Research Article
Design research in cadastral domain
V. ÇAĞDAŞ1† and E. STUBKJÆR‡
†Yildiz Technical University, Department of Geodetic and Photogrammetric Engineering, 34349
Istanbul, Turkey
‡Aalborg University, Department of Development and Planning, 9220 Aalborg, Denmark
During the recent years, several organizational and individual researches have been
performed within the cadastral domain. Two paradigms characterize much of research and
their methodologies: paradigm of the social and the behavioral science paradigm, and
‘design science’ or ‘design research’. Although there have been a few efforts focusing on
social and behavioral research methodologies, design research methodologies have not been
addressed in the cadastre and geographical information system (GIS) research community so
far. The present article, therefore, aims to introduce design research paradigm to our research
community by presenting a methodological and theoretical analysis on recently performed
research which address information sciences issues and implicitly applies design research
methodologies. The analysis is based on five doctoral dissertations and an array of papers
representing developments of the Core Cadastral Domain Model project. The main
contribution of this article is a presentation of a design research methodology, which could
be used for further analyses and for guiding researchers who aim to perform design research
on cadastre and GIS.
Keywords: Cadastre; Cadastral system; Design research (science), Doctoral research;
Research methodology; Theory building
1. Introduction
The present global efforts in advancing national spatial data infrastructures (NSDI) were spurred by
the US Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) which is an interagency coordinating body for
NSDI-related activities at the federal level in US (see Onsrud et al. 2004). Among others, the
FGDC identified framework data themes which provide a foundation for integrating other data
themes. One of the seven framework themes is the theme of ‘cadastral information’ (FGDC 1995).
In 2003, FGDC published The Cadastral Data Content Standard to provide semantic definitions of
objects related to land surveying, land records, and land ownership information. In this standard,
cadastral data is defined ‘the geographic extent of the past, current, and future rights and interests in
real property including the spatial information necessary to describe that geographic extent’ (FGDC
2003, p. 2). The idea of national spatial and geographic data infrastructures quickly spread to the
European Union (EU). The idea of framework data themes was adopted by the European Territorial
Management Information Infrastructure (ETeMII) project. The ETeMII project is an Accompanying
Measure (IST-1999-12096) aiming to organise a network of excellence, bringing together many key
stakeholders in the field of territorial management for the purpose of supporting and co-ordinating
the relevant on-going information infrastructure activities (see <http://www.ec-gis.org/etemii//>). In
ETeMII White Paper, the corresponding framework theme, or reference data component, was
described as ‘units of property rights (i.e. cadastral parcels)’, which relates to the identifier and
extents of any cadastral parcels (ETeMII 2001, p. 9). The purpose of the present paper is to
summarize research on cadastral information and units of land rights, especially from the
information systems point of view.
Design research or design science in information system field can be defined as a research pattern
that aims to ‘create and evaluate artifacts intended to solve identified organizational problems’
1
Corresponding author. Email: volkan@yildiz.edu.tr
1 / 19
(Hevner et al. 2004, p. 77). It involves a rigorous process to design artifacts to solve observed
problems, to evaluate the designs, and to communicate the results to appropriate audiences. Such
artifacts may include constructs, models, methods, and instantiations. They may also include social
innovations or new properties of technical, social, or informational resources; in short, this
definition includes any designed object with an embedded solution to an understood research
problem (Peffers et al. 2008, p. 49). Though the design research is a relatively new paradigm, there
has been a growing interest within the information systems research community to it (e.g. March
and Smith 1995; Hevner et al. 2004; Gregor 2006; Peffers et al. 2006, 2008; Venabla 2006).
However, as our knowledge design research paradigm has not been spelled out by the researchers
who have been studying on cadastre and geographical information system (GIS) domain so far. The
present article, therefore, aims to introduce design research paradigm to cadastre and GIS
community by presenting a methodological analysis on recently performed research which address
information sciences aspects of the domain and implicitly applies design research methodologies.
The term of domain refers real, abstract or hypothetical field of endeavor under consideration,
which can include various groups of objects that behave accordingly to the rules and characteristics
of this domain (Stuckenschmidt et al. 2003, p. 177). In below, we presented an outline for cadastral
domain by a conceptual model encompassing an array of concepts and their relationships (see
Figure 1), and a set of definitions for these concepts, which will be base for present article and may
be used for further theory building initiatives.
Figure 1. Cadastral research domain
Cadastral systems as a combination of cadastre and land register describe real property units,
and records data concerning real property units in terms of national Information Systems. The legal
component, land registration refers ‘a process of official recording of rights in land through deeds or
title’ (Zevenbergen 2002, p. 1). The spatial component, cadastre means ‘a systematic and official
description of land parcels, which includes for each parcel a unique identifier’. The description
includes text records on attributes of each parcel. The prototypical means of identification is a largescale map that provides information on parcel boundaries (Silva and Stubkjær 2002, p. 410).
Cadastre can also be labeled as a ‘parcel-based GIS which according to statute law records units of
immobile property, their identifiers and attributes’ (Stubkjaer 2006, p. 1). GIS as a subset of
information systems enables capturing, storing, checking, integrating, analysing and displaying data
about the Earth that is spatially referenced (Dale and McLaughlin 1999, p.162). It describes geospatially referenced Objects including of terrain objects (e.g. a stream) and human made objects
(e.g. a house). In case of cadastral system or a parcel-based GIS, objects include real property units.
A Real Property Unit is the documented geographical entity to which real property rights refer.
The unit may consist of one or more pieces of land, of whole or parts of a building, e.g. a registered
building unit, or combinations of these entities, including rights in other units of real property, all
depending on stautory law and national practices. Rights in real property units are called Real
Property Rights. Such rights may take a variety of forms, i.e. ownership, lease, mortgage, and
2 / 19
easement. They are restricted by the right of government to compulsory purchase, to issue taxation,
to establish spatial planning measures like zoning, and by other restrictions like preemption rights.
Real property rights are changed by activities. An Activity can be defined as a human action
performed to complete a task, mostly of economic value, i.e. subdivision, real property transactions
(Stubkjær 2005, p. 13). Activities produces documents, they are performed by actors and regulated
by rules. An Actor is either physical or legal person and involve asset holders, authorities (i.e.
government, including the judiciary, the police, and fiscal bodies, municipalities, and civil
servants), companies (i.e. professionals, financial institutions, software vendors, and service
providers), educational and research organizations, and social groups (e.g. local community,
NGOs/interest groups). Activities produce documents. A Document consists of a message in textual
or graphic form. Essential is endorsed by a physical or legal person, who comments herself in one
way or another. As right is abstract thing, the document materializes real property rights, i.e. by title
and deed. Rules govern activities and involve both formal and informal rules. Formal rules include
legislation, including procedure rules, organizational statutes, and technical standards. Informal
rules, on the other hand involve social norms/values and customary law, tacit knowledge, rituals, as
well as a social code in terms of (domain) language (Stubkjaer 2006, p. 2). Rules may also be
labelled with the term of institution. ‘Institutions are the rules of the game in a society or, more
formally, humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction’ (North 1990, p. 3).
