- Email: [email protected]
3D property research from a legal perspective
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 40 (2013) 7–13
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compenvurbsys
3D property research from a legal perspective Jenny Paulsson a,1, Jesper M. Paasch b,⇑ a b
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Real Estate Planning and Land Law, Brinellvägen 1, 10044 Stockholm, Sweden Lantmäteriet [Swedish Mapping, Cadastral and Land Registration Authority], 80182 Gävle, Sweden
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Available online 26 January 2013 Keywords: 3D property 3D cadastre Classification Legislation
a b s t r a c t This article investigates and discusses 3D property research, as evidenced by conference papers and other publications written in English, to analyze the distribution of interest areas and the occurrence of legal aspects and trends within 3D property research occurring between 2001 and 2011. A total of 156 publications on 3D property were examined. The publications were classified in four different categories, which represent different aspects of 3D property: legal, technical, registration and organizational. More 3D property research has been conducted on technical aspects and registration than legal aspects. In the legal category, most studies addressed national legislation and the practical use of (national) legislation. The authors believe that further fundamental legal research on 3D property is needed. The quantity of research could be increased, for example, by promoting international discussion and increasing the number of comparative legal studies on 3D property rights. Additional and more focused attention should be given to international matters, such as comparative studies on the use of 3D property concepts, the development of (international) 3D property terminology and cooperation between 3D property unit owners. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction This article is partly based on a presentation (Paulsson & Paasch, 2011) given at the second 3D cadastre workshop in Delft in 2011 (van Oosterom, Fendel, Stoter, & Streilein, 2011) (hereafter referred to as the second 3D Delft workshop 2011) and continues the workshop discussion on the content of 3D property research (Banut, 2011).
It seems reasonable to investigate the legal issues on which the 3D property research community should focus. The reason to survey 3D property publications is that, to the authors’ knowledge, no such literature survey exists. The authors believe that the scientific community would benefit from a survey and discussion of current trends in 3D property research as a stimulus to further discussion regarding where research in the field is or should be heading. 1.2. Aim
1.1. Background 3D property has been the subject of increased research activity during the last decade. The research has covered a number of topics ranging from legislative aspects to data management and visualization. Although 3D property has a foundation in legislation, the authors have noted a tendency to focus on non-legal, e.g., technical, questions in 3D property research rather than on legal issues, which are the basis of 3D property. This observation is supported by the discussions during the second 3D Delft workshop 2011, which resulted in a conclusion by the Legal Framework for 3D Cadastres working session that further research on the legal aspects is required (Banut, 2011, pp. 3–4). This conclusion raises the question of how research on legal aspects should be increased. ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 26 633301; fax: +46 26 634710. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Paulsson), [email protected] (J.M. Paasch). 1 Tel.: +46 8 7906661; fax: +46 8 7907367. 0198-9715/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2012.11.004
This article aims to investigate and discuss 3D property research, as evidenced by conference papers and other publications written in English, to analyze the distribution of interest areas and the occurrence of legal aspects and trends. The outcome is threefold: (1) a presentation of the thematic distribution of 3D property publications for the period 2001–2011 according to a proposed classification system, (2) an identification of current trends in legal research on 3D property and (3) suggestions on how to increase the quantity of legal research and the aspects of the topic on which such research should focus. The intended readership is researchers who conduct 3D property research and land law specialists as well as academics and other professionals engaged in land transactions and management who have not previously engaged in the field. 1.3. Method and delimitation The methodological basis used in this article is a survey and analysis of publications on 3D property.
8
J. Paulsson, J.M. Paasch / Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 40 (2013) 7–13
The authors first develop a classification system suitable for dividing 3D property research into categories. Next, a study of the thematic distribution of 3D property publications is conducted, and the publications are then classified according to the proposed classification system. The survey identifies current trends in legal research. Suggestions are offered on how to increase the quantity of legal research in the field in addition to the aspects of the topic on which future research should focus. Many publications on 3D property exist. Therefore, the study has been limited to the literature published between 2001 and 2011 that is listed on the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) 3D cadastre working group website.2 The reason to concentrate on the last decade is that the first 3D cadastre conference in Delft in 2001 (van Oosterom, Stoter, & Fendel 2001) (hereafter referred to as the first 3D Delft workshop 2001) was a starting point for organized international activity in 3D property research. The publications listed at the FIG website were selected for study because the list is the result of the cooperation of researchers active in the 3D property field and therefore a representative overview of the research that has been conducted. However, the FIG publications are intended for an international audience and therefore written in English. This requirement limits the number of publications, particularly on national 3D property issues, which are to a considerable extent published in the language of the country studied because the research possesses a primarily national interest. Thus, these publications are inaccessible to the international community. In Section 5, the availability of non-English publications is addressed in regard to future research. The theme of each publication is analyzed and assigned to one of four categories. The classification system used in this article is described in Section 1.4. The survey revealed that most publications could be assigned to more than one category. Often, two or even three themes were addressed in the same text. This methodological problem of inconsistent data is solved by introducing socalled primary and secondary themes into the categories. The primary theme is the dominant theme in each publication and used as a basis for thematic classification. The secondary theme is the less dominant theme (or themes) of the publication. The primary and secondary themes do not belong to the discussion of the thematic distribution of publications between the categories. Instead, they comprise a discussion in the legal analysis. The legal theme is of particular interest for this study and analyzed in regard to its legal context, such as the development of legislation and implementation, in Section 4. Based on the analysis, legal trends in 3D property research are identified and discussed. Section 5 discusses how to increase legal research and how to stimulate interest in topics that have been neglected in 3D property legal research during the last decade. The publications exhibit a large variety in research approach, structure and scope. They range from conference proceedings of a few pages to doctoral theses that provide in-depth analyses of 3D property issues. Initially, the authors investigated whether it was scientifically reliable to classify each publication using the keywords, where available, to describe the content. However, it soon became obvious that most keywords were not suitable for use in classification. The majority of the keywords are highly general, such as ‘‘3D cadastre’’ and ‘‘Land management’’, and therefore could not be used for classification. This terminological inconsistency of keywords is discussed in Section 4.2. The survey describes the thematic distribution of in total 156 publications, which cover 3D property research in Europe, North America, South America, Africa, Asia and Australia.
2
www.gdmc.nl/3DCadastres/literature/ (accessed September 29th, 2012).
This study should not be considered comprehensive. Instead, the study attempts to illustrate the distribution of research activities as a basis for discussion on increasing the awareness of legal issues in 3D property research. A survey on national language publications, rather than publications in English, would be a valuable contribution to this type of research. However, for practical reasons, such a survey has been omitted from this study. In addition to the presentation of results in Section 3, an analysis of the legal research is performed and the trends of the studied period are identified, which reveals, e.g., the distribution of research classified into major topics. The quantity of collected data is too limited to use in a detailed statistical trend analysis. However, the major trends are analyzed. 1.4. Classification To discuss the distribution of the topics addressed in 3D property research, a standardized structure for classifying the topics is required. Any classification is the result of the intentions of the classifier. The content of and differentiation between the groups can be discussed, and a strictly objective result may not be achieved. To the authors’ knowledge, a standardized system for the classification of 3D property (or other real property) research topics does not exist. However, different attempts have been made. Three examples of the classification of topics are as follows: (1) the first 3D Delft workshop 2001, where the sessions were divided into three categories: technical; legal and organizational, (2) the second 3D Delft workshop 2011, where the sessions were divided into four categories: legal framework 3D cadastres, initial registration of 3D parcels, 3D data management and visualization, distribution and delivery of 3D parcels and (3) the classification provided by Aien, Rajabifard, Kalantari, and Williamson (2011), which provides three general categories of 3D cadastre: legal, technical and institutional. According to Aien et al., the legal aspect supports the registration of 3D properties in a 3D cadastre. Technical aspects refer to the use and knowledge of methods, models and tools to perform 3D cadastre, such as the progress in computers and data-capture methods. Cadastres are only meaningful when they exist in an institutional context, e.g., by defining tasks and responsibilities of the public registration administration. The institutional aspects can be divided into categories, e.g., the execution and protection of regulations and the provision of unified 3D concepts, such as the apartment, 3D ownership and 3D property. The categories listed above are useful for the classification of 3D property research. However, as a basis for the literature survey, a more nuanced classification may be required. The legal session of the first 3D Delft workshop 2001 and the legal framework 3D cadastres session of the second 3D Delft workshop resemble the legal category of Aien et al. (2011). The initial registration of 3D parcels and 3D data management and visualization, distribution and delivery of 3D parcels categories of the second 3D Delft workshop 2011 seem to correspond to the technical categories used during the first 3D Delft workshop 2001 and in Aien et al., based on the content of the presentations. The organizational category of the first workshop corresponds to the institutional category of Aien et al. but was not represented by a session of the second 3D Delft workshop 2011. The standardization of categories of 3D property research may be a subject for future discussion and is outside the scope of this article. Questions such as the development and implementation of legislation and the creation of a legal framework belong to the legal domain. Arguably, the registration of 3D property is part of the legal framework because the existence of a legal system is a precondition for legal enforcement through registration. However, it may
J. Paulsson, J.M. Paasch / Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 40 (2013) 7–13
also be argued that registration should be included in the technical category due to the use of, for example, data systems and data storage in registration. Therefore, the somewhat ambiguous term ‘‘registration’’ has been treated as an independent topic in this study and includes topics such as data storage and the maintenance of cadastral information in land administration and management systems, spatial and temporal dimensions, data integration and height-representation purposes. In this study, registration is primarily considered a (semi-)technical aspect, which would make it possible to consider the technical and registration categories together in comparison with the legal category. Cadastres aim to register the legal status of and property rights associated with land and must progress toward improved cadastral management to prevent future registration complications (Banut, 2011, p. 2). Therefore, it is relevant to designate registration as a separate category. Technical issues, such as spatial data infrastructure, data modeling, database management, geographic information systems (GIS), visualization and geometrical representation, cadastral surveying, geometry, topology and data-exchange formats as well as technical questions that relate to distribution and delivery and the technical aspects of the international standard for land administration ISO 19152 – Land Administration Domain Model (LADM) (ISO, 2012),3 are related to the technical aspects of 3D property. ‘‘Institutional’’ is a more limited term than ‘‘organizational’’. Therefore, in the following classification, ‘‘organizational’’ is proposed as a category. This category includes how properties are organized and financed and how public and private institutions act and interact to organize the development and implementation of 3D property. Organizations and good governance address, e.g., understanding the need for 3D cadastral information, collaboration, cooperation and the integration of organizations and organizational structures (Sutherland, 2001, p. 321). Operational aspects include the need to understand policy and strategy to optimize operations, task design, optimal database design and implementation to meet client needs and organizational goals. Additionally, operational aspects include methods of 3D cadastral data collection, processing and output (Sutherland, 2011, p. 322). Based on the above considerations, the authors use the following four categories for classification: Legal, Technical, Registration and Organizational. Legal: The legal category contains publications on topics such as real property rights, restrictions, responsibilities, real property, superficies solo credit, security of tenure, legislation, subdivision, spatial planning, legal objects and the legal framework. Technical: The technical category contains publications on topics such as database management, spatial data infrastructure, data models, GIS, visualization and geometrical representation, cadastral surveying, geometry, topology, exchange formats and the technical aspects of distribution and delivery. Registration: The registration category contains publications on matters that concern the registration of 3D property in land administration systems, such as the content, storage, structure and maintenance of 3D property information. ‘‘Land administration system’’ refers to any system that stores 3D property information, such as land registers and purpose cadastres. Organizational: The organizational category contains publications on institutional, management and capacity-building issues. Organization is primarily a question of efficiency and how to organize and manage 3D property. Examples of organizational issues include good governance, operational aspects and financial aspects.
