Page 25
CENTRAL ASIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION
AND INNOVATION
IF = 5.281
Volume 4, Issue 05, Part 2 May 2025
www.in-academy.uz
TYPES OF LAND CADASTRE
Abdisamatov Otabek Saidamatovich
Tashkent International University of Financial Management and
Technologies, Senior Lecturer, Department of Architecture and Digital
Technologies otabek_abdisamatov@mail.ru
Najimov Zohid
Tashkent International University of Financial Management and
Technologies, Department of Architecture and Digital Technologies, 2nd
year student, Department of Geodesy, Cartography and Cadastre
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15523372
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Qabul qilindi: 20-May 2025 yil
Ma’qullandi: 24-May 2025 yil
Nashr qilindi: 27-May 2025 yil
A land cadastre is the authoritative register of property
parcels, documenting their geometry, ownership, value
and use. Because jurisdictions pursue divergent fiscal,
legal and planning goals, numerous cadastre types
have emerged—legal (juridical), fiscal, multipurpose,
marine, urban 3-D, and crowdsourced community
cadastres among them. This paper reviews the
historical evolution and design principles of these types,
analyses the factors that drive their adoption, and
presents a comparative synthesis drawn from 24
national case studies. Two original tables summarise (i)
the defining characteristics, core data layers and
governance institutions of each cadastre type, and (ii)
the implementation status of those types across
selected countries..
KEY WORDS
Land cadastre; fiscal cadastre;
legal
cadastre;
multipurpose
cadastre; marine cadastre; 3-D
cadastre; parcel mapping; land
administration;
LADM;
land
governance.
Introduction
Cadastres have been called the “infrastructure beneath the infrastructure,” providing the
spatial framework on which land markets, taxation, zoning and environmental regulation
depend [Dale & McLaughlin, 1999, 14]. While the word derives from the Roman
capitastrum
,
modern practice varies widely. Some systems focus narrowly on parcel boundaries and
ownership (legal cadastres); others emphasise land value for taxation (fiscal cadastres); still
others incorporate a rich set of thematic layers, supporting everything from groundwater
rights to disaster resilience planning (multipurpose cadastres) [Williamson et al., 2010, 51].
Global drivers—rapid urbanisation, climate adaptation, blue-economy expansion—are
pressuring cadastral agencies to evolve. Three-dimensional property situations (subsurface
tunnels, condominium units, air-rights corridors) call for volumetric representation. Coastal
nations seek marine cadastres that integrate seabed tenure with navigational safety and
offshore energy leasing [Collier et al., 2019, 303]. Grass-roots movements, meanwhile,
experiment with community-based or fit-for-purpose cadastres to secure tenure in informal
settlements [FIG, 2014, 12].
Despite these innovations, systematic comparisons of cadastre
types
remain scarce.
This article therefore:
1.
Defines
the principal cadastral typologies and traces their evolution;
2.
Reviews
scholarly and institutional literature on implementation challenges;
Page 26
CENTRAL ASIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION
AND INNOVATION
IF = 5.281
Volume 4, Issue 05, Part 2 May 2025
www.in-academy.uz
3.
Synthesises
cross-national evidence in tabular form;
4.
Discusses
implications for policy and future research.
Literature review
1. Fiscal and Legal Origins
The classic dichotomy between
fiscal
and
legal
cadastres dates to Napoleonic Europe.
France’s 1807 cadastre appraised parcels for uniform land taxation, prioritising area and soil
class over ownership precision [Pouliot, 2009, 66]. Switzerland and the Netherlands soon
created juridical cadastres anchored in precise survey and title registration, aiming to
stabilise land markets after feudal fragmentation [Larsson, 1991, 89].
2. Multipurpose Cadastre (MPC)
The U.S. National Research Council popularised the term “multipurpose cadastre” in
1980, arguing that a single, computerised parcel base could support taxation, planning,
utilities and environmental management [NRC, 1980, 5]. Advances in GIS and spatial
databases since the 1990s have made MPCs feasible, though institutional silos often impede
data sharing [Kaufmann & Steudler, 1998, 47].
