Computers, Environment and Urban Systems

26 (2002) 361–381
www.elsevier.com/locate/compenvurbsys

The dynamic aspect of land administration:

an often-forgotten component in system design
P. van der Molena,b,*
a
Netherlands Cadastre and Public Registers Agency Apeldoorn (NL), PO Box 9046, 7300 GH Apeldoorn,
The Netherlands
b
International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation Enschede (NL), PO Box 6,
7500 AA Enschede, The Netherlands

Accepted in revised form 17 January 2002

Abstract
Although the establishment of a land administration system is enough of a challenge as it is,
the task of keeping the system up to date with developments in society is even more challen-
ging. Initial adjudication and cadastral mapping basically record land tenure as it exists at a
given moment, i.e. the static situation. This paper aims to analyse the developments that
might occur in a society with respect to tenure, value and use of land. These developments
constitute a dynamic component of land administration. As land administration systems have
to serve society on a long-term basis and normally have a long-term return on investment, the
author recommends taking into account both the static and dynamic component when
designing land administration systems. # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Land administration; System design

1. Introduction

Revisiting the role of land administration in society, I observe that—in many

countries—land administration systems do not always support society at an appro-
priate level. I reflected on the subject a little bit in my inaugural address (Van der
Molen, 2001). There are quite a few publications that provide such evidence. The
World Bank itself admits that nearly all rural titling schemes have achieved poor
results (Dubois, 1997). Hendrix (1995) observes flawed data collection, inadequate

* Tel.: +31-55-528-5624; fax +31-55-355-7362.

E-mail address: paul.vandermolen@kadaster.nl (P. van der Molen).

0198-9715/02/$ - see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S0198-9715(02)00009-1
362 P. van der Molen / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 26 (2002) 361–381

data maintenance, lack of standards, poor supervision and lack of training. Wil-
liamson (2000) argues that insufficient consideration for certain principles of land
policy, land tenure, land administration and cadastre, institutions, spatial data
infrastructures, technology, and human resources have been hampering successful
implementation. Place and Hazell (1993) observe customary restrictions on land even
when all land is titled, and no materialisation of titled land as a collateral because of
the absence of formal lending possibilities. Bogaerts (1999) argues that insufficient
attention is given to the methodological and financial aspects of cadastral systems,
the use of technology, and the orientation towards customers. Grant (1992) observes
a lack of comprehension at the political level, lack of maintenance of established
public structures, lack of leadership and focus, complexity of the cadastral concept,
lack of operational coordinates, preservation of traditional cultural behaviour, frag-
mentation of intellectual property, inadequate emphasis on relevant education, and
uncertain financial returns to the state. Lombard (1996) considers that, when starting
cadastral projects, insufficient attention has been paid to the commitment of the
government, the government’s expectations, integrated work programmes, public
awareness and public education, awareness of the historical context, and technology.
Grant (1999) regards the causes of failure as being the focus on modern technology in
order to maximise the distribution of title certificates, the lack of willingness to
change at the highest level, the use of turnkey technological solutions, the unaware-
ness of the long-lasting impact of land administration, the focus on standards instead
of tools, insufficient community support, and the development of the law from the
whole to the part instead of the reverse. Bruce and Migot-Adholla (1993) prove that,
under certain circumstances, the introduction of land administration systems can
even provide less security than before. Firmin Sellers and Sellers (1999) argue that the
research so far has not led to clear arguments either for or against land titling.
Zoomers and van der Haar (2000) show—although, as they say, it is difficult to
generalise—that individualisation, registration and titling (in Latin America) are not
the universal panacea for land problems: they make a positive contribution only in
certain instances.
Toulmin and Quan (2000) argue that there is no clear evidence that land titling (in
Africa) has led to greater agricultural growth; on the contrary it may even lead to
landlessness and poverty. They argue that there is an urgent need to bridge the
divide between customary rights and statutory law.
The conclusion is that the reasons for success and failure are manifold, and that
the development of a ‘land administration theory’ on this matter should be at the
top of the research agenda of academia. Although attempts are being made (FIG,
2001; Williamson, 2000), further systematic analysis of the critical conditions for
successful land administration is urgently needed.
Obviously failures are mainly caused by two reasons. First of all, the institutional
conditions for land administration systems leave much to be desired and, second, the
organisation of the system is often poor (Fig. 1). Unlike normal geographical
information systems, where the physical attributes of land are recorded, land
administration systems register rights to land and are consequently dependent on the
institutions in which they have to operate. Without an appropriate legal framework
 P. van der Molen / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 26 (2002) 361–381 363

and without transparent public administration structures, land administration can

only make the best of a bad job. When the rules of the game are not clear, how can
one play the game? How can a land administration system perform if the allocation
of tasks and responsibilities regarding land policy issues is left unclear within the
public administration, whether centralised or decentralised? That is exactly what
goes wrong in many countries. Poor definition of land tenure forms makes registra-
tion difficult. Complex legal procedures for land transfer result in slow and bureau-
cratic land delivery. Ignorance of legal pluralism in the land law hampers the
integration of non-statutory rights in land, and leaves major parts of countries
without any official recording of property rights, especially in indigenous areas.
Unclear division of responsibilities between government organisations, and between
central and local government, causes confusion and passivity.
Sticking to legally imposed high-precision requirements for boundary measurement
hampers the use of low-cost land-surveying techniques. Unfortunate government
regulations for the land market often result in illegal land transfers that ignore offi-
cial land registration. Corrupt lawyers, notaries, judges, land officers (regarding
whom it is said they are the ‘next best’ after customs) and politicians who consider
land as a give-away for friends and voters whoever is the owner, do not in any way
create an encouraging environment for sound land administration systems. In fact,
the opinion of world leaders that development is hardly possible without the appli-
cation of the rule of law and good governance is dramatically true for land admin-
istration. Guaranteeing of basic rights, separation of powers, legality of the
administration, constitutionality of laws, independence of judges, effective law-