3
See Lemmen (2012) for an introduction.
9
2. Legal aspects of 3D property There is no given structure in law. One approach to structuring the legal domain is to divide it into smaller parts, ranging from the fundamental question regarding what law is to the question of the development of different legal ’’families’’ or other classification systems, see Zweigert and Kötz (1998). Any classification occurs according to the conditions and principles determined and applied by the classifier and are therefore to a certain extent subjective. Many difficulties are connected with comparative studies of legal systems, which must be considered when interpreting the results.4 That legislation and practice are constantly changing makes it difficult to maintain a static perspective in a comparison. Although rule comparison is a common means to perform comparative legal studies, there are other ways to perform legal research. To understand the rules, the legal and non-legal context of the rules must also be considered. Legislation is a foundation of 3D property. Without proper legislation, 3D properties cannot be formed. The technical, registration and organizational aspects are more pragmatic. Therefore, the legal foundation should be established before the application of a 3D cadastral system can be discussed. Related to the difficulty of establishing a common terminology for 3D property is the international variety of such property, which makes it difficult to make comparisons in this field and to understand which research is related to 3D property. Internationally, we find a number of different concepts of 3D property rights.5 These concepts are related to using or owning a three-dimensionally delimited part of a property volume. The concepts have different names in different parts of the world, and the types vary with the national legal system. However, it is still possible to fit the concepts into more general categories with similar features. The most prevalent concepts are the independent 3D property and the condominium (also known as apartment ownership), which can be found in several countries around the world. The independent 3D property refers to a volume of space that is subdivided and separated from the remainder of the property. Often, the space is a larger unit that includes several apartments or offices or a space that is used for infrastructure facilities, such as tunnels. The condominium 3D property concept can be found throughout the world. A condominium is typically a combination of the ownership right to a specific part of a building combined with a share in the common property that surrounds the condominium (the land on which the building stands, the staircases and other facilities) and mandatory membership in the owners’ association. The concept is used to subdivide a building into several separately owned apartment units. Two main sub-types of condominium ownership are the condominium ownership model and the condominium user right model. In the condominium ownership model, the apartment is owned independently, similar to a piece of land, and regarded as a real property unit, whereas the land on which the apartments stand and the common parts of the building are jointly owned. In the condominium user right model, the condominium owners jointly own the building and the surrounding grounds. The individual owner possesses only a certain share in the common property, to which an exclusive right to use a specific apartment in the building is connected (Paulsson, 2007). Other types of 3D property rights are, e.g., the indirect ownership forms, including tenant-ownership, where a tenant-owner association owns the apartment building and the land on which the building stands and the members provide capital for the right to use the apartment. This concept is common in Sweden. Another example is 4 See von Bar (2004), Bogdan (2004), David et al. (1974, Chap. 2), Van Hoecke (2004) and Zweigert and Kötz (1998). 5 For a more detailed survey of these concepts and types, see Paulsson (2007).
10
J. Paulsson, J.M. Paasch / Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 40 (2013) 7–13
the limited company system, where a joint stock company owns the property, whereas the residents, by acquiring shares in this company, obtain the right to exclusively use one of the building’s apartments. This concept is common in Finland. The structure, principles and rules for 3D property are basically similar for different countries and legal systems. The actual problems appear to be the same but are typically solved differently in each country (van der Merwe, 1994, chap. 5). From the perspective of international studies, a number of key factors related to 3D property that seem to be important to problem-solving and common to most forms and systems can be discerned. These factors include the delimitation of property units, the definition of common property, the forms of cooperation between property unit owners, management and regulation issues, as well as the settlement of disputes and insurance solutions (Paulsson, 2007). Case studies have shown that more or less substantial amendments to statutes have been required in these areas, with shortcomings persisting after many years of use and changes continuing to be made (Paulsson, 2007).
3. The literature survey 3.1. Results The results of the literature survey are divided into two parts. The number of publications that belong to each category and the content of the legal category are presented.
3.1.1. Distribution between categories A total of 28 of the 156 analyzed publications were assigned to the legal category, 63 to the technical category, 59 to the registration category and six to the organizational category. The number of contributions in the categories varies during the studied decade (Table 1). The largest number of contributions was in 2011, the last year of the period, when 52 publications were published in total. The years 2001 and 2011 were the most productive years during the surveyed period due to the first and second special conferences on 3D cadastre that occurred in those years. The year 2007 produced the lowest number of publications during the surveyed period with one publication in the legal and technical categories each. The legal category is the second-least researched among the categories. With six publications, the organizational category is smaller. The legal contributions increased numerically in 2011, as have the contributions in the other categories. In addition, the survey revealed that most publications could be assigned to more than one category, e.g., legal and registration or technical and registration. These secondary subjects are marked with () in Table 1.
Table 1 Surveyed 3D property publications, 2001–2011. () = secondary subjects. Year
Legal
Technical
Registration
Organizational
Total/year
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
7 2 3 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 8
(9) (1) (5) (3) (3) (2) (0) (0) (1) (4) (15)
10 (5) 2 (2) 8 (0) 5 (3) 4 (1) 3 (1) 1 (0) 0 (1) 3 (0) 5 (2) 22 (3)
11 (6) 4 (3) 4 (7) 4 (3) 6 (0) 4 (3) 0 (0) 2 (0) 2 (1) 3 (1) 19 (11)
2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
30 (27) 8 (7) 16 (15) 9 (10) 10 (4) 9 (6) 2 (1) 4 (4) 6 (2) 10 (9) 52 (36)
Total
28 (43)
63 (18)
59 (35)
6 (25)
(7) (1) (3) (1) (0) (0) (1) (3) (0) (2) (7)
156 (121)
4. Analysis 4.1. Legal research Technical, registration and organizational issues are important if 3D property information is to be transferred, registered, organized and presented in a socially acceptable manner. However, these activities cannot be performed without a legal foundation. All transferred, registered, and visualized information is based on legislation. As can be observed in Table 1, many publications described more than one subject. Legal issues were often described as secondary subjects, for example, as an introduction to technical and registration issues. Perhaps these introductory descriptions of legal issues cannot (and should not) be avoided in non-legal publications. However, certain researchers could have assumed that the legal foundation already exists and described problems and applications based on that assumption, which may be one explanation for the low number of legal contributions to 3D property research during the investigated period. Of the 28 publications assigned to the legal category, the majority addressed more than one legal aspect. These aspects include, to a greater or lesser extent, the development and description of national 3D property legislation, the international comparison of 3D property concepts and legislation, terminology, studies on domestic 3D property solutions, studies on other national legal 3D property systems and comparative analysis, and the practical use and implementation of legislation. The contributions were evenly distributed among these themes. However, most of the contributions described national legislation and the practical use of (national) legislation.
