Land Use Policy 97 (2020) 104758

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol

The Cadastral triangular model T

a, b c a a
Donald Grant *, Stig Enemark , Jaap Zevenbergen , David Mitchell , Geoffrey McCamley
a
RMIT Uniersity, Melbourne, Australia
b
Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
c
University of Twente, Enschede, Netherlands

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Successful economies rely on effective land administration systems. A key contributor to land administration is
Digital cadastral database: DCDB the cadastral system and its support for the ongoing definition of boundaries that support secure property rights
Cadastral map and effective land management.
Digital spatial cadaster Cadastral systems are complex and typically have significant differences in legislation, regulation and survey
Cadastral triangular model (CTM)
practices between jurisdictions. And yet the high-level objectives of a cadastral system tend to be essentially the
same the world over. Comparisons of cadastral systems in different jurisdictions can easily become focused on
the technical, legal, or implementation differences. This can obscure commonalities and opportunities to develop
common strategies for the efficient maintenance and development of cadastral systems.
Changes in technology have significantly altered the way that cadastral boundaries can be marked and lo-
cated in the real world and then represented or visualised on maps or plans and in databases. The rate of take up
of these technologies, and the form of that take up, varies between jurisdictions.
A conceptual model to explore the complex relationships between different representations of cadastral
boundaries has been developed. This model, which has broad application, is known as the Cadastral Triangular
Model (CTM). The CTM is a valuable tool to explore and resolve complex issues facing cadastral systems, for
example proposals for the evolution of 3D cadastres. This paper describes the CTM, how it can be used and
identifies further applications of this model to address contemporary issues confronting cadastral authorities.

1. Introduction to Cadastral systems sense to talk about cadastral systems rather than just Cadastre. These
systems include the interaction between the identification of land
“A Cadastre is normally a parcel-based system, where information is parcels, registration of land rights, valuation and taxation of land and
geographically referenced to unique, well-defined units of land” (FIG, property, and control of present and future use of land. This is shown in
1995). The critical role of the Cadastre in support of Land Adminis- Fig. 1 illustrating multipurpose cadastral systems in support of the in-
tration Systems (LAS) is recognised in Dale and McLaughlin (1999) and terrelated functions of land tenure, land value and land use.
further unfolded in Williamson et al. (2010). The basic cadastral components are the cadastral register identi-
However, the concept of Cadastre is designed in many different fying the land parcels by number and area, the cadastral map identi-
ways in different jurisdictions around the world, depending on the fying the land parcels geographically, and the cadastral measurements
origin, history and cultural development of the region or country. identifying the position of the property boundaries. This identification
Basically, a Cadastre is a record that identifies the individual land of land parcels in the cadastral system provides the basic infrastructure
parcels/properties. The purpose of this identification may be taxation for running the interrelated systems within the areas of land tenure,
(as was the reason for establishing the European cadastres) or it may be land value and land use. As a result, the traditional surveying, mapping
security of land rights (as was the case when establishing the Torrens and land registration focus has moved away from being primarily
systems in the new world such as Australia). Today, most cadastral provider-driven to now being clearly user-driven. However, each of
registers around the world are linked to both value/taxation of land and those functions includes tasks and processes that impose quite different
securing legal rights in land (Enemark, 2004). demands on the cadastral system. The success of a cadastral system is
Given many different versions of the cadastral concept, it makes then a function of how well it internalizes these influences and achieves

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. Grant), [email protected] (S. Enemark), [email protected] (J. Zevenbergen),
[email protected] (D. Mitchell), geoff[email protected] (G. McCamley).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104758
Received 21 January 2020; Received in revised form 11 May 2020; Accepted 12 May 2020
Available online 25 May 2020
0264-8377/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
D. Grant, et al. Land Use Policy 97 (2020) 104758

Fig. 1. Multipurpose cadastral systems supporting land tenure, land value and land use, as well as land development (Enemark, 2004; Williamson et al., 2010).