During the recent years, several individual and organizational researches have been performed
within the above-outlined research domain. Two paradigms characterize much of the research: (i)
paradigm of the social and behavioral science, and (ii) paradigm of ‘design science’ or ‘design
research’. While the social and behavioral science paradigm seeks to develop and verify theories
that explain or predict human or organizational behavior, the design research paradigm seeks to
create and evaluate artifacts (i.e. constructs or concepts, models, methods and instantiations)
intended to solve identified organizational problems (Hevner et al. 2004, pp. 75, 77). The research
within the cadastral domain may be grouped according to these paradigms as follows:
 Paradigm of social and behavioral sciences, i.e. Benchmarking Cadastral Systems (Steudler
and Kaufmann 2002); Evaluation of Land Administration Systems (Williamson 2001;
Steudler et al. 2004); Designing a Cadastral Template (Steudler et al. 2003); Comparison of
Cadastral Systems (Rajabifard et al. 2007); Modeling of Real Property Transactions
(Stuckenschmidt et al. 2003; Zevenbergen et al. 2007); researches on spatial data
infrastructure issues (i.e. Jacoby et al. 2002; Crompvoets et al. 2004; De Man 2005;
Georgidau et al. 2005; Rajabifard et al. 2006; Omran and van Etten 2007; Elwood 2007;
Masser et al. 2007; Thellufsen et al. in press); and doctoral research (Barry 1999;
Zevenbergen 2002; Ting 2002; Park 2003; Törhönen 2003; Griffith-Charles 2004; Steudler
2004; Dalrymple 2005; Rakai 2005; Silva 2005; Nkwae 2006)
 Paradigm of design research or science, i.e. Core Cadastral Domain Model (van Oosterom
and Lemmen 2002; Lemmen et al. 2003; Oosterom and Lemmen 2003; Lemmen et al. 2005;
van Oosterom et al. 2006; Lemmen and van Oosterom 2006) and doctoral research (Bittner
2001; Effenberg 2001; Stoter 2004; Tuladhar 2004; van Loenen 2006)
Science is a systematic, rule-bound, collective exploration of reality. Individual research efforts
are supposed to contribute to such exploration by describing the nature of a phenomenon, by
developing an artifact, a methodology, or a theory (Gile 2001, p. 2). In any scientific research, these
contributions and their validations mainly depend on the selected theories and applied
methodologies. Despite the above-mentioned valuable contributions, from our point of view, a
coherent and universal core cadastral theory and related research methodologies have not been
developed so far. This may be caused from lack of a shared set of concepts and terminology in
terms of both theory and research methodology. Moreover, methodological and theoretical issues
have rarely been addressed in the research domain. Recently, Cagdas and Stubkjær (in review)
analyzed methodologies used in doctoral dissertations addressing issues in relation to immobile
property rights and recording of these rights, and applying social and behavioral research paradigm.
With the present article, we aim to extend that study by analyzing second group of research which
3 / 19
addresses information sciences aspect of the research domain, and applying design research
paradigm. For this purpose, we selected following doctoral dissertations and an array of journal
articles and conference papers representing improvements of the Core Cadastral Domain Model
initiatives:
 An agent-based model of reality in a cadastre by Bittner (2001) at Technical University
Vienna (Supervisor: Univ.-Prof.Dr. A. Frank)
 Spatial Cadastral Information Systems - The maintenance of digital cadastral maps by
Effenberg (2001) at University of Melbourne (Supervisor: Prof.Dr. I. Williamson)
 3D Cadastre by Stoter (2004) at Delft University of Technology (Supervisors: Prof.Dr.Ir.
P.J.M. van Oosterom and Prof.Dr. J. de Jong)
 Parcel-based geo-information system: concepts and guidelines by Tuladhar (2004) at
International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation (Supervisors:
Prof.Dr.Ir. M.J.M. Bogaerts and Prof.Ir. P. van der Molen)
 Developing geographic information infrastructures - The role of information policies by van
Loenen (2006) at Delft University of Technology (Supervisors: Prof.Dr. J. de Jong and
Dr.Ir. J.A. Zevenbergen)
 Core Cadastral Domain Model (van Oosterom and Lemmen 2002; Lemmen et al. 2003;
Lemmen et al. 2005; van Oosterom et al. 2006; Lemmen and van Oosterom 2006)
Above-listed doctoral dissertations and the CCDM initiative ‘create(d) things that serve human
purposes’ (Simon 1969, p. 55; quoted from Peffers et al. 2008, p. 48). They designed several
models and instantiated them for evaluating or improving components of the cadastral systems.
While some of these models serve to academic community by bringing new visions to understand
nature of a phenomenia (Bittner 2001; van Loenen 2006), the others serve to business community
by applying technologic innovations to improve effectiveness of an organization and its services
(Effenberg 2001; Stoter 2004; Tuladhar 2004; CCDM). In this article, therefore, we analyze the
methodologies of the selected research from the design research paradigm point of view by
applying a guideline presented by Peffers et al. (2008), namely design research methodology.
According this guideline, a design research in information systems should include following six
steps: (i) problem identification and motivation, (ii) definition of the objectives for a solution, (iii)
design and development, (iv) demonstration, (v) evaluation, and (vi) communication (Peffers et al.
2008, pp. 52-56). We apply this guideline to study and to compare research domain and
methodologies of outputs of the researches. We also use it as a template for structuring the present
article, as proposed by Peffers et al. (2006) and Peffers et al. (2008). Hence, the first and second
steps of the methodology, namely problem definition and objectives for solution of this article have
already been explained in this section. In Section 2 and Section 3 we demonstrated the application
of above-mentioned methodology to outputs of selected researches. More specifically, while
Section 2 presents research theme, problem identification and aims of the researches, Section 3
describes methodological approaches applied in the researches. Section 3 also analyzes developed
models, the demonstration and evaluation of these models, and applied theories in the researches,
respectively. Section 4 presents conclusions of the article.
2. The research domain of the reviewed research
The first group of doctoral dissertations including Effenberg (2001), Stoter (2004) and Tuladhar
(2004) is related improvement components of cadastral systems.
As defined at the introductory section the cadastre consists of two parts: a series of maps
together with text records (UNECE 2004, p. 4). Thence, cadastre provides both spatial and nonspatial information related land parcels. Text records, namely cadastral register records parcel
number, area, value and legal rights associated with the parcel. On the other hand, the spatial
component, cadastral map shows the results of a cadastral survey which determines the ownership,
boundaries, and location of parcel of land (Bruce 1998, p. 5). Among the reviewed dissertations,
Effenberg (2001) and Stoter (2004) studied on aspects of cadastral maps and cadastral registers.
4 / 19
While the former focused on models for maintaining of cadastral maps, the later investigated
possibilities to register three dimensional (3D) rights to cadastral maps and registers.
In most of the European countries, the right of ownership established on a parcel reaches from
the middle of the earth up to the sky (Stoter and Ploeger 2003, p. 553). Therefore, the right of
ownership is established on a parcel and applies for all space above and below the surface parcel,
i.e. the ownership of a parcel is not limited in the third dimension. On the other hand, ownership
right on a parcel can be limited horizontially by other real property rights (e.g. right of superficies,
right of easement) or public restrictions (Stoter 2004, p. 41). The land parcels are represented with
two dimensional cadastral maps, and rights established thereon are kept in land registers and/or
cadastral registers. Therefore, in the current situation, cadastral registers and land registers provide
information on which persons have a right on a parcel, but cadastral maps do not represent spatial
extents of these rights efficiently. Moreover, as constructions are not object of the registration
themselves, cadastral registers and land registers, in generally, do not register constructions above
and below of the land parcel (except superficies right and condominium rights). Because of the fact
that ownership right on the land parcel includes land parcel and anything growing on, attached to, or
erected on it, excluding anything that may be severed without injury to the land (Black 1996).
Although cadastral maps may represent contours of such constructions, they do not provide
information on three dimensional (3D) real situations of these constructions. During the last
century, however, land use especially in urban areas is becoming complex because of complex
constructions, and infrastructure above and under the ground and apartments. As mentioned above,
while traditional land registration is still sufficient to register of these rights, cadastral maps and
registers are not enabling to represent spatially complex real property rights efficiently. Hence, in
2000 the Department of Geodesy of Delft University of Technology in colloboration with the
Netherlands’ Kadaster started a research project to define registration possibilities of 3D situations
(Stoter and Salzmann 2003, p. 396). As a part of this research project, one of the analyzed
dissertations, Stoter (2004) researched the needs, constraints and possibilities for 3D cadastral
registration especially from the cadastral and technical point of views (Stoter 2004, p. 7).