4.2. Classification According to the survey, the legal aspects constitute a small portion of the current research on 3D property. Particularly when the legal category is contrasted with the other three categories (technical, registration and organizational) combined, the difference is considerable. In the classification, it was occasionally difficult to determine to which of the technical and registration categories a publication should be assigned. According to the survey, there is a tendency for several publications to address more than a single topic. Therefore, it was difficult to classify all of the publications precisely. Of course, a discussion of certain aspects might have been required to introduce a topic. However, the scientific contribution would be more focused if publications would present one or perhaps two topics and not include legal, technical, registration and organizational topics in the same article. For example, several publications start by briefly mentioning legal aspects in the introduction but proceed to a technical or registration aspect without connecting these new topics to the legal aspects. Therefore, it is questionable whether such publications should be included in the legal category. In the publications that are assigned to the legal category or the other groups, there are few contributions that concern terminology. These results agree with the conclusions of Paasch and Paulsson (2011). The first 3D Delft workshop 2001 discussed the terminology problems to a certain extent. However, since then, little research related to this problem seems to have been performed until the contributions to this topic of the second 3D Delft workshop 2011. The lack of a clear, primary terminology for the general concepts of 3D property makes it difficult to standardize what ‘‘3D property’’ means. For example, the term ‘‘3D cadastre’’ is occasionally used to describe the actual property registration system(s). However, the phrase is also used as a general term for threedimensional real property. Similarly, it was impossible to use the
J. Paulsson, J.M. Paasch / Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 40 (2013) 7–13
keywords of the publications as a guide to classification because the keywords may signify different things to different researchers. Other terms for 3D property can also be found. Not all of these terms include ‘‘3D’’ or ‘‘three-dimensional’’, which makes it difficult to discern which publications actually address the 3D property issue. Certain publications refer to ‘‘multi-functional’’ or ‘‘multiple’’, whereas other publications discuss ‘‘space’’, ‘‘volume’’ or ‘‘horizontal subdivision’’. Three-dimensional property in Australian legislation is often referred to by the terms ‘‘stratum’’ or ‘‘strata title’’. In the United States, ‘‘airspace rights’’ is used as a term for such property.6 For obvious reasons, terminology from countries where little is published in English on 3D property rights is more difficult to access and therefore to detect when searching for publications on 3D property research. Terms can also be translated differently into English, even by different authors from the same country, thereby increasing the difficulty of conducting comparative legal 3D property studies. 4.3. Trends in legal 3D property research When attempting to identify trends in 3D property research, it is difficult to determine what a new trend is. A trend can be new in one country but old in another. Ten years is a brief period, and the studied publications in the legal category are too few to facilitate a more thorough analysis of the legal content. Trends in 3D property research are related to social developments, such as a need for new types of 3D property for new purposes. For example, the development of apartment ownership in Sweden was related to political change, and the need to define 3D property for infrastructure, such as railway tunnels, results from the needs in urban areas for property rights to accommodate infrastructure. Such general trends can be found in the studied publications. Whereas certain trends have existed for a longer period of time, others have emerged recently. Based only on the publications surveyed in this study, there are certain countries where researchers seem to focus more on legal than non-legal aspects. For example, the Scandinavian countries seem to be particularly active in this area (e.g., Eriksson & Jansson, 2010; Valstad, 2010). Other countries where such research is performed include, for example, Israel (e.g., Caine, 2009), Australia (e.g., Aien et al., 2011), Canada (e.g., Ng’ang’a et al., 2001), Turkey (e.g., Doner, Demir, & Biyik, 2011), the Czech Republic (e.g., Huml, 2001) and the Netherlands (e.g., Ploeger, 2011). This scholarly activity correlates to a certain extent with countries that have already fully developed a system for 3D property rights, particularly with respect to independent 3D property and condominium types. In contrast, other countries seem to have more researchers active in the field of non-legal 3D property research. Certain themes reappear regularly in the publications during the studied period, and some of these themes are evenly distributed over the years. These themes indicate the trends in legal 3D property research activity during the studied period. The major trends can be related to the following categories:
Description of the need for national 3D property. Development of national 3D property legislation. Implementation of national 3D property legislation. Case studies on national 3D property. Practical application of 3D property concepts. Registration of 3D property. Modeling of 3D property. Standardization of 3D property.
6
See Paulsson (2007) for references.
11
Most publications in the legal category describe national legislation. These publications are often limited to describing the authors’ own legal system, the need for and development of 3D property, e.g., in Onsrud (2003), or the forms of 3D property that exist nationally and how they are implemented into one’s own legal system, e.g., in Huml (2001). A reason for focusing on national 3D property may be that the researchers most likely are more familiar with their own society’s needs regarding 3D property forms and how such property could be implemented in the legal system of the researcher’s country. One advantage that national research possesses over international research is that the native researcher has access to a larger amount of research material, such as legal drafts, ordinances and legal material written in the national language. It is thus easier to start 3D property research at home before expanding the research activities internationally. Another aspect is that 3D property legislation is a relatively new legal concept, which may explain the focus on the need for national 3D property legislation and its development and implementation. Therefore, it is natural to focus on actual case studies when describing the implementation of 3D property legislation and the result of such implementation, such as how legislation is applied to a certain project or area in the country or state (Eriksson & Adolfsson, 2006). Although publications often describe the current system or the need for and ways to develop such a system, these publications are not only of interest to domestic readers but also to all researchers in this field who wish to make international comparisons and find solutions that can be implemented in other legal systems. However, international matters and the comparison of legislative systems do not appear as frequently as national studies during the studied period, although there are slightly more such studies in the second half of the period (e.g., Paulsson, 2007) than in the first half (e.g., Sandberg, 2003). Before the second 3D Delft workshop 2011, certain issues were identified to be investigated in detail and to define the scope of a future 3D cadastre. These issues included what type of 3D cadastral objects must be registered, the subdivision of subsurface infrastructure objects and the representation of the 3D cadastral object (van Oosterom, 2011). These issues relate to legal aspects, although the issues are primarily focused on registration. The position paper on the legal framework of 3D cadastres presented at the second 3D Delft workshop 2011 addressed the need for increased attention on legal aspects and the absence of common rules and terminology (Ploeger, 2011). Many research issues noted in the present study also include registration in relation to legal aspects, e.g., Sandberg (2003) and Viitanen (2001). Another noted trend is research on standardization in the field of 3D property rights, such as the study performed by the FIG Working Group on 3D cadastres with a global inventory of the status of 3D cadastres, future plans and expectations (van Oosterom, Stoter, Ploeger, Thompson, & Karki, 2011). Additionally, there have been discussions, for example, during the second 3D Delft workshop 2011, with the purpose of exchanging (national) knowledge and promoting consensus on important aspects of and methods to solve different problems related to 3D property (Banut, 2011). The modeling (or description) and standardization approaches gained increased awareness during the research period. This awareness seems due to a focus on the international exchange of property information in general, e.g., regarding the LADM standard. The LADM includes the legal aspects of land administration, such as ‘‘rights’’, ‘‘restrictions’’, and ‘‘responsibilities’’ (ISO, 2012, sections 4.1.18–4.1.20). EULIS, the European Land Information Service,7 is an initiative that provides land and real property
7
See http://eulis.eu/ (accessed September 29th, 2012).
12
J. Paulsson, J.M. Paasch / Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 40 (2013) 7–13
information (Ploeger & van Loenen, 2004;2005). The use of modeling principles to describe and document complex relations is not a new legal tool. For example, modeling was used 12 years ago and described as ‘‘finally adding method to madness’’ (Blackwell, 2000) by creating legal interaction diagrams that illustrate legal relations. Another important initiative is INSPIRE, Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE, 2007), which provides, for example, data specifications for specific spatial themes, such as administrative units and cadastral parcels.8 Another indication that modeling and standardization in 3D property are an increasing trend in 3D property research can be noted in the program for the third international FIG workshop on 3D cadastres in Shenzhen, China, October 2012.9 An entire section of this conference has been devoted to modeling, which has not been the case in previous 3D cadastre workshops. 5. Future research There are several ways in which the quantity of legal research could be increased, such as increasing the awareness of the distribution of research issues and their foci and promoting international discussions at conferences. To make the research results available to an international audience, increased contribution to and participation in international land management conferences is required combined with the publication of research in appropriate journals. In addition, conferences and journals not traditionally used to communicate 3D property research topics should be exploited. Participating in discussions with other researchers is fruitful in this respect. In other words, it may be useful for the development of legal 3D property research to persuade new conferences and journals as well as legal researchers not traditionally involved in cadastral research to pay more attention to 3D property. One important aspect is to increase the awareness of the need for legal research and why legal research can be considered to be the foundation for research on other, more technical aspects. As mentioned earlier, certain themes reappeared during the surveyed period. However, the same questions persisted, as also noted in Banut (2011). These questions concern, e.g., the absence of a common terminology and rules, which makes it difficult to compare solutions and develop guidelines (Banut, 2011, p. 2). The previous section described the general trends in legal research that could be identified in the studied publications. However, attention should also be directed to other legal aspects, such as the following:
Comparative studies on the use of 3D property concepts. An international perspective on publications. 3D property terminology. Delimitation and definition of 3D property. Cooperation between 3D property unit owners.
