Land Use Policy 109 (2021) 105689

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

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

Title Validation and collaborative mapping to accelerate quality assurance

of land registration
Trias Aditya *, Purnama Budi Santosa, Yulaikhah Yulaikhah, Nurrohmat Widjajanti,
Dedi Atunggal, Miranty Sulistyawati
Department of Geodetic Engineering, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Yogyakarta, Indonesia

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Incomplete digitalisation of land-titling documentation and sporadic first-titling in the past pose considerable
Collaborative mapping challenges to delivering complete and good quality land information. In Indonesia, for the past three years, a new
Cadastral map land policy has been implemented as part of a project to completely and systematically register land titles. This
Land titles
new policy has increased the production of land titles by seven to nine times. However, the approach remains
Title validation
Spatial accuracy
focused on increasing quantity rather than improving quality. As the number of unmapped land titles is still high,
Title security insecurity of land certificates resulting from the current national project is imminent. Social challenges to land-
titling activities include poor participation of landowners while technical problems could include incomplete
validation. This paper presents the results of a study that employed collaborative mapping to validate land titles
and evaluated corresponding quality improvements. The direct evaluation was done for a rural village and three
urban wards. The results show that spatial accuracy and completeness could be delivered within the existing
legal and institutional framework. However, complete legal security of published land titles cannot be achieved
unless the local land office undertakes incremental improvement. This result suggests that land registration
completeness before 2025 is unlikely without policy and technical reforms that use collaborative mapping
methods for ensuring quality assurance in first-titling campaigns.

1. Introduction
Good quality and completeness of all land parcels in a country,
irrespective of the land-rights situation, signify the realisation of reliable
land-administration services (UN-ECE, 1996).1 Complete inventory and
information about land use and ownership increases the country’s ca­
pacity to resolve complex land issues, better manage its resources and
create an efficient land market. As endorsed by United Nations (UN) and
International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) (FIG, 1999, 2014; UN-ECE,
1996), land registration that aims to provide assurances and formal se­
curity to rights holders must have complete and accurate cadastre.
Complete land registration has been the Indonesian government’s
mandate for more than 75 years, since the country’s independence.
However, to date, less than 50% of the approximately 126 million land
parcels have complete land titling (i.e., as of early 2019, close to 57
million parcels have been titled and land certificates issued) (BPN,
2020). Indonesia’s land administration system and land offices face a
race against time to complete cadastral maps for all land parcels and
register unregistered land parcels. Along with competition for access to
resources — as Indonesia’s annual population growth is about 1% (The
World Bank, 2019) — the demand for land is also rapidly increasing.
Such demands are imposing associated pressures on widely prevalent
traditional or informal rights to land and related resources. At the same
time, issues of inequality, such as land access ratio, and Sustainable
Development Goals (1, 2, 5, 11 and 15) or SDG targets related to land
sectors (Sachs et al., 2018), remain constant challenges. Land registra­
tion and titling, in conjunction with appropriate legal, institutional and
social environment can help sustainably meet this growing demand and
deal with persisting challenges.
Land certification became a government priority during the first term
of Joko Widodo’s presidency (2014–2019). In 2017, the Ministry of
Agrarian & Spatial Planning/National Land Agency (MoASP/BPN,