The next dissertation, Effenberg (2001) focuses on the maintenance and distrubition of cadastral
maps in case of Australian states. The maintenance of cadastral maps involves two processes,
namely updates and upgrade. The incorporation of all geometrical changes in relation to land
parcels to the cadastral maps, as a result of land development activities (i.e. subdivision) is referred
to as update. The second component of maintenance, namely upgrade means corrections, alterations
and adjustments to improve the content and accuracy of the cadastral maps (p. 3). The cadastral
maps is one of the main dataset for any parcel-based local and/national GISs, as well as any local
and national SDI. In order to ensure efficient public services, they must be kept updated, have
spatial accuracy and distibuted efficiently between the governmental organizations. According to
Effenberg, problems in relation to maintenance and distribution of cadastral maps must be dealt
with in a digital and Internet enabled environment (p. 4). Therefore, he aimed to bring information
systems approach to the system that manages the cadastral data that is the basis of the cadastral
maps. More specifically, he aimed to present models to achieve effective, efficient and timely
maintenance and distribution of the cadastral data in cases of Victoria and New South Wales (p. 5).
The last dissertation within this group, Tuladhar (2004) focuses on cadastral system from the
information system aspect in case of Nepal and Bhutan. According to him, existing systems of
cadastre and land registration in Nepal and Bhutan are unable to meet the needs of societies of
because of the inadequate methods in acquisition, storage, maintenance, and dissemination of data.
This observation motivated him to enquiry how these problems can be solved in a simple, secure,
consistent and cost-effective way (pp. 10, 193). Main objective of the Tuladhar, thence, is to
analysis existing system and to develop system models for parcel-based GIS in case of Nepal and
Bhutan which support the administration of land, such as alienation, transfer, valuation,
development and utilization of land (p. 34).
The next cluster of dissertations involving Bittner (2001) and van Loenen (2006) brings new
visions to understand nature of a cadastre and of spatial data infrastructure (SDI), respectively.
5 / 19
Cadastral processes and a national, parcel-based GIS may be designed like a pure engineering
system as above mentioned researches. Surveying, mapping and technologies for disseminating of
geo-spatial information are necessary for defining real property units and maintaining rights
thereon. However, legal and social rules, for instance the legal definition of real property units and
rights, do not fit the (hard) system designing. Because of the social nature of the cadastral system,
designing is not as straightforward as with technical systems (Ottens 2004, p. 1). One of the
reviewed dissertation, Bittner (2001) addresses this approach by focusing on institutional structure
of cadastre. Acording to him, in general, models of the cadastre describe the cadastre as the
database or the GIS and discuss its internal formal rules. However, it is not possible to discuss all
relevant aspects of cadastral processes by investigating its input and output operations (p. 56).
These processes capture only a part of reality. Hence, it is necessary to widen the scope to the more
general view of ‘reality in a cadastre’ (p. 13), which means the part of the real world and which is
influenced by the activities and the content of the cadastral registry (p. 150). According to
researcher, the reality in a cadastre is determined by the institutional concepts (e.g., ownership,
parcel) and their relationships to the physical environment (e.g., land, human beings). In his
research, therefore, Bittner aimed to construct a simulation model that represents the cadastral
registry embedded into its environment and its interaction with the environment in order to analysis
reality in cadastre (p. 14). The next dissertation within second group, namely van Loenen (2006)
studies on dynamics of development of SDI. SDI is about the facilitation and coordination of the
exchange and sharing of spatial data between stakeholders in the spatial data community
(Crompvoets et al. 2004, p. 665). It covers information (datasets), institutional framework, policies,
technology, standards, financial resources, and human resources (van Loenen 2006, p. 35; De Man
2005, p. 331). In any local and national level SDI, cadastre and land registry organizations can be
seen as one of the major stakeholders, as they provide primary datasets in terms of cadastral maps
and registers. Until now, development and implementation of SDIs have been addressed by many
researchers in terms of social and behavioural research paradigm, i.e. Jacoby et al. (2002),
Crompvoets et al. (2004), De Man (2005), Georgidau et al. (2005), Rajabifard et al. (2006), Omran
and van Etten (2007), Elwood (2007), Masser et al. (2007), Thellufsen et al. (in press), among the
others. Furthermore, one of the reviewed dissertations van Loenen (2006) inquired development of
SDI or geographical information infrastructure (GII) especially from the access policies point of
view. The motivation of his research was unavailability of a general model explaining the
development of a GII. The researcher, therefore, aimed to develop a model that describes the stages
of development in GIIs from the organizational, technical data characteristics, and non-technical
data characteristics point of views (pp. 6-11).
As mentioned before, in the past decade an array of research and organizational initiatives,
describing and comparing components of above-outlined cadastral domain has been conducted
which could be seen as an initial step for standardization of cadastral domain. For instance, several
components of cadastral domain were addressed by ESF/COST G9 Action: ‘Modeling of Real
Property Transactions’ (2001-2005) (see <http://costg9.plan.aau.dk/>). The Action aimed at
providing a basis for the reduction of costs of real property transactions by preparing a set of
models of these transactions. Transaction costs and economic efficiency of selected real property
markets in Europe were assessed according to two cases: (1) the acquisition of single family
dwelling and (2) the subdivision of an urban land parcel. The Action presented (1) a method to
describe and compare the transaction procedures, (2) a systematic description of sales and
subdivision procedures for several countries, and (3) a comparison of described transactions (see
Stuckenschmidt et al. 2003, Zevenbergen et al. 2007). Rule and real property rights components of
the domain also were investigated with a research conducted by European University Institute,
namely ‘Real Property Law and Procedure in the European Union’. The research presented an array
of national reports demonstrating and comparing real property law in member states of EU (EUI
2005, p. 1). Similarly, under the roof of Fédération Internationale des Géomètres (International
Federation of Surveyors, FIG) following major researches and surveys have been performed for
comparing and evaluating effectiveness of cadastral systems in all over the world: Benchmarking
6 / 19
Cadastral Systems (Steudler and Kaufmann 2002), Evaluation of Land Administration Systems
(Williamson 2001; Steudler et al. 2004), Designing a Cadastral Template (Steudler et al. 2003),
Comparison of Cadastral Systems (Rajabifard et al. 2007). In 2004, United Nations Economic
Commission for Europe (UNECE) Working Party on Land Administration (WPLA) presented the
guidelines on definitions of real property units and their identifiers in UNECE region, namely
‘Guidelines on Real Property Units and Identifiers’. The aim of this study was to assist countries reengineering their cadastral system and to help those who are seeking harmonization across the EU
(UNECE 2004, p. ix). Furthermore, UNECE WPLA conducted several surveys describing and
comparing some components of cadastral domain in UNECE region (see
<http://www.unece.org/hlm/wpla/>).
In terms of information system component of the cadastral domain, an EU initiative namely
European Land Information Service’ (EULIS), and Core Cadastral Domain Project (CCDM) may
be mentioned. EULIS is a consortium consisting of national land registry organizations in EU. The
objective of the Consortium is to provide world-wide access to European electronic real property
information in order to promote and underpin a single European property market
(<www.eulis.org>). In the 2004, the Consortium brought together the computerized land registry
records of several member states in one portal under the heading of EULIS. It enables to search real
property information via internet and with use of cadastral unit number or address information.
Terminological differences among the member countries were alleviated through the EULIS
Glossary which provides multilingual translations of relevant terms used in the EULIS-countries
land registers. The second initiative, namely CCDM, which is selected for review in this article,
refers a reference data model initially proposed by van Oosterom and Lemmen (2002) and
developed in cooperation with several domain experts. According to researchers, there are different
implementations of cadastral systems in all over the world, even though their main function is
maintaining real property rights. These differencies, therefore, encumber communication between
the cadastral systems in an international context (van Oosterom et al. 2006, p. 628). According to
van Oosterom et al. (2006) a standardized CCDM can solve this communication problem both
within one country and between different countries based on the shared ontology. It also provides a
extensible basis for efficient and effective cadastral system development based on a model driven
architecture (p. 627).