The survey has revealed a minor interest in comparative research on the use of 3D property concepts. It would be beneficial for the research community if the number of studies that compare national systems were increased and augmented by an international perspective on the national systems that considered their strengths and weaknesses. However, the authors do not consider the important but sporadic comparative research published during the study period as a current trend. Such research merely indicates an increased awareness toward this topic, which may relate to the creation of the LADM standard. Issues addressed by the discussions 8 See http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.cfm for INSPIRE data specifications, guidelines and regulations (accessed September 29th, 2012). 9 See http://www.cadastre2012.org/eProgramme.aspx (accessed September 29th, 2012).
during the second 3D Delft workshop 2011 (cf., e.g., Banut, 2011; Ploeger, 2011) might also result in increased future research activity on these topics, which could develop comparative 3D property research into a trend. In addition to publication in the local language, research on national systems and legislation should be written from an international perspective and, to an increased degree, be (re)published in English or at least provide an English summary of the main results to reach an international audience and promote the exchange of knowledge. An increased international perspective and an increased interest in international comparative research on 3D property rights is required to construct a theoretical foundation for existing 3D property concepts and their development. One particular problem related to the need for legal research is the lack of clear standardized terminology in the field (Paasch & Paulsson, 2011). Only a small number of papers have discussed terminological aspects or implementation issues, e.g., Paasch and Paulsson (2011) and Eriksson and Jansson (2010). The authors are aware that it may be practically impossible to establish domain-specific keywords that cover all aspects of 3D property research. The use of words and their correct interpretation has always played a central role in communication, and the legal domain is no exception (Glenn, 2004). The common denominator is that legal terms may be mistranslated. Therefore, any study of legal systems must address the question of to what extent that the words compared in the studied systems share the same meaning (Paasch & Paulsson, 2011; Van Hoecke, 2004). To promote the international exchange of information and experiences and to make it easier to find and understand research publications in the field of 3D property, the field’s terminology must be more consistent and standardized to a certain degree. Strongly related to terminology is the question of the delimitation and definition of 3D property. Without agreement regarding the delimitation and definition of 3D property, it is impossible to exchange or compare information. For example, the traditional (2D) property concept can also be termed threedimensional because in most legislation, there is no delimitation of property’s extension below or above the surface (Paasch & Paulsson, 2011). Suggested definitions of 3D property, e.g., that 3D property be delimited horizontally and vertically (Paulsson, 2007, p. 31), form the basis for further discussion and research. Cooperation between 3D property unit owners is also a topic that deserves more attention. When studying different systems for 3D property internationally, there are, as mentioned in Section 3, certain key factors that seem to be important for a successful and lasting system for 3D property, regardless of the form of 3D property and the legal system. Many of the factors relate to management aspects, which can be identified as an important area that requires new rules. In this study, the management aspects have been assigned to the organizational category, including dispute resolution and insurance solutions. These aspects are important. However, in the studied publications, these aspects are not addressed to a significant extent. In addition, these aspects are related to 3D property’s legal aspects. Other key factors are related to the delimitation of property units, the definition of common property, the creation of easements and the forms of cooperation between property unit owners, which are issues that belong to the legal category. Because these factors have created problems in 3D property systems and resulted in amendments to the legislation of several countries (Paulsson, 2007), these questions must be discussed and solved within the scientific community and therefore included in future research.
J. Paulsson, J.M. Paasch / Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 40 (2013) 7–13
6. Conclusions Based on a survey of research on 3D property and the categories ’’legal’’, ’’technical’’, ’’registration’’ and ’’organizational’’ into which the surveyed publications were classified, it could be noted that the legal category constitutes a small part relative to the topic’s importance and its role as a foundation for other, more technical aspects. A problem identified in the survey concerns whether there should be more specific legal research on 3D property or if it suffices to include legal questions in the research of other non-legal topics that can be found in the publications. A foundation of results has been established by research and other work on the legal aspects of 3D property, e.g., the development of an ISO standard for land administration and the continuing research of the FIG 3D cadastres working group. However, based on this study’s results, further fundamental legal research on 3D property is required. Increased attention should be directed to international matters, such as comparative studies on the use of 3D property concepts, the development of an (international) 3D property terminology (including the delimitation and definition of 3D property) and cooperation between 3D property unit owners. This statement does not imply that existing research should be neglected or transformed into legal studies. Instead, legal aspects should form an independent research topic and not serve simply as a background for or introduction to more technical and non-legal research topics. References Aien, A., Rajabifard, A., Kalantari, M., & Williamson, I. (2011). Aspects of 3D cadastre – A case study in Victoria. In Proceedings of FIG working week 2011. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). Banut, R. (2011). Overview working sessions. Summary and conclusions. 2nd International workshop on 3D cadastres organized by FIG, EuroSDR and TU Delft, 16–18 November 2011, Delft, The Netherlands. Draft report. Kadaster, the Dutch Land Registry Office. Blackwell, T. (2000). Finally adding method to madness: Applying principles of object-orientated analysis and design to legislative drafting. Journal of legislation and public policy, 3(2), 227–293. Bogdan, M. (2004). On the value and method of rule-comparison in comparative law. In H.-P. Mansel, T. Pfeiffer, H. Kronke, C. Kohler, & R. Hausmann (Eds.), Festschrift für Erik Jayme (pp. 1233–1242). Munich, Germany: European Law Publishers. Caine, A. (2009). Spatial rights legislation in Israel – A 3D approach. In Proceedings of the FIG working week, Eilat, Israel, 2009. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). David, R., Szladits, Ch., Weir, T., Tschchikvadze, V.M., Zivs, S.L., Chehata, Ch., Derrett, J. D. M., Iyer, T. K. K., & Cotran, E. (1974). Structure and the divisions of the law. In R. David (Ed.). International encyclopedia of comparative law. The legal systems of the world: Their comparison and unification (Vol. 2). Tübingen, Germany: Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Doner, F., Demir, O., & Biyik, C. (2011). Need for three-dimensional cadastre in Turkey. In Proceedings of FIG working week, Marrakech, 2011. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). Eriksson, G., & Adolfsson, C. (2006). Experiences of the 3D cadastre legislation. In Proceedings of the XXIII international FIG congress, Munich, 2006. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). Eriksson, G., & Jansson, L. (2010). Strata titles are introduced in Sweden. In Proceedings of the XXIV international FIG congress, Sydney, Australia, 11–16 April 2010. Copenhagen: International organisation of Surveyors (FIG). Glenn, H. P. (2004). Legal cultures and legal traditions. In M. Van Hoecke (Ed.), Epistemology and methodology of comparative law (pp. 7–20). Oxford, England and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing. Huml, M. (2001). How to define real estate: 2D or 3D? Legal view, conditions and experiences in the Czech Republic. In Proceedings of the international workshop
13
on 3D cadastres, 2001, Delft (pp. 293–299). Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). INSPIRE (2007). Directive 2007/2/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 14 March 2007 establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the European community (INSPIRE). Official journal of the European Union, L 108/1, 25.4.2007. ISO (2012). ISO 19152:2012. Geographic information - Land Administration Domain Model (LADM). International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Lemmen, C. (2012). A domain model for land administration. Doctoral thesis. Delft: Delft University of Technology. Ng’ang’a, S., Sutherland, M., Cockburn, S., & Nichols, S. (2001). Toward a 3D marine Cadastre in support of good ocean governance. In Proceedings of the international workshop on 3D cadastres, 2001, Delft (pp. 99–114). Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). Onsrud, H. (2003). Making a cadastre law for 3D properties in Norway. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 27(July). 375–283. Paasch, J., & Paulsson, J. (2011). Terminological aspects concerning threedimensional real property. Nordic journal of surveying and real estate research, 8(1), 81–97. Paulsson, J. (2007). 3D property rights – An analysis of key factors based on international experience. Report 4:99. Doctoral thesis. Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology. Paulsson, J., & Paasch, J. (2011). 3D property research – A survey of the occurrence of legal topics in publications. In Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on 3D cadastres, 16–18 November 2011, Delft, The Netherlands. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). Ploeger, H. (2011). Legal framework 3D cadastres. Position paper 1. In Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on 3D cadastres, 16–18 November 2011, Delft. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). Ploeger, H., & van Loenen, B. (2005). Harmonization of land registry in Europe. In Proceedings of the FIG working week 2005 and 8th international conference on the global spatial data infrastructure (GSDI-8), 16–21 April 2005, Cairo, Egypt. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). Ploeger, H., & van Loenen, B. (2004). EULIS – At the beginning of the road to harmonization of land registry in Europe. European review of private law, 3, 379–387. Sandberg, H. (2003). Three-dimensional partition and registration of subsurface space. Israel law review, 37(1), 119–167. Sutherland, M. (2001). Domain description organizational (conceptual) aspects. In Proceedings of the international workshop on 3D cadastres, 2001, Delft (pp. 321– 322). Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). Valstad, T. (2010). At Last! After 10 years in waiting Norway has a new cadastral law that also includes 3D objects. In Proceedings of the XXIV international FIG congress, 2010, Sydney. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). van der Merwe, C. G. (1994). Apartment ownership. In A.N. Yiannopoulos (Ed.). International encyclopedia of comparative law. Property and trust (Vol. 6). Tübingen, Germany: Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Van Hoecke, M. (2004). Deep level comparative law. In M. Van Hoecke (Ed.), Epistemology and methodology of comparative law (pp. 165–195). Oxford, England and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing. van Oosterom, P. (2011). Preface. In Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on 3D Cadastres, 16–18 November 2011, Delft, the Netherlands. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). van Oosterom, P. J. M., Stoter, J. E., Fendel, E. M. (Eds.) (2001). Registration of properties in strata. International workshop on ‘‘3D Cadastres’’. Proceedings, 28–30 November, 2001, Delft, the Netherlands. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). van Oosterom, P., Stoter, J., Ploeger, H., Thompson, R., & Karki, S. (2011). World-wide inventory of the status of 3D cadastres in 2010 and expectations for 2014. In Proceedings of the FIG working week, Marrakech, Morocco, 18–22 May 2011. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). van Oosterom, P., Fendel, E., Stoter, J., & Streilein, A. (2011). Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on 3D Cadastres, 16–18 November 2011, Delft. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). Viitanen, K. (2001). 3D Property ownership 3D land use in Finland. In Proceedings of the international workshop on 3D cadastres, 2001, Delft (pp. 91–97). Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). von Bar, C. (2004). Comparative law of obligations: Methodology and epistemology. In M. Van Hoecke (Ed.), Epistemology and methodology of comparative law (pp. 123–135). Oxford, England and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing. Zweigert, K., & Kötz, H. (1998). An introduction to comparative law (3rd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Computers, Environment and Urban Systems journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compenvurbsys
3D property research from a legal perspective Jenny Paulsson a,1, Jesper M. Paasch b,⇑ a b
KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Real Estate Planning and Land Law, Brinellvägen 1, 10044 Stockholm, Sweden Lantmäteriet [Swedish Mapping, Cadastral and Land Registration Authority], 80182 Gävle, Sweden
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history: Available online 26 January 2013 Keywords: 3D property 3D cadastre Classification Legislation
a b s t r a c t This article investigates and discusses 3D property research, as evidenced by conference papers and other publications written in English, to analyze the distribution of interest areas and the occurrence of legal aspects and trends within 3D property research occurring between 2001 and 2011. A total of 156 publications on 3D property were examined. The publications were classified in four different categories, which represent different aspects of 3D property: legal, technical, registration and organizational. More 3D property research has been conducted on technical aspects and registration than legal aspects. In the legal category, most studies addressed national legislation and the practical use of (national) legislation. The authors believe that further fundamental legal research on 3D property is needed. The quantity of research could be increased, for example, by promoting international discussion and increasing the number of comparative legal studies on 3D property rights. Additional and more focused attention should be given to international matters, such as comparative studies on the use of 3D property concepts, the development of (international) 3D property terminology and cooperation between 3D property unit owners. Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction This article is partly based on a presentation (Paulsson & Paasch, 2011) given at the second 3D cadastre workshop in Delft in 2011 (van Oosterom, Fendel, Stoter, & Streilein, 2011) (hereafter referred to as the second 3D Delft workshop 2011) and continues the workshop discussion on the content of 3D property research (Banut, 2011).
