IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlands/v10y2021i2p220-d503899.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Hybrid Approaches for Smart Contracts in Land Administration: Lessons from Three Blockchain Proofs-of-Concept

Author

Listed:
  • Rohan Bennett

    (Swinburne Business School, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn 3122, Australia
    Kadaster International, Netherlands’ Cadastre, Land Registry and Mapping Agency, 7311 KZ Apeldoorn, The Netherlands)

  • Todd Miller

    (ChromaWay, S-111 64 Stockholm, Sweden)

  • Mark Pickering

    (Swinburne Business School, Swinburne University of Technology, Hawthorn 3122, Australia)

  • Al-Karim Kara

    (Land Title and Survey Authority of British Columbia, Victoria, BC V8W 9J3, Canada)

Abstract

The emergence of “blockchain” technology as an alternative data management technique has spawned a myriad of conceptual and logical design work across multiple industries and sectors. It is also argued to enable operationalisation of the earlier “smart contract” concept. The domain of land administration has actively investigated these opportunities, albeit also largely at the conceptual level, and usually with a whole-of-sector or “big bang” industry transformation perspective. Less reporting of applied case applications is evident, particularly those undertaken in collaboration with practicing land sector actors. That said, pilots and test cases continue to act as a basis for understanding the relative merits, drawbacks, and implementation challenges of the smart contract concept in land administration. In this vein, this paper extends upon and further refines the existing discourse on smart contracts within the land sector, by giving an updated, if not more nuanced, view of example applications, opportunities, and barriers. In contrast to the earlier works, a hybrid solution that mixes smart contract use with existing technology infrastructure—enabling preservation of the role of a land registry agency as the ultimate arbiter of valid claims—is proposed. This is hypothesised to minimise disruptions, whilst maximising the benefits. Examination of proof-of-concept work on smart contract and blockchain applications in Sweden, Australia (State of New South Wales), and Canada (Province of British Columbia) is undertaken. Comparative analysis is undertaken using several frameworks including: (i) business requirements adherence, (ii) technology readiness and maturity assessment, and (iii) strategic grid analysis. Results show that the hybrid approach enables adherence to land dealing business requirements and that the proofs-of-concept are a necessary step in the development trajectory. Furthering the uptake will likely depend on again taking a whole-of-sector perspective, and attending to remaining issues around business models, stakeholder acceptance, partnerships and trust building, and legal issues linked to data decentralisation and security.