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: triasaditya@ugm.ac.id (T. Aditya).
1
For the purposes of this study, the term ‘completeness’ is defined as ‘all land parcels in an area, irrespective of their land use status and tenurial conditions, have
been mapped and included in the cadastral map’.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105689
Received 20 July 2019; Received in revised form 3 July 2021; Accepted 6 August 2021
Available online 14 August 2021
0264-8377/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
T. Aditya et al.
known as BPN) unveiled the national ‘Complete Systematic Land
Registration Project’, locally known as Pendaftaran Tanah Sistematik
Lengkap or PTSL. To support the programme, a Presidential Instruction
was launched in February 2018, ordering all relevant ministries and
stakeholders (e.g., Ministry of Environment and Forestry, Ministry of
Interior, Ministry of Finance, Geospatial Information Agency) to fully
support the completion of all land parcels in the country. In recent years,
a public ceremony to hand over land certificates has become the
mainstay of the President’s visits to cities and districts. The President
envisages the issuance/distribution of land certificates as a potential tool
for rights holders to gain greater socio-economic benefits, such as better
access to bank credits.
Through PTSL, since its adoption in 2017 as a nation-wide systematic
land-registration programme, the government has significantly accel­
erated its attention, allocation of resources to accelerate registration of
all land parcels and issuance of titles For example, in Indonesia, till
2016, close to one million land parcels were registered and certificates
distributed, annually. However, in 2017, the government registered
more than five million land parcels, and in 2018, more than seven
million parcels have been registered. Despite this progress, there is
widespread concern over the robustness and quality of the standards and
processes adopted in the PTSL programme as no tested methods and
guidelines have been developed for monitoring compliance with regu­
lations, standards and stated policies. Quality assurance becomes sig­
nificant since land offices have not completed digitalisation of land-
registration documents (i.e., land book, measurement letter and cadas­
tral maps). Various land-registration projects introduced digitalisation
of completed land related documents (e.g., land parcel maps, ownership
details) and some of these projects were also financed by international
donors such as the World Bank (The World Bank, 2014a). Unfortunately,
all of the digitalisation efforts tended to be sporadic. They were often
discontinued after the projects were closed, since comprehensive su­
pervision and control over data governance were lacking. The daily
workload and a long-standing administrative routine often overrode any
digitalisation progress achieved. As a result, from the beginning of the
PTSL programme, local land offices tended to prioritise the issuance of
land certificates rather than the validation of completed land certificates
that were ready for distribution. This raises a crucial question: to what
extent was land registration/titling under the PTSL programme reliable
and will it help enforce property rights encompassed in land titles in the
long-run? These issues need to be understood if the benefits of regis­
tration and titling are to be captured and maximised.
At the operational level, technical principles that are evaluated in the
Land Administration Systems (LAS) include methods adopted for data
capture and to evaluate the quality and accuracy of the data gathered as
well as data management (Steudler et al., 2004). For good quality and
reliable cadastral data base, (i) completeness of land inventory, (ii)
spatial accuracy, (iii) thematic accuracy, (iv) logical consistency, and (v)
temporal validity are the most important quality-related challenges
(Jakobsson and Giversen, 2007). The Land Governance Assessment
Framework (LGAF) study for Indonesia (Deininger et al., 2012), high­
lighted that completeness and reliability in property registration are still
unresolved issues. A recent ‘Ease of Doing Business’ (EoDB) survey
confirmed that the score for land administration quality index is low
(Indonesia was ranked 106), making Indonesia a less attractive desti­
nation for investments than its neighbours in South East Asia (The World
Bank, 2020).
The adoption of the principles of Fit-for-Purpose (FFP) in Land
Administration is a recommended option for accelerating completeness
in land parcel registration (Enemark et al., 2014). As observed in the
literature review (Bennett and Alemie, 2016; Khezri et al., 2018; Ram­
adhani et al., 2018), existing FFP literature, despite its promising
applicability for establishing a reliable land administration, has mainly
focused on data capture and ensuring the accuracy of spatial data
(Moreri et al., 2018; Rahmatizadeh et al., 2018; Ramadhani et al., 2018),
and rarely examined the importance of incremental improvement
2
Land Use Policy 109 (2021) 105689
strategies in implementation quality and outcomes.