Summarizing this section, it appears that the common attributes underlying the selected
reseaerch is to understand or improve components of the cadastral systems via modeling. For
instance, Stoter (2004) and Tuladhar (2004) studied on data models for a 3D cadastre and system
models for a parcel-based GIS, respectively. Effenberg (2001) aimed to design models for
maintenance of cadastral maps. Within the second group, Bittner (2001) tried to develop a
computational simulation model for understanding reality in a cadastre, whilist van Loenen (2006)
studied on models to describe development stages of GIIs. The CCDM, on the other hand, focused
to develop a reference data model to provide the common ground for data exchange between
different systems in the cadastral domain. In the following section we introduce methodological and
theoretical approaches of these research outputs.
3. Methodological and theoretical aspects of the reviewed research
3.1. Applied methodologies
A scientific methodology may be defined as a system of explicit rules and procedures upon which
research is based and against which claims for knowledge are evaluated (Frankfort-Nachmias and
Nachmias 1997, p. 13). The term here is used for referring to how inquiry is performed, which
includes research procedure, research methods and data collection techniques. As mentioned in the
introductionary section, in this article we apply Peffers et al. (2008)’s design research methodology
for analyzing methodologies of the dissertations.
Peffers et al. (2008)’s methodology consists of six steps: (1) problem identification and
motivation, (2) definition of the objectives for a solution, (3) design and development, (4)
demonstration, (5) evaluation, and (6) communication. In the first step of the research, specific
7 / 19
research problem should be defined and value of a solution should be justified. Therefore, the
research has to make use and demonstrate knowledge of the current state of the art and the
relevance of the identified problem. The second step infers the objectives of a solution from the
problem definition and knowledge of what is possible and feasible. In the third step, artifacts are
created. Such artifacts are potentially concept-constructs, models, methods, instantiations or new
properties of technical, social, and/or information resources. The fourth step of the methodology
demonstrates the use of the artifact to solve one or more occurances of the problem. This could
involve its use in experimentation, simulation, case study, proof, or other appropriate activity. The
fifth step, namely evaluation observes and measures how well the artifact supports a solution to the
problem. This activity involves comparing the objectives of a solution to actual observed results
from use of the artifact in the demonstration. It requires knowledge of relevant metrics and analysis
techniques. The last step, communication refers dissemination of new knowledge obtained by the
research in terms of i.e. dissertations, journal articles (pp. 52-56).
As presented in the Section 2, all reviewed research presented well defined research problem and
objectives for the proposed solution (see Table 1). These steps were mainly conducted by literature
review, case studies and expert views. For instance, Stoter (2004) defined requirements for 3D
registration based on literature review and case studies including from the Netherlands, Denmark,
Norway, Sweden, Queensland-Australia, British Columbia-Canada, Israel. Bittner (2001) defined
problem domain based on Searle’s theory of institutional reality in case of the Austria Cadastre.
Effenberg (2001) and Tuladhar (2004) also started their researches with a literature review for
defining problem and possible solutions. While the former focused on maintenance of cadastral
maps in cases of Victoria and New South Wales (Australia), the later handled on system modeling
and land tenure system in cases of Nepal and Bhutan. Lastly, van Loenen (2006) presented
background information regarding GII development by literature review.
In the literature review sections, researchers also introduced theoretical information regarding
concepts and theories, methods, and modeling tools, as well as information in relation to their case
studies. Theoretical information introduced at this stage includes Searle’s institutional reality theory
and multi-agent theory in Bittner (2001), system development methodologies and Zachman
Framework in Effenberg (2001), spatial data modeling theory in Stoter (2004), system development
and modeling approaches in Tuladhar (2004) and case study research method in van Loenen (2006).
Details of the theoretical backgrounds will be given in the Section 3.4. Additionally, some of the
researchers used interviews techniques for data collecting in relation to case studies. For instance,
Effenberg (2001) applied unstructured interviews by experts from related organizations in New
South Wales and Victoria (Australia), and experts from United Kingdom, Austria, Switzerland and
Denmark (pp. 6-7). Similarly, Tuladhar (2004) performed unstructured interviews for obtaining data
from the responsible officials in Nepal and Bhutan (pp. 14, 151). Lastly, Van Loenen (2006)
applied semi structured interviews to key individuals within selected cases studies representing a
specific group of users and producers (p. 143).
In the third step of the presented methodology, artifacts are designed. These artifacts could be
concept or constructs, models, methods or instantiations. The constructs or concepts form the
vocabulary of a domain. They constitute a conceptualization used to describe problems within the
domain and to specify their solutions. The second artifact, the model is a set of propositions or
statements expressing relationships among constructs. A method is a set of steps (an algorithm or
guideline) used to perform a task. Methods are based on a set of underlying constructs. The last
artifact, the instantiation is the realization of an artifact in its environment. It demonstrates the
feasibility and effectiveness of the models and methods they contain (March and Smith 1995, pp.
256-258). In the reviewed research, the researchers have developed models and frameworks in
accord to findings of the preceeding steps and selected theoretical background. These models and
frameworks include (i) a computational model of reality in a cadastre (Bittner 2001); (ii) a spatial
cadastral update model (Effenberg 2001); (iii) conceptual and logical models for 3D cadastre
(Stoter 2004); (iv) conceptual models and a guideline for parcel-based GIS (Tuladhar 2004); (v) GII
maturity matrix and framework dataset maturity matrix (van Loenen 2006) and (vi) a reference
8 / 19
cadastral data model-CCDM (Lemmen and van Oosterom 2006). Unified Modeling Language
(UML) is the most preferred conceptual modeling language among the reviewed research. It was
used in Tuladhar (2004) for visualising system models, in Stoter (2004) for developing 3D cadastre
data models, and in CCDM for developing reference data model. One of the dissertations, Bittner
(2001) specified his model by using Haskell functional programming language. Details of the
designed models and other contributions of the dissertations will be addressed in the Section 3.2.
According to Peffers et al. (2008), the fourth and fifth steps of the research should demonstrate
the use of the model to solve the identified problem, and measure how well the model solves the
problem, respectively. These steps also may be conceived as a validation of the research findings.
In reviewed research, utility of the developed models was evaluated via simulation, case study and
prototypes. For instance, Bittner (2001) validated his computational model by agent-based
simulation; Stoter (2004) applied 3D logical models to case studies in Netherlands and QueenslandAustralia; Tuladhar (2004) prototyped services in parcel-based GIS in case of Nepal and Bhutan;
and van Loenen (2006) employed case study research by applying his models in five cases
(Netherlands, Denmark, Northrhine Westphalia-Germany, Massachusetts-USA, and MinneapolisSt. Paul-USA). Section 3.3 presents demonstration and evaluation of the designed models. The last
step of the methodology, namely communication has already been succeded by the doctoral
dissertations themselves, and an array conference, workshop papers and journals articles in
development of CCDM.
9 / 19
Table 1. Defined research problems (Step 1) and objectives of solutions (Step 2)
Research
Research problem
Objectives of solution
Selected cases
Data collection techniques
Bittner (2001)
Understanding reality in a
cadastre
To construct computational model based on
case studies in order to simulate social
processes in a cadastre.
Austria
Literature review
Effenberg (2001)
Maintaining cadastral
maps
To design a conceptual model for effective,
efficient and timely maintenance and
distribution of cadastral data in a digital
environment.
Victoria and New South Wales
(Australia)
Literature review
Stoter (2004)
Improving 3D cadastral
registration
To design data models based on current
registration and available techniques in order to
improve 3D cadastral registration.