Fig. 1. Land administration: institutional and organisational aspects.

364 P. van der Molen / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 26 (2002) 361–381

making procedures, effective enforcement of the law and the existence of appeal pro-
cedures really are major prerequisites for sound cadastral arrangements. This under-
standing places the phenomenon of ‘land administration’ right at the heart of the
comprehensive development issue. If the institutional framework is conditional for
cadastres then we admit at the same time that land administration people all over the
world do not always seem blessed in the way they organise their business. Lack of skills
in data modelling, process design, information management, strategy development,
ICT policy and business administration simply do not contribute to good performance.

2. The scope of this paper

This paper modestly aims to contribute to the debate on the conditions under
which land administration systems succeed or fail by considering land administra-
tion systems from a static and dynamic approach within the previously mentioned
context. The reason for this is the experience that land administration systems, even
after an appropriate introduction (the ‘initial phase’), are often badly maintained.
Many countries have land administration systems that are far from up to date, and
which are unable to cope with changes in tenure, value and use by spontaneous or
planned development. Also, the scope of many development cooperation projects is
often the establishment of a land administration system. In the years following the
completion of the project, insufficient attention is given to keeping registers and
maps up to date, which results in dramatic deterioration, ending in useless systems
and no return on investment. This might also be a matter of bad management. The
German GTZ (1998) implements land registration as the static part of land tenure
systems, and land development and land reform as the dynamic part. This seems to
be a sensible distinction, as registering an existing land tenure arrangement (e.g.
adjudication) is different from coping with changes in tenure (e.g. land redistribution
processes). The same applies to value and use. As the main challenge of land
administration systems is to support the implementation of land policy instruments
(‘land management’), one might wonder if the conceptual approach to land admin-
istration is too much focused on its static component and too little on the dynamic
component. Expanding this ‘static-dynamic’ approach to the broader concept of
land administration might therefore provide a better understanding of the condi-
tions for the successful introduction of land administration systems.

3. About land administration

First of all it is necessary to clarify how the land administration activity should be
understood. In this paper I consider land administration as the process of determining,
recording and disseminating information on the ownership, value and use of land when
implementing land management policies (UN, 1996). There are other definitions of
‘land administration’, mainly caused by a different understanding of the word
‘administration’ (Fig. 2). Therefore ‘land administration’ is sometimes understood
 P. van der Molen / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 26 (2002) 361–381 365

Fig. 2. The broad concept of land administration.

as the administration (management) of land, like ‘the processes of regulating land

and property development and the use and conservation of the land, the gathering
of revenues from the land through sales, leasing, and taxation, and the resolving of
conflicts concerning the ownership and use of land’ (Dale & McLaughlin, 1999).
From that point of view the definition used in this position paper according to (UN,
1996) is to be seen as a working definition, with a fairly operational nature (the
‘bookkeeping’).
‘Ownership’ is to be seen in a broad sense: as land tenure, that is the mode in
which rights to land are held, based on statutory law, common law, and customary
traditions. ‘Value’ is to be understood as all kinds of values which land might have,
depending on the purpose of the valuation, the use of the land and the method of
valuation. ‘Land use’ is to be understood as all the kinds of use land might have,
depending on purpose and use, classification and methodology. ‘Land’ is to be
considered as the surface of the earth, the materials beneath, the air above, and all
things fixed to the soil, so it is more than just ‘land’ alone: it includes buildings, etc.
Regarding the content of the concept of land administration, the following point
is important: land administration is not a purpose in itself. It aims at serving society,
with land policy being implemented through land management activities. ‘How to
deal with land’ is, in all countries (whatever stage of development they are at), a
topic of government policy (it could even be expanded to ‘civil society’), inspired by
the world multilateral agreements such as Agenda21, Habitat, etc. Such a land policy
makes explicit the governments’ decisions on the whole complex of socio-economic
and legal prescriptions as to how the land and the benefits from the land are to be
366 P. van der Molen / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 26 (2002) 361–381

allocated, and therefore relates to economic development, equality and social justice,
and environmental preservation and sustainable land use (UN, 1996).
The implementation of a land policy (e.g. by land management activities) will be a
joint responsibility of private and public parties; however, it is the government’s task
to set a binding framework: ‘the rules of the game’.
This puts an emphasis on institutional matters, such as the adoption and enforce-
ment of laws and the organisation of the public sector, preferably based on the
concepts of the ‘rule of law’ and ‘good governance’.
A government normally has quite a few instruments for implementing land policy
(Fig. 3), the most important of which are:

 providing security of land tenure and security of credit;

 regulating for the land market;
 urban and rural planning development and maintenance; and
 land taxation.