It seems reasonable to investigate the legal issues on which the 3D property research community should focus. The reason to survey 3D property publications is that, to the authors’ knowledge, no such literature survey exists. The authors believe that the scientific community would benefit from a survey and discussion of current trends in 3D property research as a stimulus to further discussion regarding where research in the field is or should be heading. 1.2. Aim
1.1. Background 3D property has been the subject of increased research activity during the last decade. The research has covered a number of topics ranging from legislative aspects to data management and visualization. Although 3D property has a foundation in legislation, the authors have noted a tendency to focus on non-legal, e.g., technical, questions in 3D property research rather than on legal issues, which are the basis of 3D property. This observation is supported by the discussions during the second 3D Delft workshop 2011, which resulted in a conclusion by the Legal Framework for 3D Cadastres working session that further research on the legal aspects is required (Banut, 2011, pp. 3–4). This conclusion raises the question of how research on legal aspects should be increased. ⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 26 633301; fax: +46 26 634710. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Paulsson), [email protected] (J.M. Paasch). 1 Tel.: +46 8 7906661; fax: +46 8 7907367. 0198-9715/$ - see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2012.11.004
This article aims to investigate and discuss 3D property research, as evidenced by conference papers and other publications written in English, to analyze the distribution of interest areas and the occurrence of legal aspects and trends. The outcome is threefold: (1) a presentation of the thematic distribution of 3D property publications for the period 2001–2011 according to a proposed classification system, (2) an identification of current trends in legal research on 3D property and (3) suggestions on how to increase the quantity of legal research and the aspects of the topic on which such research should focus. The intended readership is researchers who conduct 3D property research and land law specialists as well as academics and other professionals engaged in land transactions and management who have not previously engaged in the field. 1.3. Method and delimitation The methodological basis used in this article is a survey and analysis of publications on 3D property.
8
J. Paulsson, J.M. Paasch / Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 40 (2013) 7–13
The authors first develop a classification system suitable for dividing 3D property research into categories. Next, a study of the thematic distribution of 3D property publications is conducted, and the publications are then classified according to the proposed classification system. The survey identifies current trends in legal research. Suggestions are offered on how to increase the quantity of legal research in the field in addition to the aspects of the topic on which future research should focus. Many publications on 3D property exist. Therefore, the study has been limited to the literature published between 2001 and 2011 that is listed on the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) 3D cadastre working group website.2 The reason to concentrate on the last decade is that the first 3D cadastre conference in Delft in 2001 (van Oosterom, Stoter, & Fendel 2001) (hereafter referred to as the first 3D Delft workshop 2001) was a starting point for organized international activity in 3D property research. The publications listed at the FIG website were selected for study because the list is the result of the cooperation of researchers active in the 3D property field and therefore a representative overview of the research that has been conducted. However, the FIG publications are intended for an international audience and therefore written in English. This requirement limits the number of publications, particularly on national 3D property issues, which are to a considerable extent published in the language of the country studied because the research possesses a primarily national interest. Thus, these publications are inaccessible to the international community. In Section 5, the availability of non-English publications is addressed in regard to future research. The theme of each publication is analyzed and assigned to one of four categories. The classification system used in this article is described in Section 1.4. The survey revealed that most publications could be assigned to more than one category. Often, two or even three themes were addressed in the same text. This methodological problem of inconsistent data is solved by introducing socalled primary and secondary themes into the categories. The primary theme is the dominant theme in each publication and used as a basis for thematic classification. The secondary theme is the less dominant theme (or themes) of the publication. The primary and secondary themes do not belong to the discussion of the thematic distribution of publications between the categories. Instead, they comprise a discussion in the legal analysis. The legal theme is of particular interest for this study and analyzed in regard to its legal context, such as the development of legislation and implementation, in Section 4. Based on the analysis, legal trends in 3D property research are identified and discussed. Section 5 discusses how to increase legal research and how to stimulate interest in topics that have been neglected in 3D property legal research during the last decade. The publications exhibit a large variety in research approach, structure and scope. They range from conference proceedings of a few pages to doctoral theses that provide in-depth analyses of 3D property issues. Initially, the authors investigated whether it was scientifically reliable to classify each publication using the keywords, where available, to describe the content. However, it soon became obvious that most keywords were not suitable for use in classification. The majority of the keywords are highly general, such as ‘‘3D cadastre’’ and ‘‘Land management’’, and therefore could not be used for classification. This terminological inconsistency of keywords is discussed in Section 4.2. The survey describes the thematic distribution of in total 156 publications, which cover 3D property research in Europe, North America, South America, Africa, Asia and Australia.
2
www.gdmc.nl/3DCadastres/literature/ (accessed September 29th, 2012).
This study should not be considered comprehensive. Instead, the study attempts to illustrate the distribution of research activities as a basis for discussion on increasing the awareness of legal issues in 3D property research. A survey on national language publications, rather than publications in English, would be a valuable contribution to this type of research. However, for practical reasons, such a survey has been omitted from this study. In addition to the presentation of results in Section 3, an analysis of the legal research is performed and the trends of the studied period are identified, which reveals, e.g., the distribution of research classified into major topics. The quantity of collected data is too limited to use in a detailed statistical trend analysis. However, the major trends are analyzed. 1.4. Classification To discuss the distribution of the topics addressed in 3D property research, a standardized structure for classifying the topics is required. Any classification is the result of the intentions of the classifier. The content of and differentiation between the groups can be discussed, and a strictly objective result may not be achieved. To the authors’ knowledge, a standardized system for the classification of 3D property (or other real property) research topics does not exist. However, different attempts have been made. Three examples of the classification of topics are as follows: (1) the first 3D Delft workshop 2001, where the sessions were divided into three categories: technical; legal and organizational, (2) the second 3D Delft workshop 2011, where the sessions were divided into four categories: legal framework 3D cadastres, initial registration of 3D parcels, 3D data management and visualization, distribution and delivery of 3D parcels and (3) the classification provided by Aien, Rajabifard, Kalantari, and Williamson (2011), which provides three general categories of 3D cadastre: legal, technical and institutional. According to Aien et al., the legal aspect supports the registration of 3D properties in a 3D cadastre. Technical aspects refer to the use and knowledge of methods, models and tools to perform 3D cadastre, such as the progress in computers and data-capture methods. Cadastres are only meaningful when they exist in an institutional context, e.g., by defining tasks and responsibilities of the public registration administration. The institutional aspects can be divided into categories, e.g., the execution and protection of regulations and the provision of unified 3D concepts, such as the apartment, 3D ownership and 3D property. The categories listed above are useful for the classification of 3D property research. However, as a basis for the literature survey, a more nuanced classification may be required. The legal session of the first 3D Delft workshop 2001 and the legal framework 3D cadastres session of the second 3D Delft workshop resemble the legal category of Aien et al. (2011). The initial registration of 3D parcels and 3D data management and visualization, distribution and delivery of 3D parcels categories of the second 3D Delft workshop 2011 seem to correspond to the technical categories used during the first 3D Delft workshop 2001 and in Aien et al., based on the content of the presentations. The organizational category of the first workshop corresponds to the institutional category of Aien et al. but was not represented by a session of the second 3D Delft workshop 2011. The standardization of categories of 3D property research may be a subject for future discussion and is outside the scope of this article. Questions such as the development and implementation of legislation and the creation of a legal framework belong to the legal domain. Arguably, the registration of 3D property is part of the legal framework because the existence of a legal system is a precondition for legal enforcement through registration. However, it may
J. Paulsson, J.M. Paasch / Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 40 (2013) 7–13
also be argued that registration should be included in the technical category due to the use of, for example, data systems and data storage in registration. Therefore, the somewhat ambiguous term ‘‘registration’’ has been treated as an independent topic in this study and includes topics such as data storage and the maintenance of cadastral information in land administration and management systems, spatial and temporal dimensions, data integration and height-representation purposes. In this study, registration is primarily considered a (semi-)technical aspect, which would make it possible to consider the technical and registration categories together in comparison with the legal category. Cadastres aim to register the legal status of and property rights associated with land and must progress toward improved cadastral management to prevent future registration complications (Banut, 2011, p. 2). Therefore, it is relevant to designate registration as a separate category. Technical issues, such as spatial data infrastructure, data modeling, database management, geographic information systems (GIS), visualization and geometrical representation, cadastral surveying, geometry, topology and data-exchange formats as well as technical questions that relate to distribution and delivery and the technical aspects of the international standard for land administration ISO 19152 – Land Administration Domain Model (LADM) (ISO, 2012),3 are related to the technical aspects of 3D property. ‘‘Institutional’’ is a more limited term than ‘‘organizational’’. Therefore, in the following classification, ‘‘organizational’’ is proposed as a category. This category includes how properties are organized and financed and how public and private institutions act and interact to organize the development and implementation of 3D property. Organizations and good governance address, e.g., understanding the need for 3D cadastral information, collaboration, cooperation and the integration of organizations and organizational structures (Sutherland, 2001, p. 321). Operational aspects include the need to understand policy and strategy to optimize operations, task design, optimal database design and implementation to meet client needs and organizational goals. Additionally, operational aspects include methods of 3D cadastral data collection, processing and output (Sutherland, 2011, p. 322). Based on the above considerations, the authors use the following four categories for classification: Legal, Technical, Registration and Organizational. Legal: The legal category contains publications on topics such as real property rights, restrictions, responsibilities, real property, superficies solo credit, security of tenure, legislation, subdivision, spatial planning, legal objects and the legal framework. Technical: The technical category contains publications on topics such as database management, spatial data infrastructure, data models, GIS, visualization and geometrical representation, cadastral surveying, geometry, topology, exchange formats and the technical aspects of distribution and delivery. Registration: The registration category contains publications on matters that concern the registration of 3D property in land administration systems, such as the content, storage, structure and maintenance of 3D property information. ‘‘Land administration system’’ refers to any system that stores 3D property information, such as land registers and purpose cadastres. Organizational: The organizational category contains publications on institutional, management and capacity-building issues. Organization is primarily a question of efficiency and how to organize and manage 3D property. Examples of organizational issues include good governance, operational aspects and financial aspects.
