CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1

The DOI matches its DataCite record.

Towards a Framework for Assessing the Impact of Cadastral Development on Land Rights-Holders

Hull, Simon, Whittal, Jennifer·2016·figshare
DOI 10.6084/m9.figshare.3205303
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although there is a published lack of accepted frameworks and methodologies for the comparison and evaluation of national land administration systems, several frameworks for assessing the performance of LAS in terms of different aspects of these systems have been proposed. The bulk are biased towards analysis of technical, institutional, or cost/benefit aspects, or focus on economic efficiency and effectiveness. There is a dearth of frameworks for evaluating the external impact of land administration and cadastral developments, i.e. how do these developments affect citizens and communities having rights in land? This paper constitutes a review of recently published frameworks related to land administration and cadastral development. The underlying theories are explored and frameworks are identified as belonging to two general groups: those providing recommendations or guidelines, and those providing a hierarchical analysis that conforms to the general structure of evaluation frameworks. This latter category is further explored in terms of the motivations for development of the framework and three sub-groups are identified: those that address a gap in knowledge, those that address issues related specifically to developing contexts, and those with a pro-poor and good governance focus. Finally key lessons are drawn from the reviewed publications. It is proposed that land administration systems should be developed in such a way that they can become successful, sustainable, and significant. To this end good leadership is seen as very important, as are public participation, the (temporary) adoption of fit-for-purpose standards, a focus on providing secure tenure, and good governance. The theoretical underpinning for development should be adaptation or unified theories, not formalisation or replacement theory

