=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1570/paper08
|storemode=property
|title=How VGI Intersects with Land Administration
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1570/paper08.pdf
|volume=Vol-1570
|authors=Shima Rahmatizadeh,Mohsen Kalantari,Abbas Rajabifard,Serene Ho,Ali Daneshpour
}}
==How VGI Intersects with Land Administration==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1570/paper08.pdf
How VGI Intersects with Land
Administration
Shima Rahmatizadeh, Mohsen Kalantari, Abbas Rajabifard, Serene Ho,
and Ali Daneshpour
Center for SDI and Land administration, Department of Infrastructure Engineering,
University of Melbourne, VIC, Australia; Emails: rahmatizadeh@unimelb.edu.au (S.
R.); mohsen.kalantari@unimelb.edu.au (M. K.); abbas.r@unimelb.edu.au (A. R.);
sereneh@unimelb.edu.au (S. H.); ali.daneshpour@unimelb.edu.au (A. D.)
SUMMARY
There is an increasing trend in creating Rights, Restrictions and Responsibilities (RRRs) related to land
and property through the different legislative systems responding to the human-land relationship.
However, current land administration systems tend to accommodate those RRRs in direct relation to
ownership rights with a high level of accuracy, assurance and authority. Information about other RRRs
(e.g. residential noise levels, native vegetation) is neither collected nor spatially represented because
of insufficient financial resources and professionals. VGI could be a complementary approach to
facilitate the data collection process of other RRRs. However, many different factors affect the
possibility of using VGI. Due to the immature role of VGI in land administration, this paper sets out to
identify the factors that could impact the use of VGI in land administration using a Delphi study. This
paper reports the results of the first round of the Delphi study. These results suggest eight important
categories of factors that could impact on the applicability of VGI in land administration and provide
new insights into the role of VGI in land administration more broadly.
Keywords: VGI, Land administration, Delphi study
INTRODUCTION
Currently, many existing land administration systems collect a limited number of land rights,
restrictions and responsibilities (RRRs) such as ownership boundary, easement and mortgage. They
are based on a narrow land administration paradigm focused on cadastral surveying and land
registration for titling purposes. Many other land and property RRRs created through non-titling
legislation are either not captured or are not easily accessible or discoverable (e.g. native vegetation,
national parks boundary or residential noise levels). The volume of legislation which defines a range
of RRRs related to land and property is enormous. For example, in Victoria (state of Australia), over
60 percent of legislations create RRRs; in New South Wales, this figure stands at over 50 percent [3].
Recently, having recognised these problems, Australia and New Zealand’s governments are taking
action. They describe a vision in future-oriented national cadastre strategies that support the
identification of all RRRs related to land and property [15,19].
The value of collecting and managing RRRs is highlighted in much of the literature, statements and
reports and is a growing focus for organisations such as the World Bank and the International
Federation of Surveyors [10,17,25]. However, there are a number of impediments for collecting and
managing RRRs including limited resources, insufficient professionals and the high costs of current
spatial data capture methods (e.g. cadastral surveying). Therefore, locating and spatially defining
RRRs remains a challenge. In short, the collection of other RRRs requires a quick and low-cost
methodology.
This need, and recent enhancements in volunteered geographic information (VGI), have sparked an
interest in applying this approach to land administration. VGI is a phenomenon by which people
voluntarily collect, organise and disseminate geographic information and data in such a manner that
the information can be used by others [26]. VGI is an emerging topic in land administration, with
Proc. of the 3rd Annual Conference of Research@Locate 53
limited literature. Over past years, most research has emphasised the value of VGI as a timely and
low-cost approach to fill the knowledge gap about land rights in current land administration systems,
particularly in developing countries [2,18,21]. However, VGI could present opportunities for
developed countries to enhance their current land administration systems by determining the spatial
extent of other land and property RRRs (e.g. native vegetation) which are not captured in current
systems.
