Legal barriers to 3D cadastre implementation: What is the issue?

Abstract The ways society use and occupy space occur in multiple dimensions; however, the ways we manage and administer space relies on two-dimensional information representations (2D). The legal ambiguity and administrative limitations inherent in such practices are becoming increasingly pronounced within land administration especially for urban areas. In response, a research domain has emerged – termed by specialists as ‘3D Cadastres’ – to seek greater correspondence between the administration of legal land and property (parcel) boundaries and the reality of physical bounds of structures themselves. Within this corpus of literature, advances in the technical domain are evident. However, other areas of research have not experienced the same degree of attention, with a particular lag in analysis of legal issues: this apparently explains the lack of progress in the realisation of operational 3D cadastres. However, given many countries actually already administer ownership of 3D property within current statutory frameworks, is the continued concentration on legal issues a red herring? Are legal issues significant barriers to implementation, and if not, what other considerations are there? This position paper, comprising two main sections, aims to consider, clarify and reconceptualise the significance of the law as an obstacle to implementation of 3D cadastres. It does this by firstly reviewing the legal issues articulated within the literature and examining the extent of its impact using current practical examples. This leads to the conclusion that finding alternative methods and processes to overcome perceived legal issues actually facilitates progress towards 3D property registration and therefore, 3D cadastre implementation. This challenges the dominant assumption that legal issues are a significant barrier. The paper then proposes to consider the influence of legal issues through an institutional lens, as a way of gaining other insights into how legal issues can influence 3D cadastre implementation. The introduction of institutional theory and a theoretical framework provides a way to reconceptualise the role of legal issues in 3D cadastre implementation. The framework is further used as a sensitising mechanism for discussing broad-based institutional issues that have as yet, not been given significant consideration in the literature. The paper concludes with a response to the main research question and the proposition that significant barriers to 3D cadastre implementation lies not in technological or legal issues, but the more fundamental social and cultural issues that make up the institutional framework underpinning cadastral systems.

[1]  Jantien Stoter,et al.  The phased 3D cadastre implementation in the Netherlands , 2012 .

[2]  W. Powell.  Expanding the Scope of Institutional Analysis , 1991 .

[3]  Jantien E. Stoter,et al.  3D cadastre in the Netherlands: Developments and international applicability , 2013, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..

[5]  Tassos Labropoulos,et al.  3-D Cadastre in Greece - Legal, Physical and Practical Issues Application on Santorini Island , 2004 .

[6]  Mark C. Suchman,et al.  Legal Rational Myths: The New Institutionalism and the Law and Society Tradition , 1996, Law & Social Inquiry.

[7]  K. Hussin,et al.  Establishing 3D property rights in Malaysia , 2012 .

[8]  Jenny Paulsson.  3D Property - Types of Rights and Management Factors , 2008 .

[9]  J. Ruiz Moreno.  [Organizational learning]. , 2001, Revista de enfermeria.

[10]  B. Peters,et al.  Institutional Theory: Problems and Prospects , 2000 .

[11]  J. Stoter,et al.  Changes in the definition of property: A consideration for a 3D cadastral registration system , 2000 .

[12]  Stig Enemark,et al.  FIG Working Week 2012, Rome, 6-10 May 2012 – Knowing to manage the territory, protect the environment, evaluate the cultural heritage , 2012 .

[13]  P.J.M. van Oosterom,et al.  ISO land administration domain model and LandXML, in the development of digital survey plan lodgement for 3D cadastre in Australia , 2011 .

[14]  Abbas Rajabifard,et al.  Land and Property Information in 3D , 2012 .

[15]  Richard R. Nelson,et al.  Institutions supporting technical change in the United States , 1988 .

[16]  G. Dosi.  Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories: A Suggested Interpretation of the Determinants and Directions of Technical Change , 1982 .

[17]  Abbas Rajabifard,et al.  Aspects of 3D cadastre: a case study in Victoria , 2011 .

[18]  Giovanni Dosi,et al.  When and How Chance and Human Will Can Twist the Arms of Clio , 1999 .

[19]  Andrew Hargadon,et al.  When Innovations Meet Institutions: Edison and the Design of the Electric Light , 2001 .

[20]  Jürg Kaufmann,et al.  Cadastre 2014: A Vision for Future Cadastral Systems , 2014 .

[21]  Kenneth L. Kraemer,et al.  Institutional Factors in Information Technology Innovation , 1994, Inf. Syst. Res..

[22]  L. Zucker.  The role of institutionalization in cultural persistence. , 1977 .

[23]  W. Scott.  Institutions and Organizations: Ideas and Interests , 2007 .

[24]  D. North.  Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance: Economic performance , 1990 .

[25]  John W. Meyer,et al.  Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality , 1984 .

[26]  Jantien Stoter,et al.  Registration of 3D Objects Crossing Parcel Boundaries , 2003 .

[27]  C. Edquist.  Systems of Innovation: Technologies, Institutions and Organizations , 1997 .

[28]  Wanda J. Orlikowski,et al.  Information Technology and the Structuring of Organizations , 2011 .

[29]  K. Nelson,et al.  Technology, institutions, and innovation systems , 2002 .

[30]  J. Hollingsworth,et al.  Doing institutional analysis: implications for the study of innovations , 2000 .

[31]  Sisi Zlatanova,et al.  Solutions for 4D cadastre – with a case study on utility networks , 2011, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[32]  Stig Enemark,et al.  Building Land Information Policies , 2004 .

[33]  Kalle Lyytinen,et al.  The Role of Intermediating Institutions in the Diffusion of Electronic Data Interchange (EDI): How Industry Associations Intervened in Denmark, Finland, and Hong Kong , 2001, Inf. Soc..

[34]  Jenny Paulsson,et al.  3D property rights an analysis of key factors based on international experience , 2007 .

[35]  E. Ostrom.  Understanding Institutional Diversity , 2005 .

[36]  Jesper M. Paasch,et al.  3D Property Research - a Survey of the Occurrence of Legal Topics in Publications , 2011 .

[37]  J. Fagerberg.  Innovation: A Guide to the Literature , 2003 .

[38]  G. Dosi.  Technological Paradigms and Technological Trajectories , 1993 .

[39]  Jenny Paulsson.  Swedish 3D Property in an International Comparison , 2012 .

[40]  Sian Barber,et al.  Institutions and Organisations , 2013 .

[41]  Gyula Iván.  3D Cadastre Development in Hungary , 2011 .

[42]  P.J.M. van Oosterom,et al.  World-wide inventory of the status of 3D Cadastres in 2010 and expectations for 2014 , 2011 .

[43]  Mary Tripsas,et al.  Thinking About Technology: Applying a Cognitive Lens to Technical Change , 2008 .

[44]  Jantien E. Stoter,et al.  Technological aspects of a full 3D cadastral registration , 2005, Int. J. Geogr. Inf. Sci..

[45]  Kevin McDougall,et al.  Development of validation rules to support digital lodgement of 3D cadastral plans , 2013, Comput. Environ. Urban Syst..