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

DataCite · 10.6084/m9.figshare.3205303

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 45

  1. Agunbiade, M.E., Rajabifard, A. & Bennett, R. 2014. Land administration for housing production: An approach for assessment. Land Use Policy. 38:366-377. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.12.005. · DOI
  2. Akingbade, A., Navarra, D., Zevenbergen, J. & Georgiadou, Y. 2012. The impact of electronic land administration on urban housing development: The case study of the Federal Capital Territory of Nigeria. Habitat International. 36(2):324-332. DOI: 10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.10.008. · DOI
  3. Akrofi, E.O. & Whittal, J. 2013. Compulsory Acquisition and Urban Land Delivery in Customary Areas in Ghana. South African Journal of Geomatics. 2(4):280-295.
  4. Ali, Z., Zevenbergen, J. & Tuladhar, A. 2013. Quality assessment of the land administration system in Pakistan. Journal of Spatial Science. 58(1):119-146. DOI: 10.1080/14498596.2012.759093. · DOI
  5. Allan, G. 2003. A critique of using grounded theory as a research method. Journal of Business Research. 2(1):1-10.
  6. van Asperen, P. 2014. Evaluation of innovative land tools in sub-Saharan Africa: Three cases from a peri-urban context. Delft University Press.
  7. Augustinus, C., Lemmen, C. & van Oosterom, P. 2006. Social tenure domain model: Requirements from the perspective of pro-poor land management. In Proceeding of the 5th FIG Regional Conference. Accra, Ghana: International Federation of Surveyors. Available: http://www.fig.net/pub/accra/papers/ps03/ps03_02_lemmen.pdf [2013, July 25].
  8. Bandeira, P., Sumpsi, J.M. & Falconi, C. 2010. Evaluating land administration systems: A comparative method with an application to Peru and Honduras. Land Use Policy. 27(2):351-363. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.04.005. · DOI · Paper page
  9. Barry, M. & Roux, L. 2012. A change based framework for theory building in land tenure information systems. Survey Review. 44(327):301-314.
  10. Barry, M. & Roux, L. 2013. The Case Study Method in Examining Land Registration Usage. GEOMATICA. 67(1):9-20.
  11. Borras, S. & Franco, J.C. 2010. Contemporary Discourses and Contestations around Pro-Poor Land Policies and Land Governance. Journal of Agrarian Change. 10(1):1-32.
  12. Burns, T. 2006. International Experience with Land Administration Projects: a Framework for Monitoring of Pilots. In National Workshop on Land Policies and Administration for Accelerated Growth and Poverty Reduction in the 21st Century. New Delhi.
  13. Çağdaş, V. & Stubkjær, E. 2009. Doctoral research on cadastral development. Land Use Policy. 26(4):869-889.
  14. Chimhamhiwa, D., van der Molen, P., Mutanga, O. & Rugege, D. 2009. Towards a framework for measuring end to end performance of land administration business processes -A case study. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. 33(4):293-301. DOI: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2009.04.001. · DOI
  15. Cooper, H. 1998. Synthesizing Research: A guide for literature reviews. third ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd.
  16. Cornwall, A. & Nyamu-Musembi, C. 2004. Putting the "rights-based approach" to development into perspective. Third World Quarterly. 25(8):1415-1437. DOI: 10.1080/0143659042000308447. · DOI
  17. Deininger, K. & Feder, G. 2009. Land Registration, Governance, and Development: Evidence and Implications for Policy. The World Bank Research Observer. 24(2):233-266. DOI: 10.1093/wbro/lkp007. · DOI · Paper page
  18. Deininger, K., Selod, H. & Burns, A. 2012. The Land Governance Assessment Framework. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. DOI: 10.1596/978-0-8213-8758-0. · DOI
  19. Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T. & Balogh, S. 2012. An integrative framework for collaborative governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. 22(1):1-29. DOI: 10.1093/jopart/mur011. · DOI · Paper page
  20. Enemark, S. 2005. Understanding the Land Management Paradigm. In FIG Commission 7 Symposium on Innovative Technologies for Land Administration. Madison, Wisconsin: Towards a Framework for Assessing the Impact of Cadastral Development on Land Rights-Holders (7995)
  21. Enemark, S. 2012. Sustainable land governance: Spatially enabled, fit for purpose, and supporting the global agenda. In Annual World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Available: http://www.landandpoverty.com/agenda/pdfs/paper/enemark_full_paper.pdf [2013, July 23].
  22. Enemark, S., Hvingel, L. & Galland, D. 2014. Land administration, planning and human rights. Planning Theory. 13(4):331-348. DOI: 10.1177/1473095213517882. · DOI
  23. Feder, G. & Nishio, A. 1999. The benefits of land registration and titling: Economic and social perspectives. Land Use Policy. 15(1):25-43. DOI: 10.1016/S0264-8377(97)00039-2. · DOI · Paper page
  24. Furuholt, B., Wahid, F. & Sæbø, Ø. 2015. Land Information Systems for Development (LIS4D): A Neglected Area within ICT4D Research? In 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. Grand Hyatt, Kauai: IEEE Computer Society. 2158-2167. DOI: 10.1109/HICSS.2015.259. · DOI
  25. Griffith-Charles, C. & Sutherland, M. 2013. Analysing the costs and benefits of 3D cadastres with reference to Trinidad and Tobago. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. 40:24-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2012.07.002. · DOI
  26. Hull, S. 2014. Analysing the Cadastral Template Using a Grounded Theory Approach. In AfricaGEO. Cape Town: CONSAS Conference. Available: http://www.africageoproceedings.org.za/?page_id=473 [2014, July 21].
  27. Hull, S. & Whittal, J. 2013. Good e-Governance and Cadastral Innovation: In Pursuit of a Definition of e-Cadastral Systems. South African Journal of Geomatics. 2(4):342-357.
  28. Johannessen, G.H.J. & Hornbæk, K. 2014. Must evaluation methods be about usability? Devising and assessing the utility inspection method. Behaviour & Information Technology. 33(February):195-206. DOI: 10.1080/0144929X.2012.751708. Towards a Framework for Assessing the Impact of Cadastral Development on Land Rights-Holders (7995) · DOI
  29. Johnson, S.G. 2008. Building the cadastral framework: achievements and challenges in the English- speaking Caribbean. In Proceedings of GSDI 10. Trinidad and Tobago.
  30. Kim, K.B. 2005. Towards sustainable neighborhood design: A sustainability evaluation framework and a case study of the Greenwich Millennium Village Project. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research. 22(3):181-203.
  31. Kotiadis, K. & Robinson, S. 2008. CONCEPTUAL MODELLING: KNOWLEDGE ACQUISITION AND MODEL ABSTRACTION. In Proceedings of the 2008 Winter Simulation Conference.
  32. S.J. Mason, R.R. Hill, L. Monch, O. Rose, T. Jefferson, & J.W. Fowler, Eds. Miami, Florida: IEEE. 951-958.
  33. Mitchell, D., Clarke, M. & Baxter, J. 2008. Evaluating land administration projects in developing countries. Land Use Policy. 25(4):464-473. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.10.004. · DOI
  34. Platteau, J. 1996. The evolutionary theory of land rights as applied to sub-Saharan Africa: a critical assessment. Development and change. 27(1):29-86.
  35. Rajabifard, A., Binns, A., Williamson, I. & Steudler, D. 2006. A Template for Assessing Worldwide Cadastral Systems as Part of National SDI Initiatives. In GSDI-9 Conference Proceedings. Santiago, Chile. Available: http://gsdidocs.org/gsdiconf/GSDI- 9/papers/TS26.2paper.pdf [2013, November 28].
  36. Simon Hull and Jennifer Whittal (South Africa) FIG Working Week 2016 Recovery from Disaster Christchurch, New Zealand, May 2-6, 2016 Management Review. 33(3):509-523. DOI: 10.2753/PMR1530-9576330310. · DOI
  37. Silva, M.A. & Stubkjær, E. 2002. A review of methodologies used in research on cadastral development. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. 26(5):403-423.
  38. Simbizi, M.C.D., Bennett, R.M. & Zevenbergen, J. 2014. Land tenure security: Revisiting and refining the concept for Sub-Saharan Africa's rural poor. Land Use Policy. 36:231-238. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.08.006. · DOI
  39. Steudler, D., Williamson, I. & Rajabifard, A. 2003. The Development of a Cadastral Template. Hong Kong Journal of Geospatial Engineering. 5(1):39-47.
  40. Törhönen, M.-P. 2004. Sustainable land tenure and land registration in developing countries, including a historical comparison with an industrialised country. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. 28(5):545-586. DOI: 10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2003.11.007. · DOI
  41. Uvin, P. 2007. From the right to development to the rights-based approach: how "human rights" entered development. Development in Practice. 17(4-5):597-606. DOI: 10.1080/09614520701469617. · DOI
  42. Whittal, J. 2014. A New Conceptual Model for the Continuum of Land Rights. South African Journal of Geomatics. 3(1):13-32.
  43. Williamson, I. & Ting, L. 2001. Land administration and cadastral trends -a framework for re- engineering. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems. 25(4-5):339-366. DOI: 10.1016/S0198- 9715(00)00053-3. · DOI
  44. Yilmaz, A., Çağdaş, V. & Demir, H. 2015. An evaluation framework for land readjustment practices. Land Use Policy. 44:153-168. DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2014.12.004. · DOI
  45. Simon Hull and Jennifer Whittal (South Africa) FIG Working Week 2016 Recovery from Disaster Christchurch, New Zealand, May 2-6, 2016 10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.09.005. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Hull, S., & Whittal, J.
Venue
figshare
Publisher
figshare
Published
2016-04-29
DOI
10.6084/m9.figshare.3205303
References
0
Licence
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review