Netherlands, Denmark, Norway,
Sweden, Queensland (Australia),
British Columbia (Canada), Israel
Tuladhar (2004)
Developing cadastral
system in Nepal and
Bhutan
To design system models for parcel-based GIS
which supports the administration of land and
meets needs of the society.
Nepal and Bhutan
van Loenen (2006)
Understanding
development of a GII
To design a model that describes the stages of
development their dynamics.
Netherlands, Denmark,
Northrhine Westphalia
(Germany), Massachusetts and
Minneapolis-St. Paul (USA)
CCDM
Enabling effective
communication between
cadastral systems
To design a reference data model based on
conceptual framework of Cadastre 2014 and
available international geo-spatial standards
-
10 / 19
Unstructured interviews
Literature review
Literature review
Unstructured interviews
Literature review
Semi structured interviews
Literature review
Views of domain experts
3.2. Designed models
All the reviewed research presented several models (Table 2). For instance, Tuladhar (2004)
presented models for the parcel-based GIS from different aspects, and developed a guideline for
developing and implementing a parcel-based GIS. Researcher designed organizational, static and
dynamic models for the parcel-based GIS in cases of Nepal and Bhutan. In his organizational
model, parcel-based GIS were divided to four sub-systems: (1) cadastral surveying, (2) land
registry, (3) property valuation and (4) information dissemination sub-systems (pp. 94, 109).
Tuladhar especially focused on static and dynamic models for cadastral surveying and land registry
sub-systems (p. 121). Static models concerned the structuring of databases. They were developed by
using UML class diagram. Dynamic models describe the behaviour of the system containing each
resource and interaction between several different resources (p. 110). Dynamic models within the
parcel subdivision and information dissemination sub-systems were developed by UML use case,
activity and state diagrams (pp. 184-185). The next dissertation, Stoter (2004) developed three
conceptual models for 3D Cadastre by using UML class diagrams: (1) full 3D cadastre, (2) hybrid
cadastre, and (3) 3D tags linked to parcels in current cadastral registration. Acording to her, the first
model offers better possibilities to reflect the real situation among these models. However it
requires a renewal of the cadastral registration in which the concepts of rights in 3D and of the right
of ownership need to be reconsidered (p. 225). The second, hybrid model is advantageous compared
to the current situation. Since both the 2D and 3D information are directly available and can be
integrated. Furthermore, it does not require changes in the juridical framework (p. 226). According
to her the last option, however, is not a sustainable option for the future. The basic disadvantage is
that the spatial and non-spatial information of the 3D property situation cannot be integrated with
the cadastral registration (p. 226). The last dissertation within this group, Effenberg (2002) provided
a conceptual cadastral update model based on Zachman Framework in cases of Victoria and New
South Wales (Australia). He applied the Zachman Framework as a methodology for defining and
structuring alternative maintenance models for the spatial cadastral sub-system. The Zachman
Framework provided him a matrix to represent reflections of several actors (planner, owner,
designer, builder, and sub-contractor) involved in information system development on system
components (data, process, network, organization, schedule of change, strategy and
scope/objective).
Table 2. Designed models in the reviewed research
Research
Designed model
Modeling language
Bittner (2001)
Acomputational agent-based model of
reality in a cadastre.
Haskell functional programming language
Effenberg (2001)
A conceptual cadastral update model
-
Stoter (2004)
Conceptual and logical models for 3D
Cadastre
UML (class diagram)
Tuladhar (2004)
Organizational, static and dynamic
models for a parcel-based GIS
UML (use case, activity, state, component
and class diagrams)
van Loenen (2006)
GII maturity matrix and framework
dataset maturity matrix
-
CCDM
A reference data model-CCDM
UML (class diagram)
Within the second group of the dissertation, van Loenen (2006) enquired development of the
GIIs from the organizational, framework data characteristics and access policies point of views. His
research concluded with two models. One of them, the ‘GII maturity matrix’ describes the different
stages of GII development from the organizational point of view. The other, ‘framework dataset
maturity matrix’ describes different levels of dataset qualities and relates these with the GII
development. The both matrices define four development stages: (1) a stand alone, (2) an
exchange/standardisation, (3) an intermediary and (4) a network stage. The first model, GII maturity
11 / 19
matrix identifies these development stages based on following critical organizational components:
(i) vision, (ii) leadership, (iii) communication, (iv) self-organization ability, (v) awareness, (vi)
financial sustainability and (vii) delivery mechanism status (p. 56). The second model, framework
dataset maturity matrix determines these development stages of the cadastral and topographical
dataset based on following criteria: (i) awareness for dataset, (ii) financial sustainability, (iii)
technical characteristics, (iv) access policy, (v) physical access, and (vi) policy from a user’s
perspective (p. 301). The last dissertation, Bittner (2001) presented an ‘ontology of institutional
reality’ based on Searle’s social reality theory for conceptualizing reality in a cadastre. Based on
this ontology he developed a computational model by agent-based conceptualization approach and
Haskell functional programming language. His ontology of reality in a cadastre based on following
three aspects and their interrelationships: (1) levels of reality, (2) ontological categories of
phenomena, and (3) the distinction between facts and rules (p. 55). Levels of reality consist of a
physical reality and institutional reality. In the physical level, there are human beings and other
physical phenomena. On the other hand, institutional reality exists only in the mental state of these
human beings (p. 43). The second aspect, ontological categories includes object, subject and events.
Within the category of subjects on the physical level there are human beings. These human beings
count on the institutional level as legal persons and owners. Within the category of objects there are
parcels on the institutional level and pieces of land on the physical level. Events on the physical
level are human activities for instance a negotion for transfer of ownership. This event counts on the
institutional level as transfer of ownership which is represented on paper in the registry (pp. 62–65).
In the third aspect, there is a distinction between facts and rules. According Bittner facts represent a
state of the world, whereas rules represent how the world can change between these states. This
distinction is applied both in institutional and in physical level. In institutional level, rules define the
creation and existence of institutional facts. For example, constitutive rules describe under which
conditions a human being counts as owner. In physical level, physical rules define physical reality.
For instance, geophysical laws describe how pieces of land are created as well as their properties
when they come into existence (pp. 65-66).
The CCDM research developed a reference data model for cadastral systems/land administration
systems, based on conceptual framework of the Cadastre 2014, International Organization for
Standardization (ISO) and Open GIS Consortium (OGC) standards (van Oosterom et al. 2006, p.
627). The CCDM was developed by UML class diagram with an iterative manner. The first version
of the model was proposed by van Oosterom and Lemmen (2002) based on principles of Cadastre
2014 and personal experiences of the authors. This proposal was improved in the course of time in
co-operation with several international experts having different background and coming from
different organizations (van Oosterom et al. 2006, pp. 630-631). Based on outcome of this
collaborative initiative, the final version of the CCDM (Version 6) was developed and presented
under the heading of ‘Version 1.0 of the FIG Core Cadastral Domain Model’ (see Lemmen and van
Oosterom 2006). CCDM has two main goals: (1) avoid reinventing and re-implementing the same
functionality over and over again, but provide a extensible basis for efficient and effective cadastral
system development based on a model driven architecture, and (2) enable involved parties, both
within one country and between different countries, to communicate based on the shared ontology
implied by the model. The core of the model consists of RegisterObject, Persons and RRR (Right,
Restriction, Responsibility), as the relationship between register object and persons via rights is the
foundation of every land administration. The CCDM was organized with following six packages:
(1) the legal/administrative aspects, (2) the person aspect, (3) the immovable object specialisations,
(4) the surveying aspect, (5) the geometric/topological aspect. The main class in
legal/administrative package is the abstract class RRR which includes Rights, Restrictions and
Responsibilities sub-classes. It was intended that the RRR covers both formal tenure based on legal
systems (common law, civil law) and informal tenure based on customs. Person class consists of
NaturalPerson and NonNaturalPerson classes. NonNaturalPerson class includes organizations,
companies and also GroupPerson such as communities, cooperation’s and other entities
representing social structures. The next package, immovable object specialisations involve two
12 / 19
main categories: land objects and the other objects. The land objects has following sub-classses:
RegisterParcel, SpaghettiParcel, PointParcel, TextParcel, ParcelComplex, PartOfParcel. Instances
of these classes describe a piece of land (in the case of 2D) or space (in the case of 3D). The other
immovable register objects include Building, Unit, NonGeoRealEstate and OtherRegisterObject.