Over the past few years, many studies have evaluated the existing
LAS framework, in different periods and contexts, by examining policy,
legal, institutional and social environment and have developed country-
specific indicators for monitoring progress and determining good prac­
tices in strengthening Indonesia’s land sector (Deininger et al., 2012;
Bandeira et al., 2010; Mitchell et al., 2008; Rajabifard et al., 2007).
However, a study that deals with title validation and is closely related to
the quality evaluation of LAS at the operational level is lacking.
Previous works in LAS upgrading and improvements mostly elabo­
rate on methods to upgrade spatial elements of digital cadastre, while a
comprehensive method to deal with the variety and inconsistent past
land administration document sources for title validation is limited.
Cadastre upgrading cases from different countries, e.g, Sri Lanka (Div­
ithure and Tang, 2013), Turkey (Yildiz and Erden, 2020) and Croatia
(Roić et al., 2021) focus on spatial accuracy evaluation and upgrading.
Assessing both spatial and document sources against their physical
boundaries is essential to determine consequences, benefits and strate­
gies for cadastral improvements (Grant et al., 2018).
The paper proposes a combined method to deal with both direct
evaluation and improvements for accelerating quality assurance on land
titles issued in rural and urban areas in Indonesia, where previous land
titling initiatives were sporadic and used different data collection
methods. The paper also attempts to verify the effectiveness of com­
munity participation in collaborative mapping for improving the quality
of land titles. At the operational level, in the country context, quality
evaluation is required to identify needs and a costing framework to
implement strategies to improve the current LAS. Previous studies have
conducted direct quality evaluations using interview and survey
methods (Ali et al., 2014, 2013). This paper presents a direct quality
evaluation in one rural village and three urban wards. Community
participation is explored in the form of collaborative mapping activities
(Aditya, 2010; Asiama et al., 2017) to improve land records.
According to the latest data from the government, of the 57 million
titles registered (about 30% of the total estimated number of parcels in
the country), many still lack either geo-referencing or plotting (BPN,
2020). Since its launch in 2017, the PTSL programme focused on pri­
oritising land titling; attention to data quality improvement was an
afterthought. Therefore, analysts suggest that incremental improvement
for LAS in Indonesia should become a priority as the number of un­
mapped land parcels remains high and continues to pose a challenge for
the government. It is reasoned that land records will not be complete if
titled land parcels are not validated on the ground. To improve the
quality, an evaluation must be prioritised. In response to this need, this
study focuses on existing challenges — learning from where land titling
has been sporadic and digitalisation has been incomplete in the past —
in assuring quality of the land registration process and how these can be
addressed by improving standards in field monitoring and capacities.
The first section of this paper presents background to this research
and an overview of the study areas. The second section presents the
methods used in direct quality monitoring and evaluation and title
validation. It also details the collaborative mapping activities under­
taken for field validation. In doing so, it assesses the methods/steps
adopted to accelerate speed and improve quality of land registration and
titling in two pilot sites. The final section presents a conclusion of the
findings and recommendations for the future.
2. Research background and study areas
2.1. Research background
Systematic mapping, surveying and registration of land parcels are
seen as fundamental steps in strengthening good land governance. In
that sense, title registration is a modern global trend, voluntarily
adopted by governments or made mandatory by global donors and the
development community (Keenan, 2017). A country’s progress in
T. Aditya et al.
building sustainable land administration and management systems is
often considered an indicator of its readiness to establish an efficient
land market and achieve targets set in the Sustainable Development
Goals (Mitchell et al., 2008; Rajabifard et al., 2007).
Indonesia’s Basic Agrarian Law (known as Undang Undang Pokok
Agraria - UUPA), of 1960, replaced the earlier Dutch Agrarian Law or
Agrarische Wet (1870). UUPA was meant to regulate and better manage
Indonesia’s natural resources including land for the socio-economic
welfare of all the people. The Law was expected to unify existing
Indonesian land tenure structures made up of the State’s right to
agrarian resources, customary land rights, and individual ownerships.
Article §19 of the UUPA states that the government will facilitate land
registration to cover: (i) surveying, mapping, and recording of land; (ii)
registration and transfer of land rights; and (iii) granting proof of rights.