these broad social, economic and environmental objectives. their interests in land are, and will remain theirs (role of land regis-
In modern cadastral systems where the information is captured and tration), in this way it will be well defined and enduring for their use
managed in digital databases, the spatial component, or digital cadas- and for future investment or sale to others. De Soto (2000) describes the
tral map (here referred to as the digital spatial cadastre), is a key layer role that confidence in property rights plays as being fundamental to
within the Spatial Data Infrastructure (SDI) which supports and in- the success of capital in countries like Australia and New Zealand.
tegrates the four land administration functions of land tenure, land Therefore, at the heart of cadastral surveying is the determination of
value and land use, as well as land development. cadastral boundaries.
Nevertheless, the needs of modern society for sustainable economic Cadastral surveying: This is the definition, identification, demarcation,
development, access to information, and social cohesion can be ad- measuring and mapping of new or changed legal parcel boundaries. It
vanced by alignment of land administrations systems. This alignment is usually includes the process of re-establishing lost boundaries and sometimes
greatly facilitated by spatial alignment of the various land administra- resolving disputes over boundaries or other interests in real property. (FIG,
tion datasets. 1995)
In order to evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of LAS in each Surveyors are often engaged broadly in activities that support other
jurisdiction, and to propose options for further development and im- functions in LAS such as land development and land management.
provement, it becomes necessary to look inside the central “Cadastral However, the function of boundary definition is considered so complex
Systems” triangle in Fig. 1. In particular, given the role played by SDI as and critical to the LAS that this function tends to be reserved in law for
an engine of LAS, we need to focus on the spatial component of ca- those recognised as professional and competent. For example in
dastral systems and analyse how that component interacts with other Australia and New Zealand, these are the licensed or registered sur-
cadastral system components. veyors in each jurisdiction (CRSBANZ, 2018).
Each jurisdiction has differences in the processes applied to
boundary determination – due mainly to differences in the legislation
2. Cadastral boundaries & Cadastral mapping
and regulations applying to cadastral survey. Further changes between
jurisdictions have also developed over time due to differing levels of
2.1. Cadastral surveying
uptake of new technologies in measurement and information tech-
nology.
Successful economies rely on effective land administration systems
Nevertheless, there are some commonalities in the principles of
and at the core of land administration is the Cadastre (Krelle and
boundary definition across jurisdictions. A model is developed in this
Rajabifard, 2010). The cadastral system, through the function of ca-
paper that provides a framework for evaluation and comparison of
dastral surveying, provides for reliable determination of the boundaries
systems of cadastral boundary definition within and between different
that delimit rights, restrictions and responsibilities in land. A boundary
jurisdictions.
is where one person’s interests in land end, and the neighbour’s inter-
ests begin (Zevenbergen and Bennett, 2015). A common form of dispute
over land concerns the location of the boundary, Landowners and other 2.2. Cadastral boundaries
affected parties need confidence that these boundaries will endure over
time in the same position. Together with ensuring the property rights of An interest in a specific parcel of land needs to be separated from
individuals and corporations that invest in land with confidence that interests in other parcels of land. In its simplest form, a boundary is the

