land, including public rights and restrictions. 2) The separation between maps and registers will be abolished.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for prot or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the rst page. To copy otherwise, to republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specic permission and/or a fee. ICEGOV2009, November 10-13, 2009, Bogota, Colombia Copyright 2009 ACM 978-1-60558-663-2/09/11 ...$5.00.

Categories and Subject Descriptors

H.3 [Information Storage and Retrieval]: Miscellaneous; K.4.2 [Computers and Society]: Social Issues

General Terms
Standardization

Keywords
Cadastre 2014, Cadastral Systems Implementation, Cadastral Systems Assessment, e-Government

1.

INTRODUCTION

The legal details of a land ownership are recorded and registered with the government through a land registration system. This is particularly helpful during land transactions and ownership claims. A land parcel is a basic spatial unit for a cadaster. In some countries it is known as a lot, plot or even a plat [2]. According to Hong Kong cadastral system: "It is an area of land whose separate identity may be dened by the limit of legal rights, by responsibility for taxation payments or by use" [2]. The boundaries are marked during purchase or acquisition of the land parcel. Subsequently this information needs to be recorded against the land in the land registration system.

3) The cadastral mapping will be dead. Long live modeling. 4) Paper and pencil - cadastre will have gone. 5) Cadastre 2014 will be highly privatized. Public and private sector are working closely together. 293

6) Cadastre 2014 will be cost recovering. In 2006, under the Nordic cooperation, a project collected and compiled information and compared the different real property management systems in use in the ve Nordic countries [7]. The objective was to improve cost-efciency and better client-service in cadastral procedures. The project compared the cadastral systems in terms of their general similarities, price/cost rankings, delivery time, average time for implementation and the cadastral process. Although no one system was deemed better than the others, the authors were convinced that a closely integrated process results in lower costs [7]. Steudler et al [18][19] came up with a template to collect data from national cadastral systems and made the information publicly accessible over the Internet. A total of 32 countries participated in the initial survey. The collected data available on-line [17] provides a comprehensive picture of the cadastral system of the participating countries and includes details such as country context, institutional framework, cadastral system in place, cadastral mapping and reform issues. Even though various assessments and comparisons of cadastral systems have been made, difculties are still faced when comparing the cadastral systems of different countries. This is mainly due to the heterogeneous nature of the systems. Differences in systems arise due to the local cultural heritage, physical geography, land use, technology, etc. Comparative analysis of cadastral systems have been the subject of many publications and studies in the world literature [6][8][11][12][13][16]. Transcending these problems, we believe that a more comparable, although a bit high level, comparison for the cadastral systems would be one that measures the level of implementation based on the six statements of the Cadastre 2014. Disregarding the cultural and geographical aspects, and only concentrating on what is done and what remains to be done as per the six statements, can serve as a gap analysis for such systems with respect to the Cadastre 2014 vision. In this paper we present an approach to analyze the level of implementation of various countries based on the six statements of Cadastre 2014. In section 2 we provide the details of our methodology, section 3 provides the data collection details. Assumptions and limitations of the paper are given in section 4, section 5 provides the results and analysis, and conclusion and future work are given in section 6.

3.

DATA COLLECTION

Our primary source of data was the cadastral template [17], which provides rich knowledge about the state of the cadastral systems of several countries. We used our derived questions to extract data from the template and used it in our research. One drawback of this selection was that countries such as U.S. and Canada had not uploaded their data in the template. An important point to note here is that, since data for different countries is expected to be constantly updated, there is no guarantee of the data on the web being up-todate. Most of countries updated their data in 2003. In that sense, we are providing a picture with regards to what data is currently available on the cadastral template [17].

4.

ASSUMPTIONS/LIMITATIONS

Since the data of cadastral systems is available in textual format, we had to nd a way to transform the extracted data to t our scale of 0 to 2. Therefore, we are assuming that if regarding a particular question, the ofcial statement is something like "...this has been partially implemented" or "few of this has been implemented", we assign it a score of 1 or "partially implemented". Similarly, when it is specically stated that a particular feature or scenario is "fully implemented" or "many/most of this has been implemented" then we assign it a score of 2. Another limitation is that not all countries have uploaded their data on the cadastral template so data of some representative countries such as US, UK, and Canada is not available. Similarly there are limited number of countries representing some continents.