3
See Lemmen (2012) for an introduction.
9
2. Legal aspects of 3D property There is no given structure in law. One approach to structuring the legal domain is to divide it into smaller parts, ranging from the fundamental question regarding what law is to the question of the development of different legal ’’families’’ or other classification systems, see Zweigert and Kötz (1998). Any classification occurs according to the conditions and principles determined and applied by the classifier and are therefore to a certain extent subjective. Many difficulties are connected with comparative studies of legal systems, which must be considered when interpreting the results.4 That legislation and practice are constantly changing makes it difficult to maintain a static perspective in a comparison. Although rule comparison is a common means to perform comparative legal studies, there are other ways to perform legal research. To understand the rules, the legal and non-legal context of the rules must also be considered. Legislation is a foundation of 3D property. Without proper legislation, 3D properties cannot be formed. The technical, registration and organizational aspects are more pragmatic. Therefore, the legal foundation should be established before the application of a 3D cadastral system can be discussed. Related to the difficulty of establishing a common terminology for 3D property is the international variety of such property, which makes it difficult to make comparisons in this field and to understand which research is related to 3D property. Internationally, we find a number of different concepts of 3D property rights.5 These concepts are related to using or owning a three-dimensionally delimited part of a property volume. The concepts have different names in different parts of the world, and the types vary with the national legal system. However, it is still possible to fit the concepts into more general categories with similar features. The most prevalent concepts are the independent 3D property and the condominium (also known as apartment ownership), which can be found in several countries around the world. The independent 3D property refers to a volume of space that is subdivided and separated from the remainder of the property. Often, the space is a larger unit that includes several apartments or offices or a space that is used for infrastructure facilities, such as tunnels. The condominium 3D property concept can be found throughout the world. A condominium is typically a combination of the ownership right to a specific part of a building combined with a share in the common property that surrounds the condominium (the land on which the building stands, the staircases and other facilities) and mandatory membership in the owners’ association. The concept is used to subdivide a building into several separately owned apartment units. Two main sub-types of condominium ownership are the condominium ownership model and the condominium user right model. In the condominium ownership model, the apartment is owned independently, similar to a piece of land, and regarded as a real property unit, whereas the land on which the apartments stand and the common parts of the building are jointly owned. In the condominium user right model, the condominium owners jointly own the building and the surrounding grounds. The individual owner possesses only a certain share in the common property, to which an exclusive right to use a specific apartment in the building is connected (Paulsson, 2007). Other types of 3D property rights are, e.g., the indirect ownership forms, including tenant-ownership, where a tenant-owner association owns the apartment building and the land on which the building stands and the members provide capital for the right to use the apartment. This concept is common in Sweden. Another example is 4 See von Bar (2004), Bogdan (2004), David et al. (1974, Chap. 2), Van Hoecke (2004) and Zweigert and Kötz (1998). 5 For a more detailed survey of these concepts and types, see Paulsson (2007).
10
J. Paulsson, J.M. Paasch / Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 40 (2013) 7–13
the limited company system, where a joint stock company owns the property, whereas the residents, by acquiring shares in this company, obtain the right to exclusively use one of the building’s apartments. This concept is common in Finland. The structure, principles and rules for 3D property are basically similar for different countries and legal systems. The actual problems appear to be the same but are typically solved differently in each country (van der Merwe, 1994, chap. 5). From the perspective of international studies, a number of key factors related to 3D property that seem to be important to problem-solving and common to most forms and systems can be discerned. These factors include the delimitation of property units, the definition of common property, the forms of cooperation between property unit owners, management and regulation issues, as well as the settlement of disputes and insurance solutions (Paulsson, 2007). Case studies have shown that more or less substantial amendments to statutes have been required in these areas, with shortcomings persisting after many years of use and changes continuing to be made (Paulsson, 2007).
3. The literature survey 3.1. Results The results of the literature survey are divided into two parts. The number of publications that belong to each category and the content of the legal category are presented.
3.1.1. Distribution between categories A total of 28 of the 156 analyzed publications were assigned to the legal category, 63 to the technical category, 59 to the registration category and six to the organizational category. The number of contributions in the categories varies during the studied decade (Table 1). The largest number of contributions was in 2011, the last year of the period, when 52 publications were published in total. The years 2001 and 2011 were the most productive years during the surveyed period due to the first and second special conferences on 3D cadastre that occurred in those years. The year 2007 produced the lowest number of publications during the surveyed period with one publication in the legal and technical categories each. The legal category is the second-least researched among the categories. With six publications, the organizational category is smaller. The legal contributions increased numerically in 2011, as have the contributions in the other categories. In addition, the survey revealed that most publications could be assigned to more than one category, e.g., legal and registration or technical and registration. These secondary subjects are marked with () in Table 1.
Table 1 Surveyed 3D property publications, 2001–2011. () = secondary subjects. Year
Legal
Technical
Registration
Organizational
Total/year
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
7 2 3 0 0 2 1 2 1 2 8
(9) (1) (5) (3) (3) (2) (0) (0) (1) (4) (15)
10 (5) 2 (2) 8 (0) 5 (3) 4 (1) 3 (1) 1 (0) 0 (1) 3 (0) 5 (2) 22 (3)
11 (6) 4 (3) 4 (7) 4 (3) 6 (0) 4 (3) 0 (0) 2 (0) 2 (1) 3 (1) 19 (11)
2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3
30 (27) 8 (7) 16 (15) 9 (10) 10 (4) 9 (6) 2 (1) 4 (4) 6 (2) 10 (9) 52 (36)
Total
28 (43)
63 (18)
59 (35)
6 (25)
(7) (1) (3) (1) (0) (0) (1) (3) (0) (2) (7)
156 (121)
4. Analysis 4.1. Legal research Technical, registration and organizational issues are important if 3D property information is to be transferred, registered, organized and presented in a socially acceptable manner. However, these activities cannot be performed without a legal foundation. All transferred, registered, and visualized information is based on legislation. As can be observed in Table 1, many publications described more than one subject. Legal issues were often described as secondary subjects, for example, as an introduction to technical and registration issues. Perhaps these introductory descriptions of legal issues cannot (and should not) be avoided in non-legal publications. However, certain researchers could have assumed that the legal foundation already exists and described problems and applications based on that assumption, which may be one explanation for the low number of legal contributions to 3D property research during the investigated period. Of the 28 publications assigned to the legal category, the majority addressed more than one legal aspect. These aspects include, to a greater or lesser extent, the development and description of national 3D property legislation, the international comparison of 3D property concepts and legislation, terminology, studies on domestic 3D property solutions, studies on other national legal 3D property systems and comparative analysis, and the practical use and implementation of legislation. The contributions were evenly distributed among these themes. However, most of the contributions described national legislation and the practical use of (national) legislation.