Prior studies do not provide insight as to when and where VGI can be used particularly regarding
RRRs data collection. Therefore, this paper aims to identify factors that could impact on the use of
VGI in land administration through an ongoing international Delphi study. This paper makes two
main contributions: firstly, it makes an argument for the Delphi research method as a valuable
approach in land administration research particularly in investigating new approaches and practices;
secondly, it introduces new insights for advancing the use of VGI in contemporary land
administration practices. The remaining part of the paper will introduce the Delphi methodology then
it will present the finding of round one of Delphi study. The implications of these findings are
discussed before the paper concludes with some future directions.
THE DELPHI METHOD
This research adopts the Delphi research methodology, which is a powerful technique to facilitate the
process of data collection from a carefully selected panel of experts [23]. The aim of a Delphi study is
to form a consensus concerning ideas, opinions and arguments about a specific field of research to
unlock hidden knowledge and forecasting the future direction [11]. This method is highly
recommended, accepted and adopted when exact knowledge is not available in a particular field or in
domains where complex issues exist [7]. It has been successfully employed in many published studies
in a variety of different applications and domains including healthcare, ICT-based problem-solving,
technology, education, sociology, government, economic, environmental, social, and community
development [13,20,23]. This study presents one of the few applications of this methodology in the
domain of land administration.
Delphi studies do not require face-to-face communication; therefore it can facilitate
communication between geographically distanced experts [9]. They should remain anonymous until
the completion of the Delphi study to help prevent the opinion of any one member having an undue
influence on the responses of the others [9]. Anonymity incorporates to minimise dominance bias
from any panellists. The panel of a Delphi study should be recognised as representative sources of
expertise within a particular field [11,23]. The number of panellists in the Delphi study is commonly
quite small. The literature recommends eight to 18 experts on the Delphi panel [4,6,8,23]; a panel
larger comprising more than 30 experts rarely provides additional value in terms of difference in
perspectives [5]. A Delphi study is an iterative process of structured questionnaires completed by the
panellists. Using three rounds of questionnaires aims to clarify the panellists’ responses to achieve
consensus [14].
This Delphi study commenced in 2015 and is ongoing as part of a doctoral study. This research
targeted four different types of experts to form the Delphi study panel: (1) academics that are highly
qualified and well respected in VGI and/or land administration field; (2) government practitioners and
(3) industrial practitioners who usually collect data related to land administration in their daily job; (4)
individuals with expertise in collecting data in VGI projects, such as OpenStreetMap and WikiMapia.
This structure ensured a sufficient number of perspectives for the study. Potential panellists were
identified based on the guidelines developed by [23]. In total, 21 experts formed the Delphi study
panel. In comparison to the majority of Delphi studies found in the literature a panel of 21 is
considered to be a healthy size.
The overall Delphi study will consist of three rounds. The first round consisted of five sections and
this paper utilised data from one section. The first round is exploratory; therefore, an open-ended and
semi-structured questionnaire was employed to encourage freethinking and generating new ideas.
Furthermore, this keeps panellists focused on the topic and aims of the research. The first round was
conducted via email through online questionnaires. The aim of this round was to obtain as broad range
of factors as possible that could impact on the use of VGI in land administration. Therefore, the
panellists were asked to respond to the following questions:
x What are the factors that could affect the use of VGI as an approach for collecting land and
property RRRs?
Proc. of the 3rd Annual Conference of Research@Locate 54
x In what circumstances would VGI be an alternative solution regarding data collection in the
context of land administration context?
VGI IN LAND ADMINISTRATION: FACTORS
Responses were gathered and analysed based on qualitative content analysis. This included coding,
generating categories and abstraction. Generating categories is a conceptual challenge as well as
empirical one [9]. Categories should simplify the data as well as reflect the subject of study in a
reliable manner. In this step, factors are being classified as ‘belonging’ to a particular category. This
implies a comparison between these factors and other factors that do not belong to the same
categories. As a result of this step, 34 factors and eight categories were generated. To label categories,
a general description for each category was formulated by content-characteristic words in the
abstraction phase. Each of these categories illustrated in Figure 1 is discussed in the subsequent
section.
Figure 1: The result of qualitative content analysis of the Round 1 of Delphi study
Drivers and enablers of using VGI in land administration
The most commonly proposed drivers for using VGI in land administration were the lack of data
related to land and property RRRs and limited resources. For example, one of the panellists said that
“VGI is an alternative where we have no current data or incomplete data”. These results endorse the
value of VGI as a quick and low-cost data collection approach.