2
D. Grant, et al. Land Use Policy 97 (2020) 104758

separation between these two interests in land. In theory, a boundary maps for use in multi-purpose cadastres (Williamson and Ting, 2001).
represents a ‘surface’ – often depicted on cadastral maps or spatial Therefore, in discussing boundaries, lawyers, surveyors, landholders
views by an infinitesimally thin line where this surface intersects the and neighbours can all have a slightly different perspective of what the
earth’s surface (Zevenbergen and Bennett, 2015). This boundary line is term ‘boundary’ means to them. This paper considers these differences
often occupied by visible artefacts like hedges, stone walls, ditches, or in more detail and frames the discussion in terms of physical bound-
land use changes. aries, documentary boundaries, digital spatial boundaries and legal
In a legal sense, Dale (1976) states that in relation to cadastral boundaries.
surveying, a boundary is “either the limit at law of any estate or a
physical feature such as a fence erected to mark the limit at law”.
Halsbury’s Laws of England 3rd Ed, Vol 3 described a boundary as 2.4. Impact of technology on Cadastral mapping
an imaginary line which divides two contiguous estates. The same
source also used the term boundary to describe the “physical objects by There have been significant changes in technology over the last few
reference to which the line of division is described as well as the line of decades (Enemark et al., 2016; Lemmen et al., 2015) and further
division itself. In this sense boundaries have been divided into natural and changes are expected that create challenges for how land boundaries
artificial, according as such physical objects have or have not been created are defined, visualised, how information about them is made available
by the agency of man.” (Halsbury’s Laws of England, 2020) p354. The to landowners and the public, and understood, even within the rela-
concept of a cadastral boundary can usually be understood at this level tively coherent cadastral systems across Australia and New Zealand.
by the layperson. The technology disruptions that have occurred include:
In the English literature on cadastral surveying, boundaries can be
E-DATA OF CADASTRE, ACCESSED BY PUBLIC
‘fixed’ (where the precise line of the boundary has been agreed and • The boundaries modelled in the digital spatial cadastral databases
recorded), or ‘general’ (where the precise line on the ground has not allow the Cadastre to be represented by a graphical spatial model or
been determined although usually it is represented by a physical feature digital cadastral “map” which is then made available by the jur-
and shown graphically on a map), or ‘natural’ (defined by a natural isdictional land agency directly or indirectly to the public, land
feature such as a river or lake). The ‘artificial’ boundary mentioned in developers, other government land agencies and surveyors. This
Halsbury’s Laws of England are generally not visible in the field, unless provides a very accessible “official” visualisation of boundaries –
marks have been placed to represent the legal title corners based on boundary coordinates that are in terms (at some level of
(Zevenbergen and Bennett, 2015). accuracy) with a geodetic datum.
In the eyes of surveyors, the accuracy with which the corner points • Public access to spatial datasets including the digital spatial cadastre
have been determined during the cadastral survey is the main factor in has increased. In the clearest example of this, Google Maps and
describing types of boundaries. In many jurisdictions the regulations Google Earth were released in 2005, providing ubiquitous GIS tools
that relate to the accuracy requirements of cadastral surveys are de- for the public (Castelli et al., 2009). A few years later these appli-
veloped with fixed boundaries in mind (Zevenbergen and Bennett, cations were released on smartphones. The public can now readily
2015) use these tools to obtain a representation of boundaries in relation to
Cadastral systems document the interests people have in land. To imagery depicting fences, walls, etc. However, this “official” visua-
record these interests, we also need to document the boundary location. lisation is often less spatially accurate than the public may realise.
However, on closer examination the cadastral system that records, • Public access to global positioning on handheld devices is ubiqui-
manages and re-establishes those boundaries is highly complex. There tous (Mannings, 2008). The accuracy on these devices is currently a
are many subsystems with complex interactions and dependencies for few metres but is expected to achieve decimetres in the next few
providing evidence of the location of boundaries and the interpretation years with Satellite Based Augmentation Systems and improved
of that evidence according to the law. Different experts describing the devices. This will enable the public to capture reasonably accurate
system may use different terminology for the same concepts or the same coordinates and compare these to boundary positions in the digital
terminology for different concepts. This creates the risk that different spatial cadastre.
agents (decision-makers) in different jurisdictions may have differing
understandings of how the system operates in practice. As a result of these and other changes, many governments have
Boundaries are defined and represented in multiple ways within the moved towards an e-government model. Digital spatial data is often a
same cadastral system. For example, hierarchies of evidence allow key dataset for delivery of e-government services (Holland et al., 2009).
judgements to be made in the face of conflicting evidence of boundary The public has come to expect and rely on these services.
location. Some of the evidence is readily identified and assessed by For the identification of the location of boundaries, previously the
landowners (e.g. fences and walls) while other evidence may have public had to rely on expert advice from surveyors or government of-
greater legal weight and require expert assessment by surveyors. ficials. The move to e-government services, including the digital spatial
Between jurisdictions, different rules and hierarchies of evidence may representation of boundaries – delivered to mobile devices with GPS
apply. positioning, creates the impression that members of the public can al-
most locate boundaries themselves. This aligns with the goals of e-
2.3. Cadastral mapping government, that services and authoritative information can be deliv-
ered to citizens directly (Holland et al., 2009).
Cadastral maps introduce an additional concept of what a boundary However, the digital spatial boundaries are not sufficiently accurate
is – and in this paper we call this the ‘spatial’ boundary. Large-scale to serve this new purpose that they were never designed for. They may
cadastral maps or plans were traditionally paper records. Cadastral be fit for the purpose of cadastral mapping but not fit for the purpose of
maps provide an index for the land register and also for previous ca- locating boundaries and making decisions about land use and man-
dastral surveys on that land. A cadastral map shows the boundaries of agement (Grant et al., 2018)
each land parcel and provides a unique identifier for that parcel, and in These developments in cadastral boundaries, cadastral mapping,
some cases building locations, geology, soils, and land use. In these positioning and digital spatial databases require a new way of thinking
traditional paper cadastral maps, the map may be based on individual about the complexity of various forms of cadastral boundaries and how
surveys. we identify them. The Cadastral Triangular Model has been developed
During the latter decades of the 20th century many jurisdictions to help refine and support analysis of this complexity.
reengineered these paper-based cadastral maps into digital cadastral