The following package, namely Survey package consists of SurveyDocument and SurveyPoint. The
individual SurveyPoints are associated with SurveyDocument. The last package describes
geometric/topological aspect of the CCDM based on standards on geometry and topology published
by ISO and OGC. As authors noted, above-summarized CCDM is a reference data model, therefore
it will not be complete for one specific country. However, additional attributes, operators,
associations and even new classes which are needed for a specific country could be added to the
model, based on the principles of object orientation (Lemmen and van Oosterom 2006, pp. 1-8).
3.3. Demonstration and evaluation of designed models
Some researchers demonstrated and evaluated the utility of the developed models by simulation,
case study and prototypes (see Table 3).
Table 3. Demonstration of models in the reviewed research
Research
Designed model
Demonstration of model
Bittner (2001)
Acomputational agent-based
model of reality in a cadastre.
Computational model was simulated by agentbased approach for selected two cases from the
Austria Cadastre
Effenberg (2001)
A conceptual cadastral update
model
-
Stoter (2004)
Conceptual models for 3D
Cadastre
Conceptual models were translated to logical
models and implemented prototypes in case
studies from Netherlands and QueenslandAustralia.
Tuladhar (2004)
Organizational, static and
dynamic models for parcelbased GIS
Some business services within the cadastral
surveying sub-system were prototyped in case of
Nepal.
van Loenen (2006)
GII maturity matrix and
framework dataset maturity
matrix
Case study research was applied to demonstrate
utility of the developed models in case of
Netherlands, Denmark, Northrhine WestphaliaGermany, Massachusetts-USA, and
Minneapolis-St. Paul-USA
CCDM
A reference data model-CCDM
-
Among the analyzed research, Stoter (2004) developed three logical models from the conceptual
models, and implemented these by applying Oracle Spatial software to the case studies in the
Netherlands and Queensland-Australia. Two logical models translated from the hybrid conceptual
model were applied to case studies in the Netherlands. The other logical model translated from the
full 3D conceptual model was applied to Queensland-Australia case study (p. 251). According to
the findings of the prototype implementations, the researcher asserted that a full 3D cadastre offers
best potentials compared to traditional cadastres and is realisable in countries where volume parcels
are established within the juridical frameworks (p. 296). Tuladhar (2004) demonstrated some
business services within the cadastral surveying sub-system by prototype implementation. Three
business processes within the cadastral surveying sub-system, namely initial data
loading/structuring, subdividing parcels and transfer of ownership were prototyped by Oracle 9i
Designer 2000 software (p. 148). In this exercise, these business processes were analyzed according
to resources (personal, cost and time) of responsible organizational units. The prototyping of
business services shows that there is a direct link between the business services and resources
(people, hardware and software), including time and cost. Therefore, according to evaluation of the
13 / 19
researcher, the success of the services is dependent on cooperation, coordination and financial
arrangement of the responsible departments (p. 172).
As mentioned before, Bittner (2001) developed a computational agent-based model for
describing reality in a cadastre based on Searle’s social reality theory. In order to demonstrate his
model, Bittner applied agent-based simulation approach with selected two cases in Austria
Cadastre, namely the transfer of ownership of a parcel, and conflicts on land use and their
resolutions. According to results of the simulation, he reports that the computational agent-based
model based on the ontology institutional reality correctly and successfully represents reality in a
cadastre (p. 135). The other research within this group, van Loenen (2006) used case study research
to demonstrate utility of the GII maturity matrix and the GII framework dataset maturity matrix. He
applied these models to five case studies (Netherlands, Denmark, Northrhine Westphalia-Germany,
Massachusetts-USA, and Minneapolis-St. Paul-USA) in order to inquiry development of GII (p.
140). Although both matrices model GII development from an institutional, data characteristics, and
policy perspectives, according to researcher’s evaluation the relationship among these three
components is not absolutely clear. Therefore van Loenen stated that the developed matrices should
be seen as a first attempt to model GII development (p. 301).
3.4 Applied theories
As illusturated in Table 4, in the reviewed research there are few statements and explanation
regarding applied theories and their contents, except that Bittner (2001).
Table 4. Applied theories in the reviewed research
Applied theories
Research
Content is explicit
Content is not explicit
Implied
Bittner (2001)
Searle’s social reality theory
Multi-agent theory
-
-
Effenberg (2001)
-
-
System theory
Stoter (2004)
-
‘Spatial data modeling
theory’
-
Tuladhar (2004)
Object oriented modeling
approach
System theory
-
van Loenen (2006)
-
‘GII theory’
-
CCDM
Object oriented modeling
approach
-
System theory
As we have seen Effenberg (2001) and Tuladhar (2004) builted their researches according to
principles of the system theory, however they did not make explicit statements in terms of theory.
While Effenberg (2001) considered the maintenance of the cadastral map as a separately
examinable sub-system within the cadastral system (p. 20), Tuladhar (2004) developed several
models based on system theory and object-oriented modeling approach. On the other hand, Stoter
(2004) and van Loenen (2006) mention the ‘spatial data modeling theory’ (pp. 99-120) and
‘geographical information infrastructure theory’ (p. 17), respectively. However, they did not explain
content of these theories. According to Frank and Campari (2003), spatial [data] information theory
collects disciplinary topics and interdisciplinary issues that deal with the conceptualization and
formalization of large-scale (geographic) space.
Bittner (2001)’s computational model is based on Searle’s social reality theory and multi-agent
theory. Social reality theory explains how institutional reality (e.g. title or deed) is constructed on in
physical reality (e.g. paper). This theory makes a distinction between institutional and physical
facts. While physical facts exist in external reality independent of human observers, institutional
facts exist only by human agreement. According to Searle, institutional facts are characterized by
the assignment of some status to physical phenomena by collective intentionality. Collective
14 / 19
intentionality means that the status is collectively recognized by the people in the domain in
question. The rules, which enable the imposition of a status function, are called constitutive rules.
The constitutive rules can be codified by i.e., statutory (cadastral) law. Therefore, by the analysis of
cadastral law it is possible to extract the rules constituting institutional reality in cadastre (pp. 35–
42). Bittner also applied an extension of system theory, namely multi-agent (systems) theory. A
multi-agent system is a system that consists of a set of agents that are part of some environment (p.
84). Multi-agent theory asserts that the agents interacting in a multi-agent model are basic concept
for the description and representation of a domain (p. 76). An agent is anything that can be viewed
as perceiving its environment through sensors and acting upon that environment through effectors
(p. 80). They are are situated in some environment and capable of autonomous action (p. 81).
4. Concluding remarks
In this paper, we introduced the design research paradigm to cadastre and GIS research community,
and analyzed research outpus addressing information system aspect of cadastral domain.
In Section 2 and 3 we demonstrated research domain and methodologies of the reviewed
research. Section 2 presented a commonality among the dissertations in terms of research domain,
namely models which were designed for understanding or improving components of the cadastral
systems. Summarily, within the first group of dissertations, Stoter (2004) presented data models for
a 3D cadastre, while Effenberg (2001) and Tuladhar (2004) developed models for cadastral update
and parcel-based GIS, respectively. Within the second group of dissertations, Bittner (2001)
presented an agent-based computational model for understanding reality in a cadastre, whilist van
Loenen proposed models for describing development stages of GIIs. The CCDM presented a
reference data model to provide the common ground for data exchange between different systems in
the cadastral domain. In Section 3, we presented methodological approaches of the doctoral
research based on above-mentioned methodological guideline. In this context, developed models,
their demonstrations and evaluations, and theoretical bases were analyzed.