The most commonly proposed enabler by the panellists was technology advancements. Some
suggested that access to appropriate technological infrastructure for contribution has an important role
in enablement of VGI (e.g. access to the Internet, Smartphone, GPS and social media).
Functionalities of VGI in land administration
The panellists suggested different functionalities for VGI. For example, some panellists argued that
citizens might be able to collect a type of land and property RRRs (e.g. residential noise levels) that
do not exist in a specific jurisdiction, or they could update existing ones (e.g. native vegetation).
Proc. of the 3rd Annual Conference of Research@Locate 55
Furthermore, they felt that VGI could be used effectively to detect and report mistakes or to provide
confirmation of questionable data in land administration.
These findings expand on current studies, which have to date emphasised the role of VGI as a data
collection mechanism in land administration, especially in those countries where limited land rights
records exist. Although data collection is undoubtedly an important functionality – and hence,
rationale – for adopting VGI, preliminary results from this study suggests that volunteers could also
contribute to the processes of updating, reviewing and confirming existing RRRs.
Legal Aspects
The legal implications of using VGI in land administration were one of the main concerns of the
panellists. This is unsurprising given that the prevailing function of land administration systems is to
provide and manage authoritative land records as the basis for property transactions. Although some
panellists stated that legal implications of incorrect data could limit the use of VGI in land
administration, others suggested that a more productive path forward might be to distinguish between
mandatory or legislative data, and other types of useful (not legislatively prescribed) data. For
example, one of them said, “I would see VGI being more at the 'indicative' level rather than at the
more hard-edged legislative or definitive end”. They also said that in situations where legislation or
regulations have been changed or lawmakers are willing to change current legislation to support VGI,
there would likely is more chance for VGI to be used in land administration.
This suggests that there is room to adopt VGI in terms of collecting those RRRs with none or fewer
legal consequences, or in a situation where RRRs were never formalised in the first place Different
types of RRRs are created through legislation; however, it is important to note that not all of them
require the high level of governmental guarantees as explained in [3]. Furthermore, RRRs typically
exist as a continuum ranging from informal to formal as discussed in [27] and VGI could represent a
kind of data that supports less formal RRRs.
Land and property RRRs characteristics and requirements
The characteristics and requirements of land and property RRRs within jurisdictions formed another
category of factors. The panellists set out some characteristics to determine what sort of land and
property RRR could be collected by crowds such as “Easily identifiable objects”, “Easily measurable
variables”, “Require observation but no or minimal analysis or interpretation”. These results suggest
that a range of factors related to land and property RRRs characteristics could have an influence on
the possibility of using VGI. For example, the characteristics of the data itself (e.g. definition,
complexity, required quality) and the crowd knowledge requirements to contribute to the process of
collecting data. Volunteers could potentially collect data that they understand and can observe such as
roads, buildings, and walls. These results are in line with those discussed in previous studies [1,22]
but also reveal more factors related to land and property characteristics that could affect the use of
VGI in land administration.
Some panellists also argued that the accuracy requirement of RRRs is another factor that needs to
be considered. For example, a panellist said “Accuracy requirements both spatially and content would
also be factors in determining the suitability of RRRs being collected through VGI”. The accuracy of
VGI collected data for land administration purposes is evaluated in some studies [2,16,24], which
tended towards an average spatial accuracy of around 5 meters. However, these studies found that this
accuracy was not sufficient [24] while others found the converse to be true[2]. Findings from this
study suggest that accuracy of VGI might be sufficient for some jurisdictions not all of them.
Crowd characteristics
The panellists argued that the definition and type of the crowd would have a significant impact on the
possibility of using VGI in land administration. For example, one of the panellists said, “VGI can be
operated by a range of participants. There is room to have Professional participants, Trusted
participants and General participants”. Furthermore, some said that local culture, community
acceptance and also ethical and moral profile of community could affect the use of VGI. Also, some
panellists discussed the role of knowledge, skills, experience and motivation of contributors as other
factors that would impact on the possibility of VGI in land administration. This study identified six
factors, illustrated in Figure 1, related to crowd characteristics that could affect the use of VGI in land
administration. This indicates that understanding crowd characteristics is essential to the use of VGI.