3
D. Grant, et al. Land Use Policy 97 (2020) 104758

3. Formulation of the CTM model

The Cadastral Triangular model can be described as an extension of

earlier conceptual perspectives. Cadastral boundaries are seen with Physical
different perspectives by surveyors and the Courts or legal profession
(see 2.1 and esp. 2.2). The legal concept of a boundary can be seen for
Boundary
example at HM Land Registry in the UK which defines the legal
boundary as “An imaginary or invisible line dividing one person’s
property from that of another. It is an exact line having no thickness or
width” (HM Land Registry, 2019).
Also noted by Bennett et al. (2012) is the surveyor’s perspective of a
Legal
boundary as being a physical boundary located in space by measure- Boundary
ments having some level of stochastic uncertainty. From the surveyor’s
perspective, the boundary cannot be dimensionless because its location
in space has physical and practical limits for its location accuracy or
uncertainty. The UK Land Registry defines the physical boundary as “A
physical feature that we can see such as a fence, wall or a hedge, which Documentary
may, coincidentally, also follow the line of a legal boundary” (HM Land
Registry, 2019) Boundary
Lawyers and judges may have difficulty with the concept that the
true location of a boundary in space is not perfectly known and even not
perfectly knowable (Bennett et al., 2012). The task of locating a
boundary in the world falls to surveyors. The courts can direct a sur- Fig. 3. Relationship between Physical, Documentary and Legal Boundary.
veyor on how the laws and evidence are to be interpreted. However, the
courts generally have neither the expertise, nor the authority, to con- surveyed boundaries. These are the accepted limits of land use in the
duct a cadastral survey to locate, coordinate or mark that boundary. In physical world – e.g. boundary marks, natural boundaries, fences,
the Australian and New Zealand jurisdictions, only a licensed / regis- walls, a visible line between different types of land use or cultiva-
tered surveyor can perform this task. tion, etc.
Another factor in the surveyor’s perspective, as well as the limits in
their measurements and the consequent uncertainty in boundary loca-
• documentary boundaries being the documented legal record and
evidence of boundaries that had been accepted and agreed at the
tion, is consideration of the intensity of land use and the “need-for- time of their creation – e.g. survey plans, titles, field notes, sup-
accuracy” of the landowners or right-holders. porting documents, transfers, etc.
Thus, two conceptual views can be identified:
the view of lawyers and judges that a boundary is a legal concept Before the digitisation of cadastral records, one form of doc-
–seen as an imaginary line (2D) or surface (3D) with no thickness of umentary evidence represented in Fig. 3 was paper cadastral maps
width. covering much of or all of the jurisdiction. These provided guidance as
the view of surveyors that a boundary is a socio-technical concept – to the location of boundaries, served as indexes to cadastral information
having physical and technical limits to its definition as well as the social and also showed the spatial relativity and connectedness (topology) of
limits of how accurately the affected parties (landowners) need it to be all boundary points, lines and parcels in a jurisdiction in terms of their
defined in space. abutting boundary features.
Ideally there is close alignment between these concepts of a From the 1980′s, many jurisdictions – for example those in Australia
boundary. In practice this does not always occur. The legal rights may and New Zealand – digitised their paper cadastral maps into Digital
be created by agreement, followed later by survey. However, the survey Cadastral Databases (DCDBs) using Computer Assisted Drafting/
may never eventuate. Conversely the land parcels may be created by Mapping (CAD/CAM) and Land Information System/Geographic
survey first in order to support a future legal transfer of rights – Information System (LIS/GIS) software (Williamson and Enemark,
sometimes (but rarely) that legal agreement is not finalised. 1996; Wilson, 1990). The primary driver for this change was to allow a
These two conceptual views can be depicted as a dichotomy be- reduction in the duplication of management and update of different sets
tween the survey and the legal perspective of boundaries shown in of paper maps amongst different agencies responsible for land admin-
Fig. 2. istration within government (Fig. 4).
Fig. 2, derived from the description in Bennett et al. (2012) or the Around the same time, the need for a multi-purpose cadastre was
guidance notes from the UK Land Registry (HM Land Registry, 2019), identified (McLaughlin, 1975; National Research Council (NRC), 1980).
can be extended, resulting in Fig. 3, with the recognition that prior to Such a multipurpose system is achieved in practice by sharing the ca-
development of digital spatial cadastres, evidence of surveyed bound- dastral map as a spatial dataset with other managers of land adminis-
aries came in two general forms: tration functions (valuation, land use planning, land development, etc).
Therefore, while the initial justification for the digital spatial cadastre
• physical boundaries being the tangible evidence and realisation of was to reduce the maintenance cost and duplication of paper cadastral
maps (Williamson and Enemark, 1996) its potential value to support a
multipurpose cadastre was also recognised – for example in the context
of the New Zealand’s digital spatial cadastre (Wilson, 1990).
Dichotomy

