Contrast of Cadastral Systems in Australia and Denmark - Case Study Example

Topic: Land Administration Systems in Australia and Denmark Name: Institution: Registration number: Tutor’s Name: Date of Submission: Table of Contents 1.Executive Summary 3 2.Introduction 4 3.Justification of the selected evaluation criteria 5 4.Evaluation framework and its attributes 6 5.Comparison of Cadastral Systems in Australia and Denmark 7 5.1.Different attribute of cadastral maps 8 5.2.Present Initiatives 10 6.Contrast of Cadastral Systems in Australia and Denmark 10 6.1.Development of cadastre from a land tax versus a land market perspective 10 6.2.Different Functions of Cadastral maps 11 Figure 1. Digital Cadastral Database of Australian Capital territory 13 Figure 2. Danish cadastral Map 13 7.Conclusions 13 8.References 14 1. Executive Summary Land administration systems enable sharing of data and depend on efficient management of information, metadata and web services. Internationally, there are a number of accepted frameworks and methods for comparing and evaluating national land administration systems (Delgado Fernandez, Lance, Buck, and Onsrud, 2005). It is however important to make comparisons to ensure learning benefits and weaknesses are established. One difficulty that has been experienced during land administration system framework is that there are continuous reforms and more significantly, they have elaborate social and cultural connections and impacts. Land administration systems indicate different perceptions that the inhabitants of a place have on their land. The purpose of this paper is to present the development framework and method which enables conducting of such examinations. The main focus of evaluation framework involves economic, social and environmental factors in addition to political and administrative background of the countries under interest. In the case of this paper, the countries whose land administration systems are compared are Denmark and Australia. The comparison is based on evaluation principles which distinguish a number of evaluation areas that are associates with different stakeholders who have different roles and functions. The evaluation areas are further divided into a number of aspects of evaluation. 2. Introduction A number of countries are developing spatial data infrastructures (SDIs) that assist in managing and utilizing their spatial data through involving in perspectives that begin at the regional levels and proceed to the state, national and global levels (Dalrymple, Williamson and Wallace, 2003). Since the emergence, maintenance and operation of Spatial Data infrastructure requires large amounts of investments, there is the need to establish indicators for judging the performance of Land Administration systems and establish the associated costs and benefits. The main interest of stakeholders is monitoring SDI developments and the effect on the geographical and information market (Crompvoets and Bregt, 2003). Australia is the largest island Continent having most of its parts between the Indian and Pacific oceans. Most sections of the country are flat barren are sparsely populated. On the other hand, Denmark is part of the Scandinavia and also a member of the EU. The country is much smaller in comparison with Australia while the country is also low-lying with the highest point being 175 meters above the sea level. In Australia, land rights gained legal recognition in 1993 when the Indigenous Native Titles Act was introduced. Development of Australian Cadastral System was not influenced by ownership systems of regional people, but through adoption of English system of Land registration during land transfer (Clarke, Hedberg and Watkins, 2003). The land transfer laws were improved when Robert Torrens introduced the system of Certificate of Title to simplify land transfer process. In Denmark, cadastre was first implemented during the absolute monarchy in 1660. This paper provides a review of the current Land Administration Systems and methods, a discussion of problems and interoperability on the national platform, and an application of proposed indicators to the case studies in Australia and Denmark. 3. Justification of the selected evaluation criteria The selected evaluation criteria has been done by selecting Australia and Denmark because of their location in different geographical regions as well as the differences in land administration systems in these countries. The use of these two countries is aimed at evaluating the differences in land administration between Australia and European countries (Borrero, 2002). This assist in applying the differences in managing land policies in both Australia and Denmark and also making the report gain more relevance in both Europe and Australia. Due to differences in geographical and political conditions in Australia and Denmark, there is certainty that policies used for land administration in these countries are different (Bayfield et. al, 2005). Consequently, this paper provides the differences in policies that exist in these countries in the aspects of tenure principles and economic and financial factors. Furthermore, there are a variety of technical principles that are used in Australia and Denmark. The nature of technical principles is based on geographical location and technological advancement of an area of study (Balfanz, 2002). This study tries to establish the impact of technological advancement on land administration systems. This is achieved by comparing land administration principles used in Denmark with those used in Australia. Finally, internal factors such as capacity building have been significant in determining land policies that are used in an organization. It is important to establish the impact of factors such as the number of workshops and seminars in enhancing land administration systems based on different geographical locations. 