This is where land administration comes in. Land administration is to be seen as a

tool for facilitating these land management instruments. That means that when the
definition of ‘land administration’ refers to ‘. . .implementing land management
policies’, land administration is not synonymous with land management. In our
view, however, land management, being ‘the management of all aspects of land
including the formation of a land policy’ (Dale & McLaughlin, 1999) forms a
context for land administration. In consequence, the private and public parties
involved in land policy and land management are the users of information on own-

Fig. 3. Land administration as a tool for land policy.

 P. van der Molen / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 26 (2002) 361–381 367

ership, value and use as it is determined, recorded and disseminated by the organi-
sations responsible for land administration.
From an ICT-architectural point of view, such a tool will be materialised in the
form of a geospatial data infrastructure, ultimately within a digital environment
(Groot & MacLaughlin, 1999) as a network of distributed data sources. From a
user’s perspective (functionality) land administration provides a land information
service.
Within the institutional framework (the allocation of tasks and responsibilities
within the public administration, principles of good governance, existence of legal
framework) land administration systems will occur in various forms. Concerning
land tenure there are deed and title registration systems, negative and positive sys-
tems of legal evidence, general and fixed boundaries, legal status according to pri-
vate and public law, centralised and decentralised systems, etc. and all forms in
between. We find a similar variety with value and use.

4. The static component of land tenure

4.1. Norms and values in society

A land administration system differs from other geo-information systems in the

sense that it represents more than physical attributes to spatial objects only, namely
the relationship of humankind to land in the form of rights, interests and responsi-
bilities to land. These relationships might be based on statutory and common law,
customary traditions or informal use (and are therefore more comprehensive than
the traditional western approach to ownership, often named ‘colonial’). As such,
land administration relates directly to the norms and values in society (Fig. 4).
Without an in-depth understanding of land tenure arrangements, it will be hard—
if not impossible—to identify the processes of determining, recording and dis-
seminating information on tenure arrangements which should be in place in order to
deliver the services required for an adequate facilitation of security of tenure, mar-
kets, planning, taxation and management of resources.
Applying land administration from a land tenure point of view means that
through the actual registration of existing land tenure a certain value is added,
namely the certainty that those possessing these registered rights can be certain that
their rights will be valid as long as they are not revoked in a legal and comprehen-
sible way. In our view the word ‘legal’ here means any system of norms and values
that provides transparency, reliability and predictability to a community. Therefore
customary or indigenous norms and values (normally unwritten), where rights to
land are recognised as legitimate by the community and where rules for allocation,
acquisition and transfer are known, are fully eligible for land administration. Even
so-called informal settlements (whatever form they might take) are eligible for
recording, as soon as land relationships are commonly recognised and considered as
being legitimate within the social setting. This again shows that recording or regis-
tering relationships from man to land is basically possible whatever jurisdiction is
368 P. van der Molen / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 26 (2002) 361–381

Fig. 4. Land tenure as a reflection of norms and values.

valid, which offers opportunities to integrate statutory, customary and informal

arrangements in a land administration system. On the other hand, where relation-
ships from man to land are not recognised and where norms and values concerning
these arrangements are not transparent, reliable and predictable, then recording or
registration is meaningless. What is left is nothing more than a recording of who
actually uses the land as a kind of pseudo-physical attribute to a certain land unit: a
land information system that provides facts but no legal notions.

4.2. Instruments for establishing a land administration system

The instruments for establishing a land administration system are the adjudication
process and mapping. These instruments are focused on the recording of existing
land tenure arrangements: the status quo. Both adjudication and mapping by their
very nature therefore have a static connotation. Adjudication is, after all, the pro-
cess whereby all existing rights in a particular parcel of land are finally and author-
itatively ascertained (Lawrance, 1985). Land adjudication does not create rights, it
only establishes existing rights.
Mapping, in the sense of fixing some kind of geo-reference to the object where
rights to land are being exerted, also reflects the status quo by its very nature (Fig. 5).
The mapping part of land administration has to provide a sufficient specification of
the location of the object. It is a misunderstanding that this could only be done by
defining a cadastral parcel and by an expensive precise boundary survey. Any sort of
geo-reference that is recognised by a community will meet the demands of specifying
an object and might therefore provide an opportunity for a cheap and simple start.
 P. van der Molen / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 26 (2002) 361–381 369

Fig. 5. Adjudication and cadastral mapping record status quo.

On the other hand the specification of an object cannot be too simple: it is a mis-
understanding that object definitions without any reference to the earth’s surface
can meet the demands of providing evidence of the location of legally recognised
land objects. Attempts to do this, for example, using street addresses without a
reference to the earth’s surface, are bound to fail because without some kind of
geo-reference they are not ‘immovable’. In any case an index is needed, which can be
used to refer to some simple terrestrial observations, like aerial photographs.
Considering land administration in terms of ‘land adjudication’ and ‘mapping’ (as
is the case in many land administration projects) reflects the static component of
land tenure only, without addressing how these systems should cope with change. At
the same time, decisions made during this phase of the land administration activity
will evidently influence the capability of the system to cope with future change.
Without an awareness of the dynamic part of land administration, wrong decisions
on the recording of which rightful claimants, which land rights and which land
objects will easily frustrate sustainable land administration systems. The recording
of, for example, one-year leases and a myriad of detailed facts will definitely be a
burden to the maintenance of land administration systems, as will high-precision
requirements for any boundary to be included in the system when professional
capacity is lacking.