A digital spatial cadastre involves the creation of a spatial re-

Surveyed Legal presentation of the Cadastre which can increasingly be used (rightly or
Boundary Boundary wrongly) as a third form of evidence of boundary location. In addition
to the physical representation of boundaries and the documentary re-
presentation of boundaries (both aiming to represent legal boundaries),
we now have an alternative (and possibly competing) spatial
Fig. 2. Dichotomy in perspectives of surveyed and legal boundaries.

4
D. Grant, et al. Land Use Policy 97 (2020) 104758

Physical Physical
Boundary Boundary

Define
Legal Legal
Boundary Boundary

Documentary Digital SpaƟal Documentary Record / Authorise Digital SpaƟal

Boundary Boundary Boundary Maintain / Align
Boundary

Fig. 6. Cadastral Triangular Model – detailed relationships.

Cadastral Map
Digitization align and maintain the coordinates and topological relationships that
are encapsulated in spatial objects. Or, to complete that anti-clockwise
Fig. 4. The evolution of the spatial representation of boundaries.
loop around the model, the potential role for information from the di-
gital spatial cadastral database to be used to emplace new physical
representation of boundaries. boundary marks or locate other physical features related to boundaries.
To reflect the development of spatial representations of boundaries The interior inward pointing arrows do not represent transfer of
and the increasing reliance of government, business and the public on information – they represent the role of boundary information to define
these representations, the above models have been extended to a tri- and provide evidence for the location of the legal boundary.
angular model of cadastral boundaries as shown in Fig. 5.
In this model the exterior double-headed arrows and the interior
single-direction arrows serve distinctly different functions (Fig. 6). 4. The elements of the CTM
The exterior double-headed arrows forming the triangle, represent
the actions to convert or transform boundary information from one In this section, each of the elements on the Cadastral Triangular
conceptual form to another. For example, the transformation from Model (CTM) are described to clarify the application of the model for
boundary marks and their spatial relationships into the documented analysing cadastral systems.
bearings and distances between those marks as recorded in field notes
and survey plans. Or the conversion of documented survey information
in the form of bearings and distances between new and existing 4.1. Physical boundary
boundaries, together with coordinates of geodetic control marks, to
Physical boundaries are representations or evidence of a boundary
in the real physical world. The physical features can take many dif-
ferent forms and serve different roles. Some examples are:
Physical Natural features including moveable boundaries, (e.g. riverbanks);
Boundary Artificial boundary features (e.g. walls, fences) that are visible on
imagery;
Emplaced boundary or survey marks with a relationship to the
boundary (may be partly visible on imagery).

4.1.1. Arrows pointing to physical boundary

The arrows pointing to Physical Boundary represent the use of in-
Legal formation in either the documentary record (such as survey plans and
titles) or the digital spatial cadastre (coordinated points and lines in the
Boundary
spatial model) to either:

• emplace boundary marks at boundary positions; or

Documentary Digital SpaƟal • locate existing physical features that represent boundaries (marks,
fences, walls, natural water boundaries).
Boundary Boundary
It is generally less common to use digital spatial boundary co-
ordinates for this purpose but in some jurisdictions they can be used
Fig. 5. Cadastral Triangular Model showing the interrelationship between where other evidence is less reliable or absent, or for lesser interests
Physical, Documentary, Spatial and Legal Boundaries. such as licenses, easements, etc.