5.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

We collected data of 41 countries belonging to six different continents from cadastral template [17]. Table 1 presents the results of the research. Each of the 41 countries has been evaluated on the six statements of Cadastre 2014. The values in the table represent the level of implementation of each of the six statements on a scale of 0 to 2 as described in section 2. The Continents column represents the continent of the country [3]. The Type column identies a country either as developing or as developed based on the classication of the countries grouped by World Bank [4]. The Year column indicates the year when the information was last updated on the cadastral template [17]. Columns S1 to S6 indicate the average results for each of the six statements respectively. Statement 1 of Cadastre 2014 requires that a cadastral system should store information about public rights and restrictions which are applicable on any piece of land like land use planning, environment protection, noise protection and construction laws etc. Similarly, there should be verication of the correctness of boundary denitions of land objects against all the public and private laws which are applicable on those land objects. Moreover, the boundary denitions of land should be published in the form of an ofcial public register for the use of consumer and all the entities taking part in cadastral activities. If we see country report of Denmark in cadastral template [17] then we nd that their cadastral system enforces agricultural, building and planning acts, boundary denitions are veried and the cadastral information is available to public over the Internet. Therefore, Denmark has an average score of 2 against statement 1, in table 1. Whereas Nepal has an average score of 0.67. Reasons for a relatively low score of Nepal may include the lesser reliability of the cadastral information and inconsistency of cadastral data as it is handled by more than one department. Statement 2 of Cadastre 2014 requires that a single system should hold the data of both land-registration and cadastre (surveying and mapping). Resultantly, the entities participating in cadastral transactions will have to deal with a single authority. According to [17], 294

2.

METHODOLOGY

After study and analysis of the six statements and their ofcial explanation [10], we designed a group of questions which would readily assess whether a particular statement was being catered for by a cadastral system or not. The answers to the questions were designed to be on a scale of discrete numbers in the range of 0 to 2, with 0 meaning "not implemented", 1 meaning "partially implemented" and 2 signifying "fully implemented". Also, if data for a particular question for a particular country was not found, it was given a score of 0 as well. The data for this survey was taken from online repository the Cadastral Template [17]. For each Cadastre 2014 statement, the average score was taken as the level of implementation of that statement. After the scores for all six statements had been calculated, their sums were generated to represent their standing with respect to Cadastre 2014. The cadastre 2014 benchmark was set at a total score of 12 (6 statements, each with maximum score of 2 for full implementation).

Country Argentina Australia Austria Belgium Brunei Cambodia China Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Fiji Finland Germany Hong Kong Hungary India Indonesia Iran Israel Japan Jordan Kiribati Korea Latvia Lithuania Macao Malaysia Mexico Namibia Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Norway Philippines South Africa Sri Lanka Sweden Switzerland Tanzania Turkey Uzbekistan

Table 1: Results of Countries Selected from Cadastral Template Continent Type Year S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 South America Developed 2003 1.67 2 0.50 0 1.33 Oceania Developed 2003 1.67 2 1.5 2 1.67 Europe Developed 2006 1.67 2 1.5 2 1.67 Europe Developed 2003 1.67 2 1 0 1.33 Asia Developed 2003 0.67 0 1.5 0 0.67 Asia Developing 2003 0.67 0 0.5 0 1 Asia Developing 2003 1.33 2 1.5 2 0.67 Europe Developed 2007 2 2 1.5 0 0.67 Europe Developed 2003 2 2 0.5 0 1 Europe Developed 2003 2 2 1.5 0.5 1.33 Oceania Developing 2005 2 2 1 0 1.33 Europe Developed 2005 2 2 1.5 2 0.67 Europe Developed 2003 2 2 1.5 2 1.33 Asia Developed 2003 1.33 2 1 0 1 Europe Developed 2003 1.33 1 0 0 1.33 Asia Developing 2003 0.67 1 1 0 1 Asia Developing 2003 0.67 0 0 0 1.33 Asia Developing 2003 0.67 1 1 0 1.33 Asia Developed 2006 0.67 2 1.5 1.5 1.33 Asia Developed 2003 1.33 1 0.5 1 1.67 Asia Developing 2003 0.67 2 1.5 1 1.67 Oceania Developing 2003 1.33 1 1.5 1 1 Asia Developed 2003 2 2 1.5 2 1.33 Europe Developing 2006 0.67 2 1 1 1 Europe Developing 2003 0.67 2 1.5 2 1.67 Asia Developed 2003 2 2 0.5 2 1.33 Asia Developing 2003 1.33 2 1.5 2 2 North America Developing 2004 1.33 2 0 0 1.67 Africa Developing 2004 1.67 0 0 0 1.33 Asia Developing 2003 0.67 1 1 1 1.67 Europe Developed 2006 0.67 2 1.5 2 1.67 Oceania Developed 2003 0.67 2 1.5 2 1.67 Europe Developed 2007 0.67 1 1 1 1.33 Asia Developing 2003 0.67 0 1 1 1.33 Africa Developing 2003 1.33 2 1.5 1.5 1.67 Asia Developing 2003 1 1 0.5 0 1.33 Europe Developed 2003 2 2 1.5 2 1.33 Europe Developed 2003 0.67 2 1.5 2 2 Africa Developing 2005 0.67 0 0 0 1.33 Asia Developing 2003 1.33 1 0.5 0 0.67 Asia Developing 2003 1.33 1 1 1 1.33