5. The dynamic component of land tenure (Fig. 6)

5.1. Man–land relationships revolving over the long-term

Land administration systems in their initial phase reflect the existing relationship
of man to land. This relationship, however, changes. This change has various faces.
370 P. van der Molen / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 26 (2002) 361–381

First of all it will change autonomously through the changes that time and cir-
cumstances bring about in people’s behaviour. Writing from a general perspective,
(Ting, Williamson, Grant, & Parker, 1999) considers the relationship of humankind
to land as a dynamic one over the centuries caused by changing opinions on the role
of land in a society. She talks in this respect of ‘global drivers’. As a derivative also,
the scope of land administration changes. Powelson (1987) analyses the development
of land tenure from ancient times to date and shows how the outcome of that pro-
cess differs from region to region depending on the course of history, and the atti-
tude and culture of communities. Political ideology too plays a significant role. Both
analyses demonstrate that land tenure as a phenomenon changes as times go by,
providing new forms of rights to land which did not exist before. Although these
changes have a long-term development, it is important for the land administration
activity that legal and operational frameworks are sufficiently adaptive to be able to
cope with any changes.

5.2. Man–land relationships evolving in the mid- and short-term

More challenging however are the spontaneous changes in land tenure forms that
result from short- and mid-term developments that attempt to answer societal needs.
New rights to land that have attracted attention over the past few decades are—in
our view—motivated by three drivers:

1. Urge for providing secure access to land.

2. Need for public acquisition of land.
3. Recognition of indigenous rights to land.

5.2.1. Evolving forms of land rights

Providing secure access to land is in many countries a priority, inspired by the
recommendations of the global plans of action of Agenda21 and Habitat, as well as
the current UNCHS Global Campaign for secure tenure. The drivers for improving
security of land tenure are mainly to be found in the worldwide approach to poverty
alleviation. Therefore the measures to encourage security of tenure apply foremost
to the urban and rural poor, and to vulnerable groups (indigenous people, women).
Using traditional tenure forms to supply security of tenure (freehold, leasehold, etc.)
has been proven to be cumbersome, resulting in long-lasting and obscure procedures
that the poor can access only with difficulty. Therefore governments are trying out
new forms of land tenure by choosing innovative approaches and inventing simple
rights to land that are relatively easy to assign. Examples are certificates of right,
occupancy licenses, permissions to occupy, land-sharing constructions, corporate
land banks, community land trusts, and anti-eviction laws. The nature of these
tenure forms is basically that they all—to a different extent—provide basic de facto
security rather then sophisticated de jure security. If land administration systems,
because of a wrong conceptual basis, are not adaptable to these changes, then it
will hardly be possible to remain up to date and to provide continuity in service.
A special case is adverse possession, i.e. the peaceful occupation of land without
 P. van der Molen / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 26 (2002) 361–381 371

formal legal agreement. If the law does not recognise adverse possession, while at
the same time it exists as a reality (as it supposes very precise knowledge about
all the boundaries involved, which is in practice an impossible requirement), then it
is a burden to the land market. If adverse possession is, however, possible by law
and the land administration system cannot cope with its registration or recording,
then there is a problem too.

5.2.2. Evolving forms of public interests

Regarding public acquisition of land, there are a few methods that enable govern-
ments to interfere in the land market for its own sake. Of course the government can
buy land on the free market, competing with other potential buyers. If the govern-
ment needs a lot of land then the risk of being too active on the market will result
in a price boost. Therefore governments use other instruments. Pre-emptive rights, i.e.
a priority right for the government to buy first if an owner sells, are becoming quite
popular. Pre-emptive rights occur in two forms. First, the legal obligation of a seller
to offer the property to the government prior to offering it to other parties (e.g. in
the Netherlands), and secondly the right of the government to take over an obliga-
tory agreement of transfer and to replace the buyer with itself (e.g. in Germany). In
both cases the existence of a pre-emptive right has legal force against third parties.
Therefore a land administration system should record these public rights. The ulti-
mate form of government interference is the right of expropriation, where the gov-
ernment revokes private land rights in favour of itself. Normally the instrument of
expropriation is embedded in a serious legal procedure that takes several steps, with
an official intention for expropriation as the start. As soon as the law attributes legal
force against third parties, land administration systems should be able to record
these measures.