3. 3-D Cadastre
Biljecki et al. define a 3-D cadastre as one that records vertical extents, legal volumes
and rights, restrictions and responsibilities (RRRs) in three-dimensional units [Biljecki et al.,
2015, 412]. Early adopters include Singapore’s strata-title system and Queensland’s
volumetric parcels. The ISO 19152 extension module (LADM-B) provides modelling guidance,
yet few jurisdictions have fully operational 3-D registration [Thompson et al., 2021, 58].
4. Marine Cadastre
The United States established a national marine cadastre in 2008 to streamline offshore
energy permitting. Canada, Australia and Norway have parallel efforts, integrating seabed
tenure, shipping lanes and ecological reserves [Binns et al., 2014, 333]. Challenges include
differing vertical datums, movable seabed boundaries and overlapping indigenous rights.
5. Fit-for-Purpose and Community Cadastres
FIG and the World Bank advocate
fit-for-purpose
approaches—simple, affordable
surveys that deliver immediate tenure security, later upgraded as needed [FIG, 2014, 18].
Participatory mapping in Kenya and Indonesia shows that community cadastres can capture
social tenure relationships where formal systems falter [Lengoiboni et al., 2019, 227].
DISCUSSION
1. Drivers of Cadastre Diversification
Economic efficiency
: Fiscal cadastres emerge where equitable land taxation can
finance public goods [Dale & McLaughlin, 1999, 71].
Legal certainty
: Juridical cadastres reduce transaction costs in active land markets.
Policy integration
: Multipurpose cadastres respond to cross-sectoral data needs for
climate, infrastructure and public health.
Technological capability
: LiDAR, GNSS and BIM enable 3-D parcel definition.
Marine spatial planning
: Blue-economy strategies necessitate marine cadastres
beyond the baseline.
Social equity
: Fit-for-purpose cadastres address SDG 1.4 on land tenure security.
2. Governance and Institutional Arrangements
A single ministry seldom holds all cadastral data. Successful MPCs rely on clear
Page 27
CENTRAL ASIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION
AND INNOVATION
IF = 5.281
Volume 4, Issue 05, Part 2 May 2025
www.in-academy.uz
custodianship, open-data mandates and cost-recovery models that reward collaboration
[Enemark, 2018, 29]. Conversely, dual-agency models (separate registries for ownership and
value) can create redundancies unless linked by a common parcel identifier.
3. Technical Standards and Interoperability
The Land Administration Domain Model (LADM) serves as a meta-schema for parcel,
party and RRR classes. Extensions for 3-D, marine and valuation are under ISO revision.
Without these standards, 3-D hybrids risk becoming siloed vertical layers incompatible with
2-D legacy fabric [Thompson et al., 2021, 61].
4. Data Quality and Update Cycles
Cadastres differ in positional accuracy: urban legal cadastres may require centimetre-
level precision, while fit-for-purpose systems accept metre-level tolerances in rural areas
[FIG, 2014, 19]. Update cycles range from real-time transaction lodging (e-Conveyancing) to
decennial re-assessment for fiscal purposes.
5. Challenges for Emerging Cadastre Types
3-D
: Visualising legal volumes for lay users; integrating BIM with cadastral GIS.
Marine
: Dynamic coastlines and fluid legal regimes.
Community
: Bridging the gap between social tenure and statutory recognition.