Suggested Citation

  • Rohan Bennett & Todd Miller & Mark Pickering & Al-Karim Kara, 2021. "Hybrid Approaches for Smart Contracts in Land Administration: Lessons from Three Blockchain Proofs-of-Concept," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-22, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:2:p:220-:d:503899
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/2/220/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2073-445X/10/2/220/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Polat, Zeynel Abidin & Alkan, Mehmet, 2018. "Design and implementation of a LADM-based external archive data model for land registry and cadastre transactions in Turkey: A case study of municipality," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 249-266.
    2. Lauslahti, Kristian & Mattila, Juri & Seppälä, Timo, 2016. "Smart Contracts – How will Blockchain Technology Affect Contractual Practices?," ETLA Reports 57, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    3. Unger, Eva-Maria & Bennett, Rohan & Lemmen, Christiaan & de Zeeuw, Kees & Zevenbergen, Jaap & Teo, CheeHai & Crompvoets, Joep, 2020. "Global policy transfer for land administration and disaster risk management," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    4. Prince Donkor Ameyaw & Walter Timo de Vries, 2020. "Transparency of Land Administration and the Role of Blockchain Technology, a Four-Dimensional Framework Analysis from the Ghanaian Land Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-25, December.
    5. Caroline Jobin & Sophie Hooge & Pascal Le Masson, 2020. "What does the proof-of-concept (POC) really prove? A historical perspective and a cross-domain analytical study [Qu'est-ce que la preuve de concept (POC) prouve vraiment ? Perspective historique et," Post-Print hal-02570321, HAL.
    6. Thomas Osterland & Thomas Rose, 2020. "From a Use Case Categorization Scheme Towards a Maturity Model for Engineering Distributed Ledgers," Progress in IS, in: Horst Treiblmaier & Trevor Clohessy (ed.), Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technology Use Cases, pages 33-50, Springer.
    7. Bennett, Rohan Mark & Pickering, M. & Sargent, J., 2019. "Transformations, transitions, or tall tales? A global review of the uptake and impact of NoSQL, blockchain, and big data analytics on the land administration sector," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 435-448.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ansah, Barikisa Owusu & Voss, Winrich & Asiama, Kwabena Obeng & Wuni, Ibrahim Yahaya, 2023. "A systematic review of the institutional success factors for blockchain-based land administration," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    2. Rohan Mark Bennett & Eva-Maria Unger & Christiaan Lemmen & Paula Dijkstra, 2021. "Land Administration Maintenance: A Review of the Persistent Problem and Emerging Fit-for-Purpose Solutions," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-18, May.
    3. Saari, Anniina & Vimpari, Jussi & Junnila, Seppo, 2022. "Blockchain in real estate: Recent developments and empirical applications," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(C).
    4. Ullah, Inayat & Hussain, Saqib, 2023. "Impact of early access to land record information through digitization: Evidence from Alternate Dispute Resolution Data in Punjab, Pakistan," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 134(C).
    5. Kwabena Obeng Asiama & Rohan Bennett & Christiaan Lemmen & Winrich Voss, 2021. "Land, Innovation, and Social Good," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-6, May.
    6. Gholipour, Hassan F. & Arjomandi, Amir & Andargoli, Amirhossein Eslami & Bennett, Rohan, 2023. "On real estate market transparency: The relationship with ICT trade and investment," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 133(C).
    7. Houssein Hellani & Layth Sliman & Abed Ellatif Samhat & Ernesto Exposito, 2021. "On Blockchain Integration with Supply Chain: Overview on Data Transparency," Logistics, MDPI, vol. 5(3), pages 1-23, July.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rosemond Owusu Ansah & Zaid Abubakari & Benjamin Quaye & Dimo Todorovski & Chipofya Malumbo & Christiaan Lemmen, 2024. "Navigating the Terrain of Digital Transition: Ghana’s Journey of Developing a Digital Land Information System," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-28, April.
    2. Rohan Mark Bennett & Eva-Maria Unger & Christiaan Lemmen & Paula Dijkstra, 2021. "Land Administration Maintenance: A Review of the Persistent Problem and Emerging Fit-for-Purpose Solutions," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-18, May.
    3. Rohan Mark Bennett & Jerome Donovan & Eryadi Masli & Kirsikka Riekkinen, 2023. "Land Administration As-A-Service: Relevance, Applications, and Models," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-19, January.
    4. Hukkinen, Taneli & Mattila, Juri & Seppälä, Timo, 2017. "Distributed Workflow Management with Smart Contracts," ETLA Reports 78, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    5. Stöcker, Claudia & Bennett, Rohan & Koeva, Mila & Nex, Francesco & Zevenbergen, Jaap, 2022. "Scaling up UAVs for land administration: Towards the plateau of productivity," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    6. Iban, Muzaffer Can & Aksu, Oktay, 2020. "A model for big spatial rural data infrastructure in Turkey: Sensor-driven and integrative approach," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    7. Sundarakani, Balan & Ajaykumar, Aneesh & Gunasekaran, Angappa, 2021. "Big data driven supply chain design and applications for blockchain: An action research using case study approach," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    8. Seppälä, Timo & Mucha, Tomasz & Mattila, Juri, 2023. "Beyond AI, Blockchain Systems, and Digital Platforms: Digitalization Unlocks Mass Hyper-Personalization and Mass Servitization," ETLA Working Papers 106, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    9. Prishchepov, Alexander V. & Ponkina, Elena V. & Sun, Zhanli & Bavorova, Miroslava & Yekimovskaja, Olga A., 2021. "Revealing the intentions of farmers to recultivate abandoned farmland: A case study of the Buryat Republic in Russia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    10. Frédéric Marty & Julien Pillot, 2019. "Cooperation, Dependence and Eviction - How Platform-To-Business Relationships in Mobile Telephony Ecosystems Should Be Addressed in A Competition Law Perspective?," CIRANO Working Papers 2019s-01, CIRANO.
    11. Ansah, Barikisa Owusu & Voss, Winrich & Asiama, Kwabena Obeng & Wuni, Ibrahim Yahaya, 2023. "A systematic review of the institutional success factors for blockchain-based land administration," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    12. Mattila, Juri & Seppälä, Timo & Lähteenmäki, Ilkka, 2018. "Who Holds the Reins? – Banks in the Crossfire of Global Platforms," ETLA Reports 86, The Research Institute of the Finnish Economy.
    13. Atazadeh, Behnam & Olfat, Hamed & Rajabifard, Abbas & Kalantari, Mohsen & Shojaei, Davood & Marjani, Afshin Mesbah, 2021. "Linking Land Administration Domain Model and BIM environment for 3D digital cadastre in multi-storey buildings," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    14. Pierre-François Blin & Trias Aditya & Purnama Budi Santosa & Christophe Claramunt, 2023. "A Methodological Approach towards Cyber Risk Management in Land Administrations Systems," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, December.
    15. Prince Donkor Ameyaw & Walter Timo de Vries, 2021. "Toward Smart Land Management: Land Acquisition and the Associated Challenges in Ghana. A Look into a Blockchain Digital Land Registry for Prospects," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-22, March.
    16. Ivana Racetin & Jelena Kilić Pamuković & Mladen Zrinjski & Marina Peko, 2022. "Blockchain-Based Land Management for Sustainable Development," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(17), pages 1-15, August.
    17. Weiguo Fan & Wei Yao & Kehan Chen, 2023. "Integrating Energy Systems Language and Emergy Approach to Simulate and Analyze the Energy Flow Process of Land Transfer," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(5), pages 1-24, May.
    18. Unger, Eva-Maria & Bennett, Rohan Mark & Lemmen, Christiaan & Zevenbergen, Jaap, 2021. "LADM for sustainable development: An exploratory study on the application of domain-specific data models to support the SDGs," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    19. Mintah, Kwabena & Boateng, Festival Godwin & Baako, Kingsley Tetteh & Gaisie, Eric & Otchere, Gideon Kwame, 2021. "Blockchain on stool land acquisition: Lessons from Ghana for strengthening land tenure security other than titling," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(C).
    20. Guler, Dogus & Yomralioglu, Tahsin, 2021. "A reformative framework for processes from building permit issuing to property ownership in Turkey," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlands:v:10:y:2021:i:2:p:220-:d:503899. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.