4. Evaluation framework and its attributes Evaluation framework will involve comparing land administration systems in Denmark and Australia by looking at the similarities in land administration systems in these countries. The evaluation framework also involves a contrast of the differences in land administration systems used in Denmark and Australia. Under comparison process, the main areas of comparison will involve the use of Land books and information technologies such as storage of cadastral information on the internet. The comparison process also provides a comparison of the use of computers and databases to store cadastral information such as maps. The comparison process will also involve an investigation of similarities in methods used to manage reform issues such as integration of freehold land and state owned land to produce a cadastre while and the challenges experienced during the processes. It will also involve a comparison of unbinding property rights that are experienced in the two countries. Comparison process also involves determination of current initiatives that are common in both Denmark and Australia such as methods of accessing cadastral information by use of internet and wireless systems. In contrasting land administration systems in Denmark and Australia, the main areas of focus will be contrast of development of cadastre from land taxes versus a land market perspectives Denmark and Australia respectively. The contrast process also involves a contrast of a number of attributes of cadastral land in Australia and Denmark. The contrast also involves distinctions of functions of cadastral maps in Australia and Denmark. Finally, the distinction process involves determination of different methods of computerization of cadastral maps in Australia and Denmark. Figure 1. A typical cadastral map 5. Comparison of Cadastral Systems in Australia and Denmark There are a number of similarities that exist between cadastral systems used in Australia and Denmark. For instance, in both Denmark and Australia, cadastre is updated n daily basis, as a new property registrations variations and field surveys are taken to the National Survey and cadastre to be approved (Crompvoets, Bregt, Rajabifard and Williamson, 2004). They do not include environmental information found in maps such as forests and polluted areas that are generated by the relevant public agencies but updated by the national Survey and cadastre. The cadastral register and computers are used to manage cadastral information. In both countries, cadastral information is found on the internet. In both countries, the graphical representation of parcels of land is basically referred to as digital cadastral databases (DCDB). Survey plans are done on both Australia and Denmark to measure graphically a parcel-based data. In addition, Land Book records are used to record legal rights during land ownership, management of mortgages and easements (Clarke, Hedberg and Watkins, 2003). The Land Book is based on cadastral identification of the pieces of land and properties. In addition, in both Australia and Denmark, cadastral maps and legal survey measurements are done at the national and Cadastre and also in the Registry. The Land book can be obtained online in both Denmark and Australia. For instance, in Australia, services are provided to view and print cadastral information via the internet for a fee when one purchases through licensing agreement despite the availability of digital cadastral maps free of charge in the internet. 5.1. Different attribute of cadastral maps The attributes of cadastral maps in Denmark and Australia are similar. In both Australia and Denmark, there are five major attributes of cadastral maps. For instance, accuracy of cadastral maps varies greatly based on the reviews of the Danish and the Australian cadastral systems. Cadastral maps can be created by graphic out-of-date methods of approximation of cadastral frameworks that are used basically during the process of crating cadastral surveys or during the process of valuation of land tax policies. Another attribute of Australian and Danish cadastral map is that charting of maps used for local government was generally not kept up-to-date. In addition, map functions such as for land markets and registration of land do not require cadastral maps to be computerized while other functions such as automatic mapping or management of facilities for the purpose of utility management require the use of computerized maps. The Danish and Australian cadastral maps add reference number of the corresponding cadastral survey plans and assist in the process of charting the maps. In case cadastral maps are used for a large number of purpose roles, and particularly during management of urban and rural lands, these maps are used because they contain greater topographic details. Cadastral maps used for urban purposes contain greater amounts of details such as buildings and street furniture. During the process of accurately supporting cadastral surveys, cadastral maps in Denmark and Australia require accurate cadastral surveys for the purpose of surveys and support for the function. On the other hand, supporting index does not require updating by conducting accurate surveys. The table below shows a summary of different attributes of cadastral lands in Australia and Denmark. Map Attributes-Functions supporting cadastral Required accuracy of cadastral map Required Completeness of cadastral map Digital requirement Land market Very low Sporadic None Land Tax Low Systematic None Urban Land Management Medium Systematic Low Rural Land Medium Low Systematic Medium Digital map High Systematic High Table 1. Different attributes of cadastral maps in Australia and Denmark 5.2. Present Initiatives Cadastral management systems in Denmark and Australia have put more focus on accessing data by use of internet and wireless systems. Spatial information is being disseminated through spatial data infrastructure in both countries. The management of SDI’s in both countries relies mostly on the countries’ administration systems and provides the right infrastructure that enables effective administration of land. A number of avenues are created by evolution of technology and this has been made possible in both Australia and Denmark. In addition, there are federations of jurisdictions that ensure each administrative area is responsible for its own development. However, there are a range of differences such as interoperability, privacy, custodianship and jurisdictional responsibilities. These policies results into a lag in development of cadastral systems in both Australia and Denmark. Finally, each region in Denmark and Australia have embarked on e-land administration systems by applying consistent approaches towards digital lodgment of plans of subdivision and providing support for survey information to landXML format. The implementation of these projects