5.2.3. Evolving forms of indigenous rights

Regarding the recognition of indigenous rights to land, new forms of land tenure
are evolving: native titles and common properties. Native titles can, for example, be
observed in Australia (Native Title Act 1993), USA and Canada (registerable title to
native groups since 1960), New Zealand (Maori Land Courts since 1862 and the
Waitangi Tribunal since 1975 to examine Maori land grievances and to adjudicate
on the letter and spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi 1840), Fiji (Native Land Trust Act
1940). These native titles show a growing awareness of the existence of land rights by
indigenous peoples. Also, the nature of these titles does reflect this: in Australia, for
example, freehold and leasehold titles are granted (by the Crown), whereas native
titles are considered titles that indigenous Australians already have and which are
not the Crown’s to grant. Communal properties are evolving in South Africa where
an Act has been passed to allow a group of people to own property communally
(Communal Property Associations). Knowing that western European land admin-
istration systems (mostly in Scandinavia) face certain problems in recording their
‘common properties’ (properties jointly owned by, for example adjacent owners by
force of the law), it is a challenge for land administration systems to cope with these
new forms of tenure.
372 P. van der Molen / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 26 (2002) 361–381

5.3. Change in man–land relationships within the existing land tenure framework

The autonomous development of land tenure notions mentioned earlier places the
relationship of man to land at the heart of the development of norms and values.
Another kind of change, however, reflects changes in man–land relationships within
the existing framework of law and tradition. In other words there is a change not in
the concept of land tenure but in the actual exercise of these rights. We see five dri-
vers for this change:

1. Transfer of land rights in a market environment.

2. Urban and rural land use planning.
3. Breakdown of indigenous local systems of land rights.
4. Integration of indigenous land tenure in a statutory legal framework.
5. Various types of land reform.

5.3.1. Changes of land tenure through the land market

Regarding the transfer of land rights in a market environment, this transfer is based
on the concept that land is a commodity, and can be sold and purchased. From a
legal point of view this means a conveyance of rights to land from one person to
another. The up-to-dateness of a land administration system depends very much on
the procedures of land transfer. The earlier-mentioned global plans of action criti-
cise quite heavily the way land administrators design and organise these procedures.
For example (Barnes, 1994) reported at the 1994 Congress of the International
Federation of Surveyors that the land-titling process in Ecuador took between 9
months and 5 years, the process in Bolivia consisted of 23 steps which took many
years, in Peru more then 200 bureaucratic steps which took about 43 months.
(Fourie, 1999) considers cadastral and land information systems to be one of the
most important blockages in land delivery. These systems are too centralised,
expensive and not geared to the urban poor who are in the majority, as procedures
are unaffordable, often based on colonial approaches, complex and not transparent.
(Van der Molen & Österberg, 1999) show how certain decisions on land adminis-
tration concepts and procedures might cause important imperfections for land
administration systems which impact negatively on the value of land administration
systems for society.
Apart from the normal market activity, a government can influence the market to
a substantial extent by attempting to regulate the market. The driving force behind
that opinion is that land should not be considered a commodity only, but also as a
scarce community resource which needs to be handled with care. Governments can
consider regulations on the maximum size of land holdings in order to break up
large holdings, on the minimum size to prevent farmers from being too small, on
pre-emptive rights to acquire public land, on the approval of land transfers for pre-
venting undesirable changes in land use, on anti-speculation orders to avoid spec-
ulation, on moratoria on land transfer to avoid undesirable land transfers, on price
restrictions to facilitate access to land by the poor, and on ceilings to credit
with land as a collateral to avoid a boost in foreclosures. This should be done in a
 P. van der Molen / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 26 (2002) 361–381 373

well-balanced manner, as introducing too many restrictions and unnecessary reg-

ulations immediately will result in an informal market.
Whatever the case, land administration systems should be able to cope with all
these changes in the actual relationship of man to land.

5.3.2. Changes of land tenure through planning and development

Regarding urban and rural land use planning, the implementation of given land use
requires intervention by the government (mostly local governments) in private rights
to dispose. This might result in voluntary and compulsory change of rights and
interests in land by means of either voluntary action taken by owners and users or
forced action by the government. This is seen most clearly in situations where gov-
ernments acquire or expropriate land rights and—after development of the area—
issue land rights to other target groups (e.g. urban people instead of rural farmers).

5.3.3. Changes of land tenure through formalisation processes

Regarding the breakdown of indigenous structures a complex situation evolves.
Indigenous tenure is dynamic, and provides in certain circumstances sufficient
security of land tenure. However, experience shows that spontaneous simplification
and individualisation of rights to land occur, whereby households increasingly
acquire broader rights of exclusion and transfer as population pressure and levels of
commercialisation increase (Bruce & Migot-Adholla, 1993). If there occurs a further
individualisation of land rights, an evolution from use rights to property rights, a
marginalisation of ethnic groups and a decline of local resolution of land conflicts,
then the government might start a procedure to change from indigenous rights
towards statutory rights. In order to cope with the pace of these social changes, a
wise migration path is necessary and possible (Arko-Adjei, 2001). In the initial
design of land administration systems, providing support to these future processes
must be taken into account.