4.2. Classification According to the survey, the legal aspects constitute a small portion of the current research on 3D property. Particularly when the legal category is contrasted with the other three categories (technical, registration and organizational) combined, the difference is considerable. In the classification, it was occasionally difficult to determine to which of the technical and registration categories a publication should be assigned. According to the survey, there is a tendency for several publications to address more than a single topic. Therefore, it was difficult to classify all of the publications precisely. Of course, a discussion of certain aspects might have been required to introduce a topic. However, the scientific contribution would be more focused if publications would present one or perhaps two topics and not include legal, technical, registration and organizational topics in the same article. For example, several publications start by briefly mentioning legal aspects in the introduction but proceed to a technical or registration aspect without connecting these new topics to the legal aspects. Therefore, it is questionable whether such publications should be included in the legal category. In the publications that are assigned to the legal category or the other groups, there are few contributions that concern terminology. These results agree with the conclusions of Paasch and Paulsson (2011). The first 3D Delft workshop 2001 discussed the terminology problems to a certain extent. However, since then, little research related to this problem seems to have been performed until the contributions to this topic of the second 3D Delft workshop 2011. The lack of a clear, primary terminology for the general concepts of 3D property makes it difficult to standardize what ‘‘3D property’’ means. For example, the term ‘‘3D cadastre’’ is occasionally used to describe the actual property registration system(s). However, the phrase is also used as a general term for threedimensional real property. Similarly, it was impossible to use the
J. Paulsson, J.M. Paasch / Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 40 (2013) 7–13
keywords of the publications as a guide to classification because the keywords may signify different things to different researchers. Other terms for 3D property can also be found. Not all of these terms include ‘‘3D’’ or ‘‘three-dimensional’’, which makes it difficult to discern which publications actually address the 3D property issue. Certain publications refer to ‘‘multi-functional’’ or ‘‘multiple’’, whereas other publications discuss ‘‘space’’, ‘‘volume’’ or ‘‘horizontal subdivision’’. Three-dimensional property in Australian legislation is often referred to by the terms ‘‘stratum’’ or ‘‘strata title’’. In the United States, ‘‘airspace rights’’ is used as a term for such property.6 For obvious reasons, terminology from countries where little is published in English on 3D property rights is more difficult to access and therefore to detect when searching for publications on 3D property research. Terms can also be translated differently into English, even by different authors from the same country, thereby increasing the difficulty of conducting comparative legal 3D property studies. 4.3. Trends in legal 3D property research When attempting to identify trends in 3D property research, it is difficult to determine what a new trend is. A trend can be new in one country but old in another. Ten years is a brief period, and the studied publications in the legal category are too few to facilitate a more thorough analysis of the legal content. Trends in 3D property research are related to social developments, such as a need for new types of 3D property for new purposes. For example, the development of apartment ownership in Sweden was related to political change, and the need to define 3D property for infrastructure, such as railway tunnels, results from the needs in urban areas for property rights to accommodate infrastructure. Such general trends can be found in the studied publications. Whereas certain trends have existed for a longer period of time, others have emerged recently. Based only on the publications surveyed in this study, there are certain countries where researchers seem to focus more on legal than non-legal aspects. For example, the Scandinavian countries seem to be particularly active in this area (e.g., Eriksson & Jansson, 2010; Valstad, 2010). Other countries where such research is performed include, for example, Israel (e.g., Caine, 2009), Australia (e.g., Aien et al., 2011), Canada (e.g., Ng’ang’a et al., 2001), Turkey (e.g., Doner, Demir, & Biyik, 2011), the Czech Republic (e.g., Huml, 2001) and the Netherlands (e.g., Ploeger, 2011). This scholarly activity correlates to a certain extent with countries that have already fully developed a system for 3D property rights, particularly with respect to independent 3D property and condominium types. In contrast, other countries seem to have more researchers active in the field of non-legal 3D property research. Certain themes reappear regularly in the publications during the studied period, and some of these themes are evenly distributed over the years. These themes indicate the trends in legal 3D property research activity during the studied period. The major trends can be related to the following categories:
Description of the need for national 3D property. Development of national 3D property legislation. Implementation of national 3D property legislation. Case studies on national 3D property. Practical application of 3D property concepts. Registration of 3D property. Modeling of 3D property. Standardization of 3D property.
6
See Paulsson (2007) for references.
11
Most publications in the legal category describe national legislation. These publications are often limited to describing the authors’ own legal system, the need for and development of 3D property, e.g., in Onsrud (2003), or the forms of 3D property that exist nationally and how they are implemented into one’s own legal system, e.g., in Huml (2001). A reason for focusing on national 3D property may be that the researchers most likely are more familiar with their own society’s needs regarding 3D property forms and how such property could be implemented in the legal system of the researcher’s country. One advantage that national research possesses over international research is that the native researcher has access to a larger amount of research material, such as legal drafts, ordinances and legal material written in the national language. It is thus easier to start 3D property research at home before expanding the research activities internationally. Another aspect is that 3D property legislation is a relatively new legal concept, which may explain the focus on the need for national 3D property legislation and its development and implementation. Therefore, it is natural to focus on actual case studies when describing the implementation of 3D property legislation and the result of such implementation, such as how legislation is applied to a certain project or area in the country or state (Eriksson & Adolfsson, 2006). Although publications often describe the current system or the need for and ways to develop such a system, these publications are not only of interest to domestic readers but also to all researchers in this field who wish to make international comparisons and find solutions that can be implemented in other legal systems. However, international matters and the comparison of legislative systems do not appear as frequently as national studies during the studied period, although there are slightly more such studies in the second half of the period (e.g., Paulsson, 2007) than in the first half (e.g., Sandberg, 2003). Before the second 3D Delft workshop 2011, certain issues were identified to be investigated in detail and to define the scope of a future 3D cadastre. These issues included what type of 3D cadastral objects must be registered, the subdivision of subsurface infrastructure objects and the representation of the 3D cadastral object (van Oosterom, 2011). These issues relate to legal aspects, although the issues are primarily focused on registration. The position paper on the legal framework of 3D cadastres presented at the second 3D Delft workshop 2011 addressed the need for increased attention on legal aspects and the absence of common rules and terminology (Ploeger, 2011). Many research issues noted in the present study also include registration in relation to legal aspects, e.g., Sandberg (2003) and Viitanen (2001). Another noted trend is research on standardization in the field of 3D property rights, such as the study performed by the FIG Working Group on 3D cadastres with a global inventory of the status of 3D cadastres, future plans and expectations (van Oosterom, Stoter, Ploeger, Thompson, & Karki, 2011). Additionally, there have been discussions, for example, during the second 3D Delft workshop 2011, with the purpose of exchanging (national) knowledge and promoting consensus on important aspects of and methods to solve different problems related to 3D property (Banut, 2011). The modeling (or description) and standardization approaches gained increased awareness during the research period. This awareness seems due to a focus on the international exchange of property information in general, e.g., regarding the LADM standard. The LADM includes the legal aspects of land administration, such as ‘‘rights’’, ‘‘restrictions’’, and ‘‘responsibilities’’ (ISO, 2012, sections 4.1.18–4.1.20). EULIS, the European Land Information Service,7 is an initiative that provides land and real property
7
See http://eulis.eu/ (accessed September 29th, 2012).
12
J. Paulsson, J.M. Paasch / Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 40 (2013) 7–13
information (Ploeger & van Loenen, 2004;2005). The use of modeling principles to describe and document complex relations is not a new legal tool. For example, modeling was used 12 years ago and described as ‘‘finally adding method to madness’’ (Blackwell, 2000) by creating legal interaction diagrams that illustrate legal relations. Another important initiative is INSPIRE, Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community (INSPIRE, 2007), which provides, for example, data specifications for specific spatial themes, such as administrative units and cadastral parcels.8 Another indication that modeling and standardization in 3D property are an increasing trend in 3D property research can be noted in the program for the third international FIG workshop on 3D cadastres in Shenzhen, China, October 2012.9 An entire section of this conference has been devoted to modeling, which has not been the case in previous 3D cadastre workshops. 5. Future research There are several ways in which the quantity of legal research could be increased, such as increasing the awareness of the distribution of research issues and their foci and promoting international discussions at conferences. To make the research results available to an international audience, increased contribution to and participation in international land management conferences is required combined with the publication of research in appropriate journals. In addition, conferences and journals not traditionally used to communicate 3D property research topics should be exploited. Participating in discussions with other researchers is fruitful in this respect. In other words, it may be useful for the development of legal 3D property research to persuade new conferences and journals as well as legal researchers not traditionally involved in cadastral research to pay more attention to 3D property. One important aspect is to increase the awareness of the need for legal research and why legal research can be considered to be the foundation for research on other, more technical aspects. As mentioned earlier, certain themes reappeared during the surveyed period. However, the same questions persisted, as also noted in Banut (2011). These questions concern, e.g., the absence of a common terminology and rules, which makes it difficult to compare solutions and develop guidelines (Banut, 2011, p. 2). The previous section described the general trends in legal research that could be identified in the studied publications. However, attention should also be directed to other legal aspects, such as the following:
Comparative studies on the use of 3D property concepts. An international perspective on publications. 3D property terminology. Delimitation and definition of 3D property. Cooperation between 3D property unit owners.