S6 1 2 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2 2 2 0 2 2 2

Sum of Averages 6.5 10.84 9.84 7 2.84 2.17 8.5 7.17 6.5 8.33 6.33 10.17 10.83 5.33 5.66 5.67 4 6 9 7.5 8.84 7.83 8.83 6.67 9.84 9.83 10.83 7 5 7.34 9.84 7.84 7 6 10 5.83 10.83 8.17 4 5.5 7.66

Figure 1: Ranking of Developing Countries - Year 2003

295

Figure 2: Ranking of Developed Countries - Year 2003 in Australia, the services of land-registration and cadastre (surveying and mapping) work in an integrated manner and often we can nd these services in a central metropolitan ofce. Therefore, Australia has an average score of 2 against statement 2, in table 1 whereas, Namibia has an average score of 0 for the same statement. A reason for a low score of Namibia is that the deeds registry and the cadastre systems are maintained in different organizations. Statement 3 of Cadastre 2014 requires that the land record management information system should be capable of generating maps, statistics, reports and documents using the data stored in the system. According to [17], Finland has a central object orientated database which stores maps and attribute data related to land objects, and the relationship between the two is always updated. Users can access updated information related to real estate cadastre, land register and maps. System is also capable of producing data model having more than 200 objects. Therefore, Finland has an average score of 1.5 against statement 3, in table 1 whereas, Cambodia has an average score of 0.5. Reason for this low score of Cambodia includes unavailability of related facts on the cadastral template [17]. Statement 4 of Cadastre 2014 requires that technology should be employed in cadastral systems and use of pen and paper shall be discontinued. According to [17], Finland has a central object orientated database which stores maps and attribute data related to land objects. Resultantly, Finland has an average score of 2 against statement 4 in table 1 whereas Cambodia has an average score of 0. One of the reasons for a low score for Cambodia is that the use of technology is not very clear from the data provided. Statement 5 of Cadastre 2014 requires that private sector should have a high participation in cadastral system and both public and private sectors should work closely together. According to [17], in Switzerland, 80 to 90 percent surveying is performed by private sector. Private sector is granted work for gathering and updating cadastral data, through tenders. It also supports land information systems of different municipalities, as a consultant. Therefore, Switzerland has an average score of 2 against statement 5, in table 1 whereas, Finland has an average score of 0.67. Reason for a relatively low score of Finland is that the private sector in Finland does not appear to have any participation in land registration and surveying. Statement 6 of Cadastre 2014 requires that cadastral systems should be cost recovering. For instance, land taxes and land transaction fees should be sufcient for recovering the cost of running the cadastral system. Australia has land taxation and fees attached to land transactions. Therefore, Australia has an average score of 2 against statement 6, in table 1 whereas, Cambodia has an average score of 0. Reasons for a low score of Cambodia is that the cadastral template [17] has not mentioned about land taxation or land transactions fee in Cambodia. Figure 1 represents the ranking of developing countries whereas Figure 2 represents the ranking of developed countries in terms of their implementation of Cadastre 2014 respectively for the year 2003 only. The results indicate that in the year 2003, within the developing countries Malaysia has the highest rank whereas within the developed countries Australia, Germany, and Sweden lead in the implementation of Cadaster 2014. As given in table 1, 18 countries are from Asia, 14 from Europe, 3 from Africa, 4 from Oceania and one each from North and South America. If we take the average of the nal scores "Sum of the Averages" of the countries in a given continent, we come up with a general idea of the extent of implementation of Cadastre 2014 at the continent level. The following average values were calculated: Asia 6.80, Europe 8.03, Oceania 8.21, North America 7, South America 6.5, and Africa 6.33. However since the American continents are being represented by a single country each, and sample size is also very small for African continent, the continent level comparison cannot be done appropriately. Another drawback is the fact that no data is available for major countries of these continents in the cadastral template [17]. However, a better comparison may be made between Europe, and Asia due to the relatively larger coverage provided by the sample size. In light of the available data we can conclude that the level of implementation of cadastral systems with regards to Cadastre 2014 is better in European countries than in Asian countries.