5.3.4. Changes in land tenure through integration

Regarding the integration of indigenous right into the statutory system, there might
be various rationales. We see at least two:

1. Policy of protecting indigenous land rights.

2. Need for land management.

The policy of protecting indigenous land rights might be based on scarcity of land,
causing conflict amongst customary groups. This may lead to demands from cus-
tomary communities to identify and guarantee the outer boundaries of their terri-
tory and jurisdiction. In those situations the land law might legally recognise
indigenous group titles or common properties and provide facilities to survey the
outer boundaries of these properties. If there is no need for further individualisation
within such a community (e.g. because of low land mobility, no land disputes) a
government can stick to the outer boundaries. This might be sufficient for the aspect
of land management as well. Governments face difficulties in the implementation of
374 P. van der Molen / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 26 (2002) 361–381

Fig. 6. Dynamics of land tenure.

land policy instruments when they do not know who owns the land and where it is.
An inventory of outer boundaries of the territory of indigenous groups with their
own customary jurisdiction and an indication of which persons are at the head
(‘chiefs’) and attributing legal meaning according to the land law to these areas and
their administrative structure give governments the opportunity to get in touch
and to negotiate or bargain the land management measures. Emerging land title and
demarcation forms are native title, village title (Tanzania, Guinea Bissau), allocation
of rights within the land boards system (Botswana), and various forms of communal
tenure (mentioned earlier). Bringing this land tenure within the legal framework
means a substantial extension of land administration systems, which—in their
turn—should be able to cope.

5.3.5. Changes in land tenure through land reform processes

Regarding land reform, there is a continuum of land reform activities. In Central
and Eastern Europe there has been, since the fall of communism in 1989, an ongoing
land restitution aimed at restitution of the property rights that existed before com-
munist rule from the State and rural collectives to the original owners or their heirs.
Land restitution also occurs in many varieties, such as restitution of former land
right as some kind of official credit note to be used when buying land or as a share in
a collective farm (e.g. Czech Republic, Hungary), or even giving back the land with
exactly the same location as it had before communism (e.g. Bulgaria). These are
all based on political choices. As many countries have completed their restitution
 P. van der Molen / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 26 (2002) 361–381 375

program (e.g. Slovak Republic, Armenia, Hungary) and now face too much land
fragmentation, there is a growing demand for a mechanism to improve agricultural
business structure.
Land redistribution is a form of land reform aimed at breaking down large hold-
ings in favour of the poor. For social reasons one might say that land fragmentation
is encouraged. This is actually the case in, for example South Africa, Namibia and
Zimbabwe and almost all Latin American countries (e.g. Argentina, Bolivia). The
president of the World Bank, Mr. James Wolfensohn, speaking recently to new
Latin American leaders, pointed out that this kind of land reform must definitely
have top priority.
Land consolidation aims at the formation of large agricultural parcels by a pro-
cess of re-allocation. Basically there is no change in the amount of property rights
possessed by a farmer. The location is, however, changed, by a re-allotment process
based on exchange of lands, in such a way that farmers keep the same production
value as they had before. The consolidation, however, improves their economic
benefit (Backmann, 2001).
A special case is the land readjustment (as implemented in, e.g. Germany, Japan),
where the re-allotment process also aims to make public land available for urban
development, but in such a way that the remaining agricultural business sector is
well structured.
Land administration systems in countries with a policy of land reform therefore
have to take into account their capacity to be adaptable to these reforms.

6. The static component of land value

Providing basic land information for land taxation purposes is a main task of land
administration systems. In many jurisdictions this function of land administration is
even the main responsibility. Information for land taxation basically concerns three
topics: who are the taxable persons, what are the taxable objects, and what is the
value of the land as a base for determining the amount of tax. Various taxes are
based on land values (land tax, income tax, death duties, waterboard tax, transfer
tax, betterment tax, development tax, commuter tax, wealth tax, etc.), and land
values are important for commercial purposes too (credit etc.) Valuation of land (in
the broader sense mentioned earlier) is an activity that demands a good under-
standing of the land market, building costs, rents and yields, depreciation, current
leases, holding costs and client-specific information.
In the initial phase of land administration systems land values are recorded as they
exist that particular moment. This is, as a result, the static part of the land value,
irrespective of the methodology used for the valuation, as there are

 market value;
 rental value;
 re-construction value;
 value based on fertility; and
376 P. van der Molen / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 26 (2002) 361–381

 official estimation of generated income (when this fictitious income is esti-

mated by the cadastral organisations, one normally speaks about ‘cadastral
income’, as in Italy).

As such the values are all pictures at a given moment. Values changes however: a
land administration system that is not designed to cope with changing values will
soon get out of date, and not be able to meet societal demands (Fig. 7).

7. The dynamic component of land value

The value of land (according to the definition mentioned earlier, and so including
real estate, etc.) might change autonomously or as the result of a planned process.
Changes based on autonomous developments (e.g. market developments) particu-
larly influence the market value and the rental value, as they are the result of supply
and demand. The ‘free’ market, however, hardly exists: governments always influ-
ence supply and demand. Examples of such government influence can be found in
the components of a government’s land policy (with aspects of the housing policy,
and physical planning and development), when governments might determine the
amount of new estates to be built. Government policy influencing the demand side
of the market can be found especially in the field of fiscal policy, providing tax
deduction of mortgage rents, low transfer costs, and subsidies to first buyers. Land
taxation is an outstanding example of a steering instrument, for example, taxes on
potential value will encourage optimal land use, penalty taxes on fallow land will
discourage vacant land, progressive land tax will combat speculation.