The survey has revealed a minor interest in comparative research on the use of 3D property concepts. It would be beneficial for the research community if the number of studies that compare national systems were increased and augmented by an international perspective on the national systems that considered their strengths and weaknesses. However, the authors do not consider the important but sporadic comparative research published during the study period as a current trend. Such research merely indicates an increased awareness toward this topic, which may relate to the creation of the LADM standard. Issues addressed by the discussions 8 See http://inspire.jrc.ec.europa.eu/index.cfm for INSPIRE data specifications, guidelines and regulations (accessed September 29th, 2012). 9 See http://www.cadastre2012.org/eProgramme.aspx (accessed September 29th, 2012).
during the second 3D Delft workshop 2011 (cf., e.g., Banut, 2011; Ploeger, 2011) might also result in increased future research activity on these topics, which could develop comparative 3D property research into a trend. In addition to publication in the local language, research on national systems and legislation should be written from an international perspective and, to an increased degree, be (re)published in English or at least provide an English summary of the main results to reach an international audience and promote the exchange of knowledge. An increased international perspective and an increased interest in international comparative research on 3D property rights is required to construct a theoretical foundation for existing 3D property concepts and their development. One particular problem related to the need for legal research is the lack of clear standardized terminology in the field (Paasch & Paulsson, 2011). Only a small number of papers have discussed terminological aspects or implementation issues, e.g., Paasch and Paulsson (2011) and Eriksson and Jansson (2010). The authors are aware that it may be practically impossible to establish domain-specific keywords that cover all aspects of 3D property research. The use of words and their correct interpretation has always played a central role in communication, and the legal domain is no exception (Glenn, 2004). The common denominator is that legal terms may be mistranslated. Therefore, any study of legal systems must address the question of to what extent that the words compared in the studied systems share the same meaning (Paasch & Paulsson, 2011; Van Hoecke, 2004). To promote the international exchange of information and experiences and to make it easier to find and understand research publications in the field of 3D property, the field’s terminology must be more consistent and standardized to a certain degree. Strongly related to terminology is the question of the delimitation and definition of 3D property. Without agreement regarding the delimitation and definition of 3D property, it is impossible to exchange or compare information. For example, the traditional (2D) property concept can also be termed threedimensional because in most legislation, there is no delimitation of property’s extension below or above the surface (Paasch & Paulsson, 2011). Suggested definitions of 3D property, e.g., that 3D property be delimited horizontally and vertically (Paulsson, 2007, p. 31), form the basis for further discussion and research. Cooperation between 3D property unit owners is also a topic that deserves more attention. When studying different systems for 3D property internationally, there are, as mentioned in Section 3, certain key factors that seem to be important for a successful and lasting system for 3D property, regardless of the form of 3D property and the legal system. Many of the factors relate to management aspects, which can be identified as an important area that requires new rules. In this study, the management aspects have been assigned to the organizational category, including dispute resolution and insurance solutions. These aspects are important. However, in the studied publications, these aspects are not addressed to a significant extent. In addition, these aspects are related to 3D property’s legal aspects. Other key factors are related to the delimitation of property units, the definition of common property, the creation of easements and the forms of cooperation between property unit owners, which are issues that belong to the legal category. Because these factors have created problems in 3D property systems and resulted in amendments to the legislation of several countries (Paulsson, 2007), these questions must be discussed and solved within the scientific community and therefore included in future research.
J. Paulsson, J.M. Paasch / Computers, Environment and Urban Systems 40 (2013) 7–13
6. Conclusions Based on a survey of research on 3D property and the categories ’’legal’’, ’’technical’’, ’’registration’’ and ’’organizational’’ into which the surveyed publications were classified, it could be noted that the legal category constitutes a small part relative to the topic’s importance and its role as a foundation for other, more technical aspects. A problem identified in the survey concerns whether there should be more specific legal research on 3D property or if it suffices to include legal questions in the research of other non-legal topics that can be found in the publications. A foundation of results has been established by research and other work on the legal aspects of 3D property, e.g., the development of an ISO standard for land administration and the continuing research of the FIG 3D cadastres working group. However, based on this study’s results, further fundamental legal research on 3D property is required. Increased attention should be directed to international matters, such as comparative studies on the use of 3D property concepts, the development of an (international) 3D property terminology (including the delimitation and definition of 3D property) and cooperation between 3D property unit owners. This statement does not imply that existing research should be neglected or transformed into legal studies. Instead, legal aspects should form an independent research topic and not serve simply as a background for or introduction to more technical and non-legal research topics. References Aien, A., Rajabifard, A., Kalantari, M., & Williamson, I. (2011). Aspects of 3D cadastre – A case study in Victoria. In Proceedings of FIG working week 2011. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). Banut, R. (2011). Overview working sessions. Summary and conclusions. 2nd International workshop on 3D cadastres organized by FIG, EuroSDR and TU Delft, 16–18 November 2011, Delft, The Netherlands. Draft report. Kadaster, the Dutch Land Registry Office. Blackwell, T. (2000). Finally adding method to madness: Applying principles of object-orientated analysis and design to legislative drafting. Journal of legislation and public policy, 3(2), 227–293. Bogdan, M. (2004). On the value and method of rule-comparison in comparative law. In H.-P. Mansel, T. Pfeiffer, H. Kronke, C. Kohler, & R. Hausmann (Eds.), Festschrift für Erik Jayme (pp. 1233–1242). Munich, Germany: European Law Publishers. Caine, A. (2009). Spatial rights legislation in Israel – A 3D approach. In Proceedings of the FIG working week, Eilat, Israel, 2009. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). David, R., Szladits, Ch., Weir, T., Tschchikvadze, V.M., Zivs, S.L., Chehata, Ch., Derrett, J. D. M., Iyer, T. K. K., & Cotran, E. (1974). Structure and the divisions of the law. In R. David (Ed.). International encyclopedia of comparative law. The legal systems of the world: Their comparison and unification (Vol. 2). Tübingen, Germany: Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Doner, F., Demir, O., & Biyik, C. (2011). Need for three-dimensional cadastre in Turkey. In Proceedings of FIG working week, Marrakech, 2011. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). Eriksson, G., & Adolfsson, C. (2006). Experiences of the 3D cadastre legislation. In Proceedings of the XXIII international FIG congress, Munich, 2006. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). Eriksson, G., & Jansson, L. (2010). Strata titles are introduced in Sweden. In Proceedings of the XXIV international FIG congress, Sydney, Australia, 11–16 April 2010. Copenhagen: International organisation of Surveyors (FIG). Glenn, H. P. (2004). Legal cultures and legal traditions. In M. Van Hoecke (Ed.), Epistemology and methodology of comparative law (pp. 7–20). Oxford, England and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing. Huml, M. (2001). How to define real estate: 2D or 3D? Legal view, conditions and experiences in the Czech Republic. In Proceedings of the international workshop
13
on 3D cadastres, 2001, Delft (pp. 293–299). Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). INSPIRE (2007). Directive 2007/2/EC of the European parliament and of the council of 14 March 2007 establishing an infrastructure for spatial information in the European community (INSPIRE). Official journal of the European Union, L 108/1, 25.4.2007. ISO (2012). ISO 19152:2012. Geographic information - Land Administration Domain Model (LADM). International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Lemmen, C. (2012). A domain model for land administration. Doctoral thesis. Delft: Delft University of Technology. Ng’ang’a, S., Sutherland, M., Cockburn, S., & Nichols, S. (2001). Toward a 3D marine Cadastre in support of good ocean governance. In Proceedings of the international workshop on 3D cadastres, 2001, Delft (pp. 99–114). Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). Onsrud, H. (2003). Making a cadastre law for 3D properties in Norway. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 27(July). 375–283. Paasch, J., & Paulsson, J. (2011). Terminological aspects concerning threedimensional real property. Nordic journal of surveying and real estate research, 8(1), 81–97. Paulsson, J. (2007). 3D property rights – An analysis of key factors based on international experience. Report 4:99. Doctoral thesis. Stockholm: KTH Royal Institute of Technology. Paulsson, J., & Paasch, J. (2011). 3D property research – A survey of the occurrence of legal topics in publications. In Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on 3D cadastres, 16–18 November 2011, Delft, The Netherlands. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). Ploeger, H. (2011). Legal framework 3D cadastres. Position paper 1. In Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on 3D cadastres, 16–18 November 2011, Delft. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). Ploeger, H., & van Loenen, B. (2005). Harmonization of land registry in Europe. In Proceedings of the FIG working week 2005 and 8th international conference on the global spatial data infrastructure (GSDI-8), 16–21 April 2005, Cairo, Egypt. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). Ploeger, H., & van Loenen, B. (2004). EULIS – At the beginning of the road to harmonization of land registry in Europe. European review of private law, 3, 379–387. Sandberg, H. (2003). Three-dimensional partition and registration of subsurface space. Israel law review, 37(1), 119–167. Sutherland, M. (2001). Domain description organizational (conceptual) aspects. In Proceedings of the international workshop on 3D cadastres, 2001, Delft (pp. 321– 322). Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). Valstad, T. (2010). At Last! After 10 years in waiting Norway has a new cadastral law that also includes 3D objects. In Proceedings of the XXIV international FIG congress, 2010, Sydney. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). van der Merwe, C. G. (1994). Apartment ownership. In A.N. Yiannopoulos (Ed.). International encyclopedia of comparative law. Property and trust (Vol. 6). Tübingen, Germany: Mohr (Paul Siebeck). Van Hoecke, M. (2004). Deep level comparative law. In M. Van Hoecke (Ed.), Epistemology and methodology of comparative law (pp. 165–195). Oxford, England and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing. van Oosterom, P. (2011). Preface. In Proceedings of the 2nd international workshop on 3D Cadastres, 16–18 November 2011, Delft, the Netherlands. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). van Oosterom, P. J. M., Stoter, J. E., Fendel, E. M. (Eds.) (2001). Registration of properties in strata. International workshop on ‘‘3D Cadastres’’. Proceedings, 28–30 November, 2001, Delft, the Netherlands. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). van Oosterom, P., Stoter, J., Ploeger, H., Thompson, R., & Karki, S. (2011). World-wide inventory of the status of 3D cadastres in 2010 and expectations for 2014. In Proceedings of the FIG working week, Marrakech, Morocco, 18–22 May 2011. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). van Oosterom, P., Fendel, E., Stoter, J., & Streilein, A. (2011). Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on 3D Cadastres, 16–18 November 2011, Delft. Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). Viitanen, K. (2001). 3D Property ownership 3D land use in Finland. In Proceedings of the international workshop on 3D cadastres, 2001, Delft (pp. 91–97). Copenhagen: International Federation of Surveyors (FIG). von Bar, C. (2004). Comparative law of obligations: Methodology and epistemology. In M. Van Hoecke (Ed.), Epistemology and methodology of comparative law (pp. 123–135). Oxford, England and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing. Zweigert, K., & Kötz, H. (1998). An introduction to comparative law (3rd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.