6.

CONCLUSIONS

Cadastre 2014, developed by FIG-Commission 7, is a vision for the cadastral systems of the future. It is a system envisioned to predict the trends of developments in the eld of cadastral systems and to devise a system that can handle such changes to the best of its abilities. In this paper, gap analysis has been performed between the current cadastral practices and the framework given by the standard Cadastre 2014. We have shown the level of implementation of six statements of Cadastre 2014 across 41 countries. From our ndings it is apparent that developed countries/regions have high values of implementation due to their better adoption of Cadastre 2014. Similarly developing countries/regions have lower values of Cadastre 2014 implementation. We propose that comparing otherwise heterogeneous cadastral systems, on the basis of the six statements of Cadastre 2014, provides an easier and more generic comparative analysis. 296

For the future, we plan to add more countries in the list to increase the sample size and collect latest data from the representatives of these countries to provide more fair picture of the Cadastre 2014 implementation across the world.

[11] G. Larsson. Land Registration and Cadastral Systems: Tools of Land Information and Management. Longman Scientic and Technical, 1991. [12] J. Manthorpe. Inventory of Land Administration Systems in Europe and North America. Technical report, HM Land Registry, London on behalf of the UN ECE Working Party on Land Administration, 2001. [13] B. Mirostaw, Z. Sabina, and L. Liu-ke. Alternative Methods for Conducting Comparative Analyses of Cadastral Systems. Chinese Geographical Science, 12:366372, 2007. [14] R. M. Moyo, T. L. Mwanalushi, and B. Chuba. The Land Information Management System (LIMS)A Modern National CadastreBasedtool for Land Delivery and Development in Zambia. In International Conference on Spatial Information for Sustainable Development Nairobi, Kenya, 2001. [15] T. sterberg. Cadastre as a Tool for Implementing Land Policy. In New Technology for a New Century, International Conference, FIG Working Week 2001, Seoul, Korea, 2001. [16] D. Steudler and J. Kaufmann. Benchmarking Cadastral Systems. Technical report, FIG-Commission 7Cadastre and Land Management Working Group 1998-2002Reforming the Cadastre, 2002. [17] D. Steudler and A. Rajabifard. Cadastral Template: A worldwide comparison of cadastral systems. http://www.cadastraltemplate.org/. [18] D. Steudler, I. P. Williamson, and A. Rajabifard. The Development of a Cadastral Template. Journal of Geospatial Engineering, 5(1):3947, June 2003. [19] D. Steudler, I. P. Williamson, and A. Rajabifard. A Worldwide Comparison of Cadastral Systems Cadastral Template. GIM-International, pages 4043, 2004.

7.

REFERENCES

[1] FIG-Commission7 Cadaster and Land Management. http://www.g.net/commission7/. [2] Hong Kong Cadastral System. http://www.lsgi.polyu.edu.hk/Cadastre/cadastre.htm. [3] World Atlas - Countries Listed by Continent. http://www.worldatlas.com/cntycont.htm. [4] World Bank - Data and Research - Data - Country Classication. http://web.worldbank.org/. [5] FIG Statement on the Cadastre - Summary. http://www.g.net/commission7/reports/reports.htm, 1995. [6] T. Bogaerts. Cadastral Developments in Central Europe. In Proceedings of Seminar on Juridical and Technical aspects for LIS, Delft., pages 110, 1998. [7] G. Eriksson. Cadastral Procedures in the Nordic CountriesA Comparison of Prices Costs and Handling Times. In Strategic Integration of Surveying Services, FIG working week 2007, Hong Kong SAR, China, 2007. [8] J. Gazdzicki. Systemy Katastralne. PPWK Warszawa, pages 8690, 1995. [9] A. Jones, C. Rowe, and P. Kentish. Cadastral Reform. An ICSM Discussion Paper, 1999. [10] J. Kaufmann and D. Steudler. Cadastre 2014: A Vision for a Future Cadastral System. 1998.

297

298