5
D. Grant, et al. Land Use Policy 97 (2020) 104758

4.2. Documentary boundary where rights are exercised. This occurs by the cadastral surveyor ap-
plying their judgement to all of the evidence available to make a de-
Documentary boundaries are representations or evidence of a termination of the location of the Legal Boundary.
boundary recorded on documents – most commonly created under a Cadastral surveyors weigh up this evidence in accordance with
legally supported and regulated process such as cadastral survey or land correct legal principles. In cases of conflict or ambiguity, the definitive
registration. The types of information recorded in documents include: decisions on the application of the law could be made in a court of law
survey measurements including measurements to boundary marks, and then implemented by a surveyor in accordance with those deci-
offsets to fences & natural features, reference marks etc. sions.
Calculated boundary dimensions, offsets between boundary marks The Legal Boundary is conceptual. It is realised, documented, and/
or boundary positions such as road widths, etc. or evidenced in the form of the Physical Boundary, Documentary
Plans and diagrams showing the relationships between boundaries, Boundary and the Digital Spatial Boundary.
marks and other physical features.
References to other relevant legal documents such as titles, survey 4.4.1. Arrows pointing to legal boundary
plans, field notes, statutes, approvals of interested parties, etc. The three arrows pointing inwards from Physical Boundary,
Documentary Boundary and Digital Spatial Boundary to Legal
4.2.1. Arrows pointing to documentary boundary Boundary represent the evidential role of either physical, documentary
The arrows pointing to Documentary Boundary represents the re- or digital spatial information to define the correct legal determination
cording and potentially authorisation of documentation of boundaries - of a boundary position.
for example, survey field notes, calculation sheets, reports, and survey The fact that there are multiple forms of information and re-
plans derived from survey observations of marks or other physical presentation of the same thing – a legal boundary – is one of the central
features. In some cases, cadastral boundary documents can be gener- responsibilities and difficulties facing cadastral surveyors.
ated and authorised that were derived, fully or in part, from the digital
spatial cadastre - for example, a plan of amalgamation of parcels or a 5. Applications of the CTM to analysis of cadastral systems and
license which has been generated without an actual field survey. boundary information

4.3. Digital spatial boundary This model can be used to gather information on the complex in-
terrelationships of boundary information in the cadastral system and
A Digital Spatial Boundary is the representation of a boundary re- how these interact with the legal aspects of boundary definition. This
corded within a digital spatial database. There is a potential for these to information may be drawn from a wide range of cadastral decision-
also serve as evidence of boundary location. The most common way of makers, stakeholders and users – each with their own expectations and
representing data in this database is in the form of a digital map view. ways of describing those parts of the overall system that are most im-
(Historical paper-based cadastral index maps of boundaries are classi- portant to them.
fied here as documentary boundaries rather than Digital Spatial The language that is used by these different agents in the cadastral
Boundaries.) system can often vary – especially between jurisdictions but even
The points, lines and polygons (potentially surfaces and poly- within jurisdictions. Cadastral surveyors, land agency officials, geos-
hedrons also in a 3D digital spatial cadastre) are defined as spatial patial data users, lawyers, Council planning officers, utility managers,
objects which have coordinates in terms of an official coordinate re- landowners, etc – these groups all depend on the system but bring their
ference frame as well as the topology defining the connectedness of the own perspectives and sometimes language to their descriptions of it.
spatial objects. Allowing land professionals in the cadastral domain to commu-
The spatial database incorporating digital spatial boundary in- nicate with a shared ontology was outlined as a goal for the Core
formation will often have a great deal of other attribute data as well as Cadastral Domain Model (CCDM) (van Oosterom et al., 2006) which
other spatial datasets (e.g. geo-referenced imagery). However, the focus subsequently evolved into the Land Administration Domain Model
of this paper is the spatial representation of boundaries. (LADM) (Lemmen et al., 2015). The CTM can be considered as a further
tool to assist with this goal.
4.3.1. Arrows pointing to digital spatial boundary For the research project within which the model was developed
The arrows pointing to Digital Spatial Boundary represents the use (Grant et al., 2018), it was found that these different groups of stake-
of documented boundary information (survey plans, etc) or information holders and decision-makers were able to recognise and understand the
on physical boundary feature locations (coordinates) to: model as presented and therefore able to make consistent contributions
of their needs and expectations.
• maintain the spatial objects in the digital spatial cadastral database Given the importance of land use, land management and land
by adding new boundaries following subdivision, etc, or ownership to the economy and environment in any jurisdiction, a cri-
• use improved measurement of physical boundaries or connections to tical aspect of the cadastral system is the mechanisms for identifying
geodetic control to update and align the digital spatial boundaries and resolving conflicts in boundary determination. The CTM assists
with their correct positions. with identifying these.
The closed external loop of the triangle should ideally ensure that all
4.4. Legal boundary representations of a boundary are consistent with each other – at least
within the accuracy limits of the applicable regulations for cadastral
The Legal Boundary represents the position where the boundary is survey. In practice, differences exist for many reasons ranging from
located in accordance with correct application of the law. This is an human error, poor historical practices (by modern standards), through
idealised construct – an accepted convention which provides a frame- to changes in the physical environment (including earth deformation)
work for the application of the law relating to the extents of rights, and legacy databases that were created for one purpose but subse-
restrictions and responsibilities in land. quently used for other purposes.
The Legal Boundary itself does not exist in the physical world. It is The three inward pointing arrows will often result in different so-
an imaginary line having no thickness (for example HM Land Registry, lutions for the location of the legal boundary. The rules and conventions
2019). However, in order to have any practical effect, the legal in the hierarchy of evidence provide mechanisms for resolving these
boundary must be “realised” – it must be given expression in the world differences. Information management systems represented by the three