will ensure registration processes are streamlined and it will be possible to accomplish new registry processes while cadastral surveyors will be able to get access to information relating to cadastral maps. 6. Contrast of Cadastral Systems in Australia and Denmark 6.1. Development of cadastre from a land tax versus a land market perspective The Danish cadastral maps were established for a period of two hundred years and bear legal significance pertaining to boundary definition. On the other hand, in Australia, cadastral maps were developed within the past ten years and serve the function of boundary definition. In Denmark most properties were taxed and the process required the use of cadastral maps. The establishment and maintenance of cadastral maps was a funded by the government. Land market pressures have continuously dominated the Danish Cadastral systems rather than land tax considerations. As a result computerization of title deeds has been done to improve effectiveness and merging of cadastre and title deeds registry functions. On the contrary, the Australian cadastral systems were created from the opposite direction to the Danish cadastral systems. The main driving factor during their creation was land market considerations. Consequently, there was no justification for creation of cadastral maps because land markets do not need cadastral maps to operate. The cadastral systems that were developed for the purpose of supporting land markets only do not need cadastral surveying for description of land rights. A significant distinction between Australian and Danish cadastral systems is that centralization is applied in the Australian systems while the Danish systems are mostly decentralized. Consequently the Australian Land Titles Offices are more expansive and hold large amounts of records in comparison with the Danish counterparts. 6.2. Different Functions of Cadastral maps Land markets in Australia do not use accurate cadastral maps while those in Denmark use accurate cadastral maps. Thus, land markets in Australia are not justified to use computerizing processes for cadastral maps and creation of digital cadastral map from a land market perspective. In Denmark, during the process of raising tax by the government, the process is based on market value of the property. This is mainly observed when annual taxes on land are levied, resulting into updating of systems continuously. This is not the case in Australia where land acquisition is based on land market perspectives and taxes are not used to value pieces of land. In Australia, urban areas require complete records pertaining to parcels of land to assist in management of land use, and control of areas of development. Thus, high accuracy of development of individual parcels is important. In the case of Denmark, cadastral boundaries cannot be adjusted with the same flexibility as the case of Australia. This is because the legal significance of the map requires high accuracy in the cadastral map to assist in reducing errors or mismatches arise between topographical and cadastral maps. There are also different land management principles used during management functions of cadastral maps in Denmark and Australia. In Denmark, land management is majorly controlled by use of cadastral maps. In rural areas in Denmark, land ownership rights are mostly applicable. However, in Australia, cadastral maps are not used to manage rural lands. The figures below show Australian and Danish cadastral mapping respectively. Figure 1. Digital Cadastral Database of Australian Capital territory Figure 2. Danish cadastral Map 7. Conclusions This paper shows significant differences between cadastral maps in Denmark and Australia. The differences mainly arise from historical developments, legal procedures, difference in technological advancement, structures within institutions and different needs to which land use should be applied. Thus, the claim that it is possible to obtain a typical cadastral map is difficult to support. The distinctions are first reviewed in terms of groups of cadastral maps such as those derived from land taxation systems as in the case of Denmark and other European countries. The other group refers to cadastral maps derived from isolated cadastral studies designed fro the purpose of supporting land markets and land registration systems. This is observable in Australia. There is no method that can be used to justify a cadastral map for the purpose of supporting land registration system, apart from cadastral charting. In summary, there are many issues related to cadastral maps that have been highlighted in this paper, such as computerization that has always remained confusing and difficult to understand. The only issue that can be understood is that cadastral maps are important in the current society, but their establishment in computerized forms is still difficult and complicated. 8. References Balfanz, D. 2002. Automated geodata analysis and metadata generation. SPIE conference on visualization and data analysis (VDA). San Jose, CA. Bayfield, N. G., J. Conroy, R.V. Birnie, A. Geddes, J. L. Midgley, M. D. Shucksmith, and D. Elston. 2005. Current awareness, use and perceived priorities for rural databases in Scotland. Land Use Policy (22):153–162. Borrero, S. 2002. The GSDI Association: State of the art. GSDI-6 Conference. Budapest, Hungary. Bulterman, D. C. A. 2004. Is it time for a moratorium on metadata? IEEE 11 (04): 10–17. Clarke, D., O. Hedberg, and W. Watkins. 2003. Development of the Australian Spatial Data Infrastructure. In Developing spatial data infrastructures: from concept to reality, eds. R. A. Williamson, M.-E. F. Feeney. New York: Taylor & Francis. Crompvoets, J., A. Bregt, A. Rajabifard, and I. Williamson. 2004. Assessing the worldwide developments of national spatial clearinghouses. Int. J. Geographical Information Science 18 (7): 665–89. Crompvoets, J., and A. Bregt. 2003. World status of national spatial data clearinghouses. URISA Journal 15(Access and Participatory Approaches [APA] 1). Dalrymple, K., I. Williamson, and J. Wallace. 2003. Cadastral systems within Australia. The Australian Surveyor 48 (1): 37–49. Delgado Fernandez, T., K. Lance, M. Buck, and H. Onsrud. 2005. Assessing an SDI readiness index. GSDI-8 Conference. Kairo, Egypt. http://dtl.unimelb.edu.au//exlibris/dtl/d3_1/apache_media/L2V4bGlicmlzL2R0bC9kM18xL2FwYWNoZV9tZWRpYS82NjM2NA==.pdf Read More