Proc. of the 3rd Annual Conference of Research@Locate 56
Technical issues
Quality assurance of VGI was a widely discussed issue by the panellists. The panellists felt that
finding stable quality assurance methods for a specific type of RRRs is likely to have a significant
impact on the possibility of using VGI in land administration. Some methods for validation of entered
data were proposed by the panellists including a rating system to determine the level of trust, using
trusted supplier or trusted intermediaries; evaluating entered data by independent review, checking
entered data by third party information. Some panellists said that VGI could be used to qualify the
source of data which lets the user decide whether to accept it or not. Furthermore, as some panellists
mentioned, data can serve as complementary or alternative data sources. In addition, some suggested
that standardisation of data collection, edit, review and update processes are also important in land
administration domain. Useful and well-designed tools were also identified by the panellists as other
technical factors that could affect the use of VGI.
Currently, there is a wide range of quality assurance methods for VGI with differing advantages
and limitations [12]. For example, as [22] discussed, most of these methods rely on the number of
verifications and in many cases in the land administration domain, only a few people can verify the
correctness of entered data. Therefore, developing or adopting a suitable quality assurance method for
specific RRRs relevant to the particular jurisdiction is important.
Organisational aspects
The panellists raised some issues related to organisational aspects. This is illustrated in Figure 1. For
example, one of the panellists said, “The key here is coordination of data collection by someone. Then
sharing it to whoever can usefully use it”. Another panellist was concerned about the “strategy of
dealing with inconsistencies” and “the way of recording the quality of provided information”. On the
whole, the panellists determined data management issues, championing of the VGI project, defining
the scope of project, and required funding for ICT support as factors that could affect the use of VGI
in land administration.
The findings from this study endorse the value of having a specific entity to manage, structure and
maintain the voluntary process of collecting RRRs related to land and property. This entity could be
part of a government body or a non-profit organisation or even a private company. For instance, a
non-profit organisation is supporting the OpenStreetMap project to maintain and grow while
Wikimapia is a privately owned commercial site based on an open-content collaborative mapping
project.
CONCLUSIONS
VGI in land administration is an emerging topic with limited literature. Prior studies have noted the
value of using VGI as a cost effective data collection approach in land administration domain, but
there remains limited understanding of what specific factors could affect the use of VGI. The findings
presented here is part of an ongoing study investigating this gap.
The findings demonstrate the multidimensional challenges of adopting VGI in land administration
by identifying 34 factors across eight different categories. These factors are mainly related to drivers
and enablers of VGI in land administration, RRRs characteristics and requirements in specific
jurisdiction, crowd characteristics, legal aspects, technical issues, and organizational aspects.
Furthermore, different functionalities were identified for VGI in land administration.
These findings contribute to current knowledge about utilising VGI in land administration. Going
forward, the subsequent rounds of the Delphi study will explore these factors in greater detail and
seek consensus about the most pertinent ones.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank all the members of Delphi panel who have given their time and
expertise on a continuous basis over the Delphi study. The authors also wish to acknowledge the
constructive comments from members of the Centre for Spatial Data Infrastructure and Land
Administration (CSDILA) at the University of Melbourne, Australia. However, the views expressed
in this paper do not necessarily reflect the view of the Centre’s member.
Proc. of the 3rd Annual Conference of Research@Locate 57
REFERENCES
[1] AFUAH, A. AND TUCCI, C.L. Crowdsourcing As a Solution To Distant Search. Academy of
Management Review 37, 3 (2012), 355–375.
[2] BASIOUKA, S. AND POTSIOU, C. VGI in Cadastre: a Greek Experiment to Investigate the
Potential of Crowd Sourcing Techniques in Cadastral Mapping. Survey Review 44, 325 (2012),
153–161.
[3] BENNETT, R. Property rights, restrictions and responsibilities: their nature, design and
management. PhD thesis The University of Melbourne, 2008.