Fig. 7. Static and dynamic land value.

 P. van der Molen / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 26 (2002) 361–381 377

The value of land is therefore very dynamic. Land administration systems can
cope with these changes in value—when they are well designed—by providing pro-
cedures to remain up to date.
Possibilities are

 indexing, when values are updated generically according to the monitoring of

certain parameters of the land market; and
 periodic re-assessment (e.g. every 2 years), when a re-valuation takes places
according to a certain timetable.

8. The static component of land use

The third aspect of land administration is the process of determining, recording,

and disseminating information on land use. Information on land use is important
for providing information for land use planning and development. In its initial
phase, land administration systems record existing land use. Land use can be
approached mainly from two angles, i.e. land use in the sense of land cover, and
land use in the sense of functional use. For the recording of land cover (defined by
the FAO as ‘the observed biophysical cover on the earth’s surface’), so-called land
cover classification systems are used, e.g. the Land Cover Classification System
LCCS of the FAO (FAO, 2000). Remote sensing techniques and field surveys are the
main tools for determining land cover patterns. For the recording of land use
(defined by the FAO as ‘the arrangements, activities, and inputs people undertake in
a certain land cover type to produce, change, or maintain it’) remote sensing tech-
niques are less suitable; the interpretation needs at least a strong input of field sur-
vey. The distinction between ‘land cover’ and ‘land use’ is important for the process
of determining this particular feature. In land administration systems both types
occur mixed-up, e.g. ‘grassland’ (‘cover’) and ‘rangeland’ (‘use’), and ‘recreation
area’ (use) and ‘sandy surface’ (‘cover’) (examples from FAO, 2000), because of ill-
considered decision making. Looking to the purpose of land administration systems,
namely providing support for the implementation of land policy instruments (as
mentioned earlier), the most obvious recommendation is to focus on ‘functional
land use’ (Fig. 8).

9. The dynamic component of land use

Especially when the land administration system adopts the recording of ‘func-
tional land use’, there is an awareness that the land use type will change frequently
because of human behaviour. Keeping land use records up to date is difficult. If—as
is the case in many countries—changing the land use is bound to a certain official
approval, this approval could provide the input for a change in the records. Gov-
ernments require, for example, a building permit for erecting new houses and a
construction permit for constructing a road. Some countries require an approval for
378 P. van der Molen / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 26 (2002) 361–381

Fig. 8. Static and dynamic land use.

subdivision, which also may be a trigger for an update procedure regarding the land
use aspect. Zoning plans, which define the officially assigned land use, might also be
helpful in monitoring the land use, although the nature of a zoning plan can differ
from country to country, basically in two ways depending on the legal attribution.
The first variant is that people are obliged to use the land according to the given
land use in the zoning plan (positive legal force). The second variant is that people
cannot exercise a land use that is forbidden in the zoning plan, but can use the land
in any other way (negative legal force). If—in other cases—a bureaucratic monitor-
ing of changes in land use is not in place, changes can occur autonomously, which
can only be identified by renewed remote sensing and field survey. Just like the value
aspect in land administration systems, this can be done within a certain timetable,
according to societal needs.
Change in land use can also take place in a planned way, when governments seek
to influence land use by their physical planning and development activities, or by
other measures (e.g. agricultural policy). Changes take place in a coordinated way,
which makes monitoring easier, providing possibilities for the regular updating of
land administration systems.

10. ICT support

If the initial establishment of land administration systems proves to be a big

challenge, the earlier-mentioned dynamic aspects of land administration systems are
even more challenging. Both the institutional environment and the operational
structure should be in place. The legal framework and the public administration
should be adaptable to the dynamic aspects, as should be the operational structure
in terms of organisation and procedures. Where ICT is involved as a supporting
tool, this ICT support for these procedures should therefore be adaptable too.
Experience shows that big, comprehensive information systems (e.g. the ‘legacy’
systems of many western countries) have difficulty in keeping pace with societal
 P. van der Molen / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 26 (2002) 361–381 379

developments. Re-engineering programs are a common policy in these countries.

Therefore the concept of spatial data infrastructures is attractive. Various smaller
systems working together in a network make the separate components more capable
of coping with the dynamic aspects (INRA, 2000a). The design of flexible proce-
dures can be supported by advanced process design, simulation and information
management (INRA, 2000b).

11. Conclusions and recommendations

Designing and developing a land administration system without taking into con-
sideration the dynamic component is useless. The system will soon be obsolete and
will then definitely be an obstacle to societal development. Although not a common
practice, this unfortunately often happens. The problem is that land administration
systems cannot be changed continuously: they have to work in a sustainable way
and bring stability through both a stable and flexible concept. Because they are
embedded in transparent and adaptable institutions (legal framework, public
administration) on the one hand, and because of the flexibility and adaptability of
operational procedures on the other, there is a demand for well-considered decisions
in a well-understood context, not focusing on the short term results only, but keep-
ing a sharp eye on the dynamics of systems and their environment. The context
basically has something to do with what is called the principles of ’rule of law’ and
‘good governance’. That places the establishment and the maintenance of land
administration systems right at the heart of the comprehensive development process.
The required way of thinking is evolutionary. Good land administration systems are
always migrating, coping with the pace of the times, meeting the demands of society,