Acknowledgements
This article is part of the post-doc research project of the first author, funded by Scientific and
Technological Research Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) and hosted by Aalborg University,
Department of Development and Planning. The authors would like to acknowledge the
organizations for their supports to this post-doc research project.
References
BARRY, M., 1999, Evaluating Cadastral Systems in Periods of Uncertainty: A Study of Cape Town’s
Xhosa-speaking Communities, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Natal.
BITTNER, S., 2001, An agent-based model of reality in a cadastre, Ph.D. dissertation, Technical
University. Available online at: <ftp://ftp.geoinfo.tuwien.ac.at/stebi/thesis.pdf> (accessed 15
February 2008).
BLACK, 1996,
BRUCE, J., 1993, Review of tenure terminology. Land Tenure Center Report, University of
Wisconsin. Available online at: <http://agecon.lib.umn.edu/ltc/ltctb01.pdf> (accessed: 15
February 2008).
CAGDAS, V. and STUBKJÆR, E., in review, Doctoral research in the cadastral development. Land
Use Policy, X(X), pp. X-X.
CROMPVOETS, J., BREGT, A., RAJABIFARD, A. and WILLIAMSON, I., 2004, Assessing the worldwide
developments of national spatial data clearinghouses. International Journal of Geographical
Information Science, 18(7), pp. 665-689.
DALE, P. and MCLAUGHLIN, J., 1999, Land Administration (New York: Oxford University Press).
DALRYMPLE, K., 2005, Expanding Rural Land Tenures to Alleviate Poverty, Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Melbourne. Available online at: <http://www.geom.unimelb.edu.au/
15 / 19
research/SDI_research/publications/Dalrymple%20PhD%20Thesis.pdf> (accessed: 15 February
2008).
DE MAN, W.H.E., 2006, Understanding SDI; complexity and institutionalization. International
Journal of Geographical Information Science, 20(3), pp. 329-343.
EUI, 2005, Real Property Law and Procedure in the European Union General Report, European
University Institute. Available online at: (<http://www.iue.it/LAW//ResearchTeaching/
EuropeanPrivateLaw/Projects/Real%20Property%20Law%20Project/GeneralReport.pdf>)
(accessed: 30 August 2008).
EFFENBERG, W., 2001, Spatial Cadastral Information Systems - The maintenance of digital cadastral
maps, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Melbourne. Available online at: <http://www.geom.
unimelb.edu.au/research/publications/IPW/Wolfgang_thesis.PDF> (accessed: 15 February
2008).
ELWOOD, S., 2007, Grassroots groups as stakeholders in spatial data infrastructures: Challenges and
opportunities for local data development and sharing. International Journal of Geographical
Information Science, 22(1), pp. 71-90.
ETEMII, 2001, ETeMII White Paper: Chapter on Reference Data. Available online at:
(<http://www.ec-gis.org/etemii/reports/chapter1.pdf>) (accessed: 8 September 2008).
FGDC, 1995, Development of a National Digital Geospatial Data Framework, Washington, D.C.
FGDC, 2003, Cadastral Data Content Standard for the National Spatial Data Infrastructure.
Available online at: (<http://www.nationalcad.org/data/documents/CADSTAND.v.1.3.pdf>)
(accessed: 8 September 2008).
FRANK, A.U. and CAMPARI, I. (eds.), 1993, Spatial Information Theory, A Theoretical Basis for GIS
(Berlin: Springer Verlag).
FRANKFORT-NACHMIAS, C. and NACHMIAS, D., 1997, Research methods in the social sciences
(London: Arnold).
GEORGIDOU, Y., PURI, S.K. and SAHAY, S., 2005, Towards a potential research agenda to guide the
implementation of Spatial Data Infrastructures-A case study from India. International Journal of
Geographical Information Science, 19(10), pp. 1113-1130.
GILE, D., 2001, Selecting a topic for PhD research in interpreting. In Getting Started in Interpreting
Research, D. Gile, H.V. Dam, F. Dubslaff, B. Martinsen, A. Scjoldager (Eds.) (Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing), pp. 2-22.
GREGOR, S., 2006, The Nature of Theory in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 30(3), pp. 611642.
GRIFFITH-CHARLES, C., 2004, The impact of land titling on land transaction activity and registration
system sustainability: a case study of St. Lucia, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Florida.
Available online at: <http://etd.fcla.edu/UF/UFE0006631/griffithcharles_c.pdf> (accessed: 15
February 2008).
HEVNER, A.R., MARCH, S.T., PARK, J., and RAM, S., 2004, Design science in information systems
research. MIS Quarterly, 28(1), pp. 75–106.
JACOBY, S., SMITH, J., TING, L. and WILLIAMSON, I., 2002, Developing a common spatial data
infrastructure between state and local government - An Australian case study. International
Journal of Geographical Information Science, 16(4), pp. 305-322.
LEMMEN, C., VAN DER MOLEN, P., VAN OOSTEROM, P., PLOEGER, H., QUAK, W., STOTER, J.E.,
2003, A modular standard for the cadastral domain. In Proceedings on the 3rd International
Symposium on Digital Earth, 21–25 September 2003, Brno, Czech Republic. Available online
at: <http://www.itc.nl/library/Papers_2003/non_peer_conf/lemmen_modular.pdf> (accessed 15
February 2008).
LEMMEN, C. and VAN OOSTEROM, P., ZEVENBERGEN, J., QUAK, W. and VAN DER MOLEN, P., 2005,
Further Progress in the Development of the Core Cadastral Domain Model. FIG Working Week
2005 and GSDI-8, April 16-21, 2005, Cairo, Egypt. Available online at: <http://www.oicrf.org/>
(accessed 15 February 2008).
16 / 19
LEMMEN, C. and VAN OOSTEROM, P., 2006, Version 1.0 of the FIG Core Cadastral Domain Model.
XXIII FIG Congress, October 8-13, 2006, Munich, Germany. Available online at:
<http://www.oicrf.org/> (accessed 15 February 2008).
MARCH, S.T. and SMITH, G.F., 1995, Design and natural science research on information
technology. Decision Support Systems, 15(1995), pp. 251-266.
MASSER, I., RAJABIFARD, A. and WILLIAMSON, I., 2008, Spatially enabling governments through
SDI implementation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 22(1), pp. 520.
NKWAE, B., 2006, Conceptual Framework for Modelling and Analysing Periurban Land Problems
in Southern Africa, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of New Brunswick. Available online at:
<http://gge.unb.ca/Pubs/TR235.pdf> (accessed: 15 February 2008).
NORTH, D.C., 1990, Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance (New York:
CUP).
OMRAN, E.E. and VAN ETTEN, J., 2007, Spatial-Data Sharing: Applying Social-Network Analysis to
study individual and collective behaviour. International Journal of Geographical Information
Science, 21(6), pp. 699-714.
ONSRUD, H. POORE, B., RUGG, R., TAUPIER, R. and WIGGINS, L., 2004, The Future of the Spatial
Information Infrastructure. In A Research Agenda for Geographic Information Science, R.B.
McMaster and E.L. Usery, (Eds.), (Boca Raton: CRC Press), pp. 225-255. Available online at: <
http://www.spatial.maine.edu/~onsrud/pubs/chapter8preprint.pdf> (accessed 8 September 2008).
OTTENS, M., 2004, The Cadastral System as a Socio-Technical System. In Proceedings of the
Workshop on Standardization on the Cadastral Domain, 9-10 December 2004, Bamberg,
Germany. Available online at: <http://www.fig.net/commission7/bamberg_2004/papers/
ts_01_03_ottens.pdf> (accessed 15 January 2008).