[4] CAVALLI-SFORZA, V. AND ORTOLANO, L. Delphi Forecasts of Land Use: Transportation
Interactions. Journal of Transportation Engineering 110, 3 (1984), 324–339.
[5] CZINKOTA, M.R. AND RONKAINEN, I.A. International business and trade in the next decade:
Report from a Delphi study. Journal of International Business Studies, (1997), 827–844.
[6] DALKEY, N. An experimental study of group opinion: the Delphi method. Futures 1, 5 (1969),
408–426.
[7] DAY, J. AND BOBEVA, M. A Generic Toolkit for the Successful Management of Delphi Studies.
Electronic Journal of Business Research Methods 3, 2 (2005), 103–116.
[8] DELBECQ, A.L., VAN DE VEN, A.H., AND GUSTAFSON, D.H. Group techniques for program
planning: A guide to nominal group and Delphi processes. Scott, Foresman Glenview, IL, 1975.
[9] VAN DIJK, J. Delphi questionnaires versus individual and group interviews: A comparison case.
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 37, 3 (1990), 293–304.
[10]ENEMARK, S., BELL, K., LEMMEN, C., AND MCLAREN, R. Fit-for-Purpose Land Administration.
Joint FIG/World Bank Publication, 60 (2014), 44.
[11]FINLEY, D.S. Extending the Delphi Method to Expand Its Application and Unlock Hidden
Knowledge. (2012), 0–5.
[12]GOODCHILD, M. AND LI, L. Assuring the Quality of Volunteered Geographic Information.
Spatial Statistics 1, (2012), 110–120.
[13]GUPTA, U.G. AND CLARKE, R.E. Theory and applications of the Delphi technique: A
bibliography (1975–1994). Technological Forecasting and Social Change 53, 2 (1996), 185–211.
[14]HORAN, P. Developing an Effectiveness Evaluation Framework for Destination Management
Systems. (2010), 527.
[15]ICSM. Cadastre 2034- Powering Land & Real Property Cadastral Reform and Innovation for
Australia- A National Strategy. 2014.
[16]KALANTARI, M. AND LA, V. Assessing OpenStreetMap as an Open Property Map. In
OpenStreetMap in GIScience. Springer International Publishing, 2015, 255–272.
[17]KAUFMANN, J. AND STEUDLER, D. Cadastre 2014: A vision for a future cadastral system.
International Federation of Surveyors, 1998.
[18]LAARAKKER, P. AND DE VRIES, W.T. www.Opencadastre.org - Exploring Potential Avenues and
Concerns. FIG Working Week, (2011), 1–16.
[19]LAND INFORMATION NEW ZEALAND. A 10-20 Year Strategy for developing the cadastral system:
Knowing the ‘where’ of land-related rights. (2014).
[20]LINSTONE, H.A. AND TUROFF, M. The Delphi Method - Techniques and applications. Addison-
Wesley Reading, MA, 2002.
[21]MCLAREN, R. Crowdsourcing Support of Land Administration –A New, Collaborative
Partnership Between Citizens and Land Professionals. RICS research, November (2011), 1–32.
[22]NAVRATIL, G. AND FRANK, A. VGI for Land Administration–A Quality Perspective. 8th
International Symposium on Spatial Data Quality, (2013), 159–163.
[23]OKOLI, C. AND PAWLOWSKI, S.S.D. The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design
considerations and applications. Information & Management 42, 1 (2004), 15–29.
[24]ROBERTS, C., DAVIS-RAISS, P., LOFBERG, D., AND GOODMAN, G. Is Neo-Cadastral Surveying on
your Smart Phone Feasible? Proceedings of the Surveying and Spatial Science Conference,
(2013).
[25]STEUDLER, D. CADASTRE 2014 and Beyond Editor. FIG publication NO 61, 2014.
[26]TULLOCH, D. Is VGI participation? From vernal pools to video games. GeoJournal 72, 3 (2008),
161–171.
[27]UN-HABITAT. Secure Land Rights for All. 2008.
Proc. of the 3rd Annual Conference of Research@Locate 58