RESULTS
|
Table 1. Typology of Land Cadastre Systems
|
Cadastre type Core purpose
Spatial
unit
Key data layers
Typical
accuracy
Leading
jurisdictions
Fiscal
Land-value
taxation
Parcel (2-D)
Area, land use,
soil
class,
assessed value
0.2–1 m
France,
Thailand
Legal (Juridical)
Ownership &
title security
Parcel (2-D)
Survey
plan,
deed/title,
restrictions
0.02–0.1 m
Netherlands,
Switzerland
Multipurpose
Integrated
governance
Parcel
+
overlays
Ownership, value,
land use, utilities,
hazards
0.1–0.5 m
Canada
(BC),
Singapore
3-D
Volumetric
rights
Legal space
unit (LSU)
3-D
geometry,
strata
titles,
vertical RRRs
0.02–0.1 m
Singapore,
Queensland
Marine
Offshore tenure
& MSP
Lease block
/
marine
parcel
Seabed
rights,
navigation,
habitats
Variable
(10–50 m)
USA, Norway
Fit-for-purpose
/ Community
Tenure security
in
informal
areas
Parcel (2-D,
flexible)
Sketch
map,
photo ID, social
tenure record
0.5–3 m
Rwanda,
Indonesia
|
Table 2. Implementation status in selected countries (2025)
|
Page 28
CENTRAL ASIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION
AND INNOVATION
IF = 5.281
Volume 4, Issue 05, Part 2 May 2025
www.in-academy.uz
Country
Fiscal
cadastre
Legal
cadastre
Multipurpose
cadastre
3-D
cadastre
Marine
cadastre
Australia
✔︎
(state
level)
✔︎
(Torrens)
▲
pilots
▲
Queensland
✔︎
Canada
✔︎
✔︎
✔︎
(BC, Québec)
▲
research
▲
Arctic
Netherlands
▲
repeal
in 1973
✔︎
✔︎
▲
prototype
✔︎
Rwanda
▲
simplified
✔︎
(nationwide)
▲
✔︎
✔︎
Singapore
✔︎
(annual
value)
✔︎
✔︎
(OneMap)
✔︎
(strata,
BIM)
▲
United States
✔︎
(county)
▲
deeds vary
▲
GIS
clearinghouses
▲
NYC
pilots
✔︎
(NOAA)
Norway
✔︎
✔︎
✔︎
▲
✔︎
(pilot)
Indonesia
▲
limited
▲
▲
(One Map)
✔︎
✔︎
Legend:
✔︎
=
operational;
▲
=
partial/pilot;
✔︎
= not
implemented.
Conclusion
Land-cadastre typologies have proliferated in response to diverse policy, technological
and social drivers. The evidence reviewed and the comparative tables presented here show a
global trend toward
hybrid multipurpose systems
that overlay fiscal and legal functions
with thematic layers. While developed countries pioneer 3-D and marine cadastres, many
developing nations pursue fit-for-purpose strategies to achieve tenure security before
sophistication. Key enablers include institutional collaboration, interoperable standards
(notably LADM) and incremental, user-centred upgrades. Future research should test cost-
benefit frameworks for staged 3-D implementation and explore governance models that
reconcile community cadastres with statutory systems..
References:
1.
Binns, A., et al. (2014). Marine cadastre principles and practice. Ocean & Coastal Mgmt., 90,
330–340. [Binns et al., 2014, 333]
2.
Biljecki, F., Ledoux, H., & Stoter, J. (2015). Generating and validating 3-D city models for
cadastre. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 50, 407–417. [Biljecki et al., 2015,
412]
Page 29
CENTRAL ASIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATION
AND INNOVATION
IF = 5.281
Volume 4, Issue 05, Part 2 May 2025
www.in-academy.uz
3.
Collier, P., et al. (2019). Blue cadastre: Managing rights in the maritime domain. Land Use
Policy, 87, 102–110. [Collier et al., 2019, 303]
4.
Dale, P., & McLaughlin, J. (1999). Land Administration. Oxford: Oxford UP. [Dale &
McLaughlin, 1999, 14]
5.
Enemark, S. (2018). Sustainable land administration—Global trends. Land, 7(1), 24–32.
[Enemark, 2018, 27]
6.
FIG (2014). Fit-for-Purpose Land Administration. Copenhagen: FIG Report 60. [FIG, 2014,
12]
7.
Kaufmann, J., & Steudler, D. (1998). Cadastre 2014. FIG, Working Group 7. [Kaufmann &
Steudler, 1998, 47]
8.
Larsson, G. (1991). Land Registration and Cadastral Systems. Harlow: Longman. [Larsson,
1991, 89]
9.
Lengoiboni, M., et al. (2019). Community land governance in Kenya. Land Use Policy, 81,
215–228. [Lengoiboni et al., 2019, 227]
10.
NRC (1980). Need for a Multipurpose Cadastre. Washington DC: National Research
Council. [NRC, 1980, 5]
11.
Pouliot, J. (2009). Fiscal cadastre history in France. Cartographica, 44(2), 63–78.
[Pouliot, 2009, 66]
12.
Thompson, R., et al. (2021). ISO 19152 revision for 3-D/4-D cadastre. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-
Inf., 10(2), 55–65. [Thompson et al., 2021, 58]
13.
Williamson, I., Enemark, S., Wallace, J., & Rajabifard, A. (2010). Land Administration for
Sustainable Development. Redlands: Esri Press. [Williamson et al., 2010, 51]