6
D. Grant, et al. Land Use Policy 97 (2020) 104758

external double-headed arrows around the triangle describe systems for The CTM is a graphical model which can be used as a framework for
data maintenance, transformation and resolving conflicts where they collecting and analysing different forms of evidence for boundary de-
are identified. termination and the interrelationship between physical, documentary
The CTM provides a mechanism for consistently describing and and digital spatial boundary representations. The CTM is a commu-
evaluating these potential conflicts and the mechanisms for resolving nication tool which can assist analysis of specific flows of data & in-
them. formation between different aspects of the complex cadastral system.
Referring back now to Fig. 1 above from Enemark (2004) and The CTM was specifically designed for research into the optimal posi-
Williamson et al. (2010), we can also see the Cadastral Triangular tional uncertainty of the digital spatial cadastres across Australian and
Model as a framework for assessing the boundary information aspects of New Zealand jurisdictions. However, the CTM also has potential to
the central triangle (Cadastral System) of that diagram as it supports the assist analysing other issues facing land administration agencies. e.g.
land administration functions of land tenure, land value, land use, and 3D cadastres, the role of coordinates in boundary definition, or im-
land development. plementation options for fit-for-purpose cadastres in developing coun-
tries.
5.1. Applications to digital spatial cadastre
Author statement
Grant et al. (2018) used an initial form of this model to assist with
the analysis of the optimal positional uncertainty of the digital spatial Donald Grant: Conceptualisation, Methodology, Project
boundaries across Australian jurisdictions and New Zealand, including Administration, Writing- Original draft preparation
the role that the digital spatial boundaries do, or should, play in Stig Enemark: Validation, Writing - Review & Editing
boundary determinations. This research resulted from initiatives to Jaap Zevenbergen: Validation, Writing - Review & Editing
improve the coordinate accuracy of digital spatial boundaries in these David Mitchell: Methodology, Writing - Review & Editing
jurisdictions. Geoffrey McCamley: Investigation, Data Curation, Writing - Review
Following the philosophy of “Fit for Purpose Land Administration” & Editing
(Enemark et al., 2016) – albeit in advanced rather than developing
cadastral systems – the optimal (or fit-for-purpose) positional un- Declaration of competing interest
certainty for boundaries should be dependent on the purposes served by
the boundary information. None.
To collect the data & information flows within each of the cadastral
systems, interviews were held with all land administration agencies Acknowledgments
across Australia and New Zealand (i.e. Offices of the Surveyors General)
and key users of the digital spatial representations of boundaries. The The content of this paper was developed from a research project
CTM assisted by providing a framework for common understanding of supported and published by the Australian Cooperative Research Centre
the data flows, dependencies and purposes served. for Spatial Information (CRC-SI) – subsequently incorporated as
Frontier SI.
5.2. Potential future applications of CTM
Appendix A. Supplementary data
There are other challenges facing cadastral systems and authorities,
including a trend towards developing 3D cadastres. Increased pre- Supplementary material related to this article can be found, in the
valence of elevated and tunnelled roadways etc, add to existing interest online version, at doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.
in the representation of 3D land tenure and property rights for tradi- 104758.
tional high-rise units and office buildings. The CTM could be used as an
analysis framework in this area by helping to clarify the extent to which References
cadastral systems are already managed as 3D boundaries as well as the
data & information exchanges required with 3D digital spatial bound- Bennett, R., van der Molen, P., Zevenbergen, J., 2012. Fitted, Green, and volunteered:
aries that must remain consistent with other forms of boundary in- legal and survey complexities of future boundary systems. Geomatica 66 (3),
formation. 181–193.
Castelli, G.R.A., Mamei, M., Zambonelli, F., 2009. Ubiquitous browsing of the world. In:
Other potential applications may include development of fit-for- Scharl, T.K. (Ed.), The Geospatial Web. Advanced Information and Knowledge
purpose cadastral systems in developing countries (Enemark et al., Processing. Springe.
2016), i.e. identifying how low cost aerial images or GPS mapping can CRSBANZ, 2018. About Us. Retrieved from. https://www.surveyor.asn.au/about-us.
Dale, P., 1976. Cadastral Surveys Within the Commonwealth: Report: HM Stationery Off.
be applicable in determination of boundaries that are consistent with Dale, P., McLaughlin, J., 1999. Land Administration. Oxford University Press.
physical features and long-standing community agreements. Further- De Soto, H., 2000. The Mystery of Capital. Basic Books, New York.
more, the question of how these initial lower cost solutions can lead to Enemark, S., 2004. Building Land Information Policies. Paper Presented at the
Proceedings of Special Forum on Building Land Information Policies in the Americas.
upgrade pathways for continuous improvement of cadastres, can be
Aguascalientes, Mexico.
addressed by applying the CTM. This also relates to modern approaches Enemark, S., McLaren, R., Lemmen, C., 2016. Fit-For-Purpose Land Administration:
to the application of geospatial and survey data to land administration Guiding Principles for Country Implementation. In (pp. 120). Retrieved from.
https://unhabitat.org/books/fit-for-purpose-land-administration-guiding-principles-
(Lemmen et al., 2020) where the CTM may be useful as an analytical
for-country-implementation/.
framework. FIG, 1995. FIG Statement on the Cadastre. Publication 11. Retrieved from. http://www.
fig.net/resources/publications/figpub/pub11/figpub11.asp#4.
6. Conclusion Grant, D.B., McCamley, G., Mitchell, D., Enemark, S., Zevenbergen, J., 2018. Upgrading
Spatial Cadastres in Australia and New Zealand: Functions, Benefits & Optimal
Spatial Uncertainty. Retrieved from. http://www.crcsi.com.au/assets/Resources/
Cadastres, other land administration agencies and practitioners are Upgrading-Spatial-Cadastres-in-Australia-and-New-Zealand.pdf.
faced with ongoing challenges. Many of these challenges emanate from Halsbury’s Laws of England. (1952/64). (third ed. vol. 3).
HM Land Registry, 2019. HM Land Registry Plans: Boundaries. Retrieved from. https://
technological advances in recent years, public access to information www.gov.uk/government/publications/land-registry-plans-boundaries.
and corresponding changes in public expectations. For land adminis- Holland, P., Rajabifard, A., Williamson, I., 2009. Understanding Spatial Enablement of
tration agencies and researchers to respond to these issues a conceptual Government.
Krelle, A., Rajabifard, A., 2010. Cadastre 2014: New Challenges and Direction. Paper
model was developed – the Cadastral Triangular Model (CTM).