PARK, M.M., 2003, The effect of adverse possession on part of a registered title land parcel, Ph.D.
Dissertation, University of Melbourne. Available online at: <http://www.geom.unimelb.edu.au/
research/publications/MMP_PhD.pdf> (accessed: 7 April 2008).
PEFFERS, K., TUUNANEN, T., GENGLER, C., ROSSI, M., HUI, W., VIRTANEN, V. and BRAGGE, J.,
2006, The design science research process: A model for producing and presenting information
systems research. In Proceedings of First International Conference on Design Science Research
in Information Systems and Technology- DESRIST2006, 24-25 February 2006, Claremont, USA.
Available online at: <http://ncl.cgu.edu/designconference/DESRIST%202006%20Proceedings/
4A_2.pdf> (accessed: 15 June 2008).
PEFFERS, K., TUUNANEN, T., ROTHENBERGER, M.A. and CHATTERJEE, S., 2008, A Design Science
Research Methodology for Information Systems Research. Journal of Management Information
Systems, 24(3), pp. 45–77.
RAJABIFARD, A., BINNS, A., MASSER, I. and WILLIAMSON, I., 2006, The role of sub-national
government and the private sector in future spatial data infrastructures. International Journal of
Geographical Information Science, 20(7), pp. 727-741.
RAKAI, M.E.T., 2005, A Neutral Framework for Modeling and Analysing Aboriginal Land Tenure
Systems, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of New Brunswick. Available online at:
<http://gge.unb.ca/ Pubs/TR227.pdf> (accessed: 15 February 2008).
SILVA, M.A. and STUBKJÆR, E., 2002, A review of methodologies used in research on cadastral
development. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 26, pp. 403-423.
SILVA, M.A., 2005, Modelling Causes of Cadastral Development – Cases in Portugal and Spain
during the Last Two Decades, Ph.D. Dissertation, Aalborg University. Available online at:
<http://www.plan.aau.dk/~masilva/MariaASilva_PhD_Thesis.pdf> (accessed: 15 February
2008).
STEUDLER, D., KAUFMANN, J. (Eds.), 2002, Benchmarking Cadastral Systems. Available online at:
<http://www.fig.net/pub/compub/FIG2002-BenchmarkingCadastralSystems.pdf> (accessed: 3
April 2008).
17 / 19
STEUDLER, D., WILLIAMSON, I.P. and RAJABIFARD, A., 2003, The development of a cadastral
template. Journal of Geospatial Engineering, 5(1), pp. 39–47.
STEUDLER, D., 2004, A Framework for the Evaluation of Land Administration Systems, Ph.D.
thesis, University of Melbourne. Available online at: <http://www.geom.unimelb.edu.au/
research/publications/PhDThesisDanielS.pdf> (accessed: 15 February 2008).
STEUDLER, D., RAJABIFARD, A. and WILLIAMSON, I.P., 2004, Evaluation of land administration
systems. Land Use Policy, 21, pp. 371–380.
STOTER, J.E., 2004, 3D Cadastre, Netherlands Geodetic Commission, Delft. Available online at:
<http://www.ncg.knaw.nl/Publicaties/Geodesy/pdf/57Stoter.pdf> (accessed 15 February 2008).
STOTER, J.E. and PLOEGER, H.D., 2003, Property in 3D—registration of multiple use of space:
current practice in Holland and the need for a 3D cadastre.Computers, Environment and Urban
Systems, 27(4), pp. 553-570.
STOTER, J.E. and SALZMANN, M., 2003, Towards a 3D cadastre: Where do cadastral needs and
technical possibilities meet? Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 27(4), pp. 395-410.
STUBKJÆR, E., 2005, Accounting Costs of Transactions in Real Estate – The Case of Denmark.
Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Research, 2(1), pp. 11-36.
STUBKJAER, E., 2006, The cadastre as a socio-technical system. GIS Development. Available online
at: <http://www.gisdevelopment.net/magazine/years/2006/june/26_1.htm> (accessed 15 January
2008).
STUCKENSCHMIDT, H., STUBKJÆR, E., and SCHLIEDER, C. (Eds.), 2003, The Ontology and
Modelling of Real Estate Transactions (Aldershot: Ashgate).
THELLUFSEN, C., RAJABIFARD, A., ENEMARK, S. and WILLIAMSON, I., in press, Awareness as a
foundation for developing effective spatial data infrastructures. Land Use Policy, X(X), pp. X-X.
TING, L.A, 2002, Principles for an Integrated Land Administration System to Support Sustainable
Development, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Melbourne. Available online at:
<http://www.geom.unimelb.edu.au/research/publications/LisaTing2002-PhDThesis.pdf>
(accessed: 15 January 2008).
TÖRHÖNEN, M.P., 2003, Sustainable Land Tenure and Land Registration in Developing Countries,
Ph.D. Dissertation, Helsinki University of Technology. Available online at:
<http://lib.tkk.fi/Diss/2003/isbn9512264919/> (accessed: 15 January 2008).
TULADHAR, A.M., 2004, Parcel-based geo-information system: concepts and guidelines, Ph.D.
Dissertation, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation.
Available online at: <http://www.itc.nl/library/Papers_2004/phd/tuladhar.pdf> (accessed 15
February 2008).
UNECE, 2004, Guidelines on real property units and identifiers. Available online at:
<www.unece.org/env/documents/2005/wpla/Guidelines_On_Real_Property_Identifiers.pdf>
(accessed: 15 January 2008).
VAN LOENEN, B., 2006, Developing geographic information infrastructures - The role of
information policies, Ph.D. dissertation, Delft University of Technology. Available online at:
<http://www.library.tudelft.nl/ws/search/publications/search/metadata/index.htm?docname=0883
01> (accessed 15 February 2008).
VAN OOSTEROM, P. and LEMMEN, C., 2002, Towards a standard for the cadastral domain: Proposal
to establish a cadastral data model. Paper presented in ‘Towards a Cadastral Core Domain Model
3rd workshop and 4th MC meeting of the COST G9 action: Modelling Real Property
Transactions’, October 10-12, Delft, the Netherlands. Available online at: <
http://www.i4.auc.dk/costg9> (accessed 28 August 2008).
VAN OOSTEROM, P. and LEMMEN, C., 2003, Towards a Standard for the cadastral domain. Journal
of Geospatial Engineering, 5(1), pp. 11-27.
VAN OOSTEROM, P., LEMMEN, C., INGVARSSON, T., VAN DER MOLEN, P., PLOEGER, H., QUAK, W.,
STOTER, J.E. and ZEVENBERGEN, J., 2006, The core cadastral domain model. Computers,
Environment and Urban Systems, 30(5), pp. 627-660.
18 / 19
VENABLA, J.R., 2006, The role of Theory and Theorising in Design Science Research. In
Proceedings of First International Conference on Design Science Research in Information
Systems and Technology- DESRIST2006, 24-25 February 2006, Claremont, USA. Available
online at: <http://ncl.cgu.edu/designconference/DESRIST%202006%20Proceedings/2A_1.pdf>
(accessed: 15 June 2008).
WILLIAMSON, I.P., 2001, Land administration ‘‘best practice’’ providing the infrastructure for land
policy implementation. Land Use Policy, 18, pp. 297–307.
ZEVENBERGEN, J., 2002, Systems of Land Registration, Aspects and Effects, Netherlands Geodetic
Commission, Delft. Available online at: <http://www.ncg.knaw.nl/Publicaties/Geodesy/pdf/
51Zevenbergen.pdf> (accessed 15 February 2008).
ZEVENBERGEN, J., FRANK, A. and STUBKJÆR, E. (Eds.), 2007, Real property transactions:
Procedures, transaction costs and models (Amsterdam: IOS Press).
19 / 19