Fig. 9. Systems design based on static and dynamic tenure, value and use.
380 P. van der Molen / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 26 (2002) 361–381

and showing that they are capable of dealing with new forms of land tenure and
with changes in the man–land relationship, whether from a sociological point of
view, or from a de facto relationship. But at the same time the concept should
remain alive as a basic and stable institution for society. The static part of land
administration impacts greatly on the dynamic part.
What I have tried to do in this paper is to analyse which developments will impact
heavily on the concept and design of land administration systems. The recommen-
dation is that—when designing a land administration system—special attention be
paid to the specification of the system (e.g. through its data models, processes and
workflow management; Fig. 9) so that it ensures the responsiveness of the system to
both spontaneous and planned developments concerning land in a society (as
described earlier).

References

Arko-Adjei, A. (2001). Progressive titling for customary areas of Ghana, ITC Master thesis.
Backmann, M. (2001). Rural development by land consolidation in the province of Dalarna Sweden, Gävle
Sweden. FIG Commission 7.
Barnes, G. (1994) LIS Challenges in Latin America. In E. Hoflinger & H. Onsrud (Eds.). Proceedings FIG
Melbourne (pp. 221–231). Melbourne: International Federation of Surveyors.
Bogaerts, M. J. M. (1999). Cadastral systems: critical success factors. Proceedings UDMS (pp. 1.1–1.12).
Delft, NL: Urban Data Management Society.
Bruce, J. W., & Migot-Adholla, S. E. (1993). Searching for land tenure security in Africa, Iowa USA.
Kendall Hunt Publishing Company.
Dale, P., & McLaughlin, J. D. (1999). Land administration. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Dubois, O. (1997). Rights and wrongs of rights to land and forest resources in sub Saharan Africa IIED No
10.
FAO. (2000). Land cover classification system LCCS. Rome: FAO.
FIG Commission 7 (2001). Proceedings symposium on reforming and benchmarking cadastral systems:
‘measuring the success’. Gävle. Sweden: Swedish Association of Land Surveyors.
Firmin Sellers, K., & Sellers, P. (1999). Expected failures and unexpected successes of land titling in
Africa. World Development 27(7).
Fourie, C. (1999). Conclusions from a research study. Nairobi: International Forum on Urban Poverty.
Grant, C. (1999). Lessons from SE Asian cadastral reform, land titling and land administration projects
in supporting sustainable development in the next millennium. Proceedings UN/FIG Conference
Melbourne.
Grant, D. (1992) Barriers to cadastral reform. Conference on cadastral reform, Melbourne (pp. 261–281).
Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
Groot, R., & McLaughlin, J. D. (1999). Geospatial data infrastructures. Oxford UK: Oxford University
Press.
GTZ. (1998). Land tenure in development cooperation. Wiesbaden: Universum Verlag.
Hendrix, S. (1995). Tenure insecurity in Venezuela; empirical data on the failure of cadastral and registry
systems in the reformed agrarian sector. Survey and Land Information Systems, 55(2).
Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria INRA, & Dutch Cadastre, (2000a). Foundation and References for
the construction of the model for maintenance of the cadastral information system. La Paz, Bolivia.
Instituto Nacional de Reforma Agraria INRA, & Dutch Cadastre, (2000b). Proposal for a maintenance
model for cadastral systems in Bolivia: process Handbook. La Paz Bolivia.
Lawrance, J. D. (1985). Land adjudication. Proceedings World Bank Seminar on LIS (pp. 1–39).
Washington DC: World Bank.
 P. van der Molen / Comput., Environ. and Urban Systems 26 (2002) 361–381 381

Lombard, M. (1996) Title registration strategies: successes and failures. In: G. Barnes (Ed.). Proceedings
International Land Tenure Conference. Orlando: University of Florida.
Place, F., & Hazell, P. (1993). Productivity effects of indigenous land tenure systems in sub-Saharan
Africa. American Journal of Agricultural Economy, 75(February).
Powelson, J. P. (1987). The story of land. Cambridge MA: The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Ting, L., Williamson, I. P., Grant, D., & Parker, J. R. (1999). Understanding the evolution of land
administration systems in some common law countries. Survey Review, 35 (272, April).
Toulmin, C., & Quan, J. (2000). Evolving land rights, policy and tenure in Africa. London UK: DFID/
IIED/NRI.
UN/ECE/WPLA. (1996). Land administration guidelines. New York/Geneva: UN Publication.
van der Molen, P., & Österberg, T. (1999). Land tenure and land administration for social and economic
development in Western Europe. In: I. P. Williamson & L. Ting (Eds.). Proceedings UN/FIG Mel-
bourne. (pp. 276–299). Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
van der Molen, P. (2001). Cadastres revisited: the promised land of land administration. Enschede (NL):
International Institute for Aerospace Survey and Earth Sciences.
Williamson, I. P. (2000). Best practices for land administration systems in developing countries. Proceed-
ings International Conference on Land Policy Reform, Jakarta.
Zoomers, A., & van der Haar, G. (2000). Current land policy in Latin America regulating land tenure under
neo-liberalism. Amsterdam NL: Royal Tropical Institute.