7
D. Grant, et al. Land Use Policy 97 (2020) 104758

Presented at the FIG Congress 2010. Sydney, Australia. . 627–660.

Lemmen, C., Van Oosterom, P., Bennett, R., 2015. The land administration domain model. Williamson, I., Enemark, S., 1996. Understanding cadastral maps. Aust. Surv. 38, 52.
Land Use Policy 49, 535–545. Williamson, I., Ting, L., 2001. Land administration and cadastral trends—a framework for
Lemmen, C., Unger, E.M., Bennett, R., 2020. How Geospatial Surveying Is Driving Land re-engineering. J. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 25 (4-5), 339–366.
Administration: Latest Innovations and Developments. GIM International, 34 Williamson, I., Enemark, S., Wallace, J., Rajabifard, A., 2010. Land Administration for
(Business Guide 2020). Sustainable Development. ESRI Press., Redlands, Californina.
Mannings, R., 2008. Ubiquitous Positioning. Artech House. Wilson, A., 1990. GIS technology used to establish a digital cadastral database. N. Z.
McLaughlin, J., 1975. The Nature, Funtion and Design Concepts of Multipurpose Geog. 46 (1), 33–36.
Cadastres (PhD). University of Wisconsin. Zevenbergen, J., Bennett, R., 2015. The Visible Boundary: More than Just a Line Between
National Research Council (NRC), 1980. Need for a Multipurpose Cadastre. National Coordinates. Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the GeoTech
Academy Press, Washington. Rwanda—International Conference on Geospatial Technologies for Sustainable
van Oosterom, P., Lemmen, C., Ingvarsson, T., van der Molen, P., Ploeger, H., Quak, W., Urban and Rural Development Kigali, Rwanda.
et al., 2006. The core cadastral domain model. Comput. Environ. Urban Syst. 30 (5),