Surveying and mapping are known as “cadastre”; registration and land
rights transfer is rooted in the Dutch system of deeds registration; and
granting proof of rights was seen as indicative of the intention to move
towards a positive registration and titling system. In this regard, the
government is mandated to provide landowners a strong evidence of
formal rights and ownership after completion of the first registration but
not indefensible rights when authentic proof from before registration,
presented by others, can sway a court.
In its efforts to achieve completeness of land registration and upda­
ted records, Indonesia’s cadastral system has confronted serious chal­
lenges in dealing with traditional and customary (ulayat) land rights
within and outside the forest areas as mandated in the UUPA [see also
(Eng, 2016)]. In addition, because of the uncoordinated and sporadic
registration approaches of the past, Indonesia’s land administration
system has thus far produced incomplete output [e.g., incomplete data
in cadastral map index records (Zevenbergen, 2002)] and conflicting
data and records that have long created a lack of trust in the system. A
systematic approach and digitalisation have long been identified as
‘missing pieces’ of Indonesian land administration. Past efforts to fill in
those gaps through projects funded by international donors such as the
World Bank (1995–2001 and 2004–2009) have not yielded full results.
Land records remain incomplete and often inconsistent (The World
Bank, 2014a). In 2016–17, political support from the President provided
the MoASP/BPN a solid mandate to fast-track land policy reforms in the
country. This resulted in the popular land-registration programme called
PTSL. It is the government’s flagship programme, launched in 2017, that
aims to implement systematic title registration for all unregistered land
parcels in Indonesia and thereby generate consistent and complete land
records for future reference.
The PTSL land-registration programme encompasses surveying,
mapping, registration and certification of boundaries of all land parcels
in a village. It also deals with land boundaries of previously registered
land parcels, to ensure complete representation of land ownership in
each community, village, sub-district, district and the country as a
whole. PTSL implementation includes determining overall location in a
particular village and defining boundaries, collecting physical and legal
data on all land parcels, and systematic processing of all data gathered,
including public display of such data and its endorsement by the
households and final data verification for confirmation before publica­
tion. The distribution of land certificates to land holders, generally in a
public event, is deemed the final step in completing the PTSL process.
The PTSL programme is designed to map all land parcels, nation-
wide, irrespective of their current tenure conditions; to survey and
display publicly the results of such a survey; and finally to register/
certify all unregistered land parcels in the country. Land parcels targeted
by the PTSL programme fall into one of four categories: K1, K2, K3 and
K4. Of these, K1 refers to unregistered land parcels that meet legal re­
quirements for processing land titles. K2 refers to land parcels for which
land titling could not be processed owing to unsettled land conflicts or
pending court cases. K3 refers to land parcels that do not meet legal
requirements for land titles owing to their special ownership status such
as customary and sultanate land rights, land parcels used by foreigners
3
Land Use Policy 109 (2021) 105689
or land parcels with unresolved boundary demarcation issues. K4 refers
to corrected land titles that were previously not geo-referenced (also
known as floating parcels or flying land titles) or have invalid or
incomplete information.
After three years of its implementation, unfortunately, K4 is no
longer a priority in PTSL implementation. As seen in PTSL’s accom­
plishments for 2018, the programme completed nine million land par­
cels in its second batch. These parcels include 62% of K1; 25% of K3
(unfinished land titles); and 13% of K4 (corrected land titles) (BPN,
2020). This confirmed not only PTSL’s priority focus areas but also its
‘safe approach’ wherein it chose not to process the more challenging K2
land parcels and gave lesser priority to K4. It was argued that PTSL
should be considered an opportunity to resolve and clarify tenure claims
but that aspect has not received adequate attention so far.
Information in Indonesian land-titling records (title plan, measure­
ment letter and registry/land book) is often inconsistent with that stored
electronically in land databases. As noted earlier, recorded land infor­
mation of registered properties remains deficient as “less than half the
registered properties are identifiable on maps” (Deininger et al., 2012).
Land offices often struggle to keep data reliable, since manual re­
cords (paper documents) and electronic records often do not match.
Keeping pace with periodic changes and updates is not an easy task.
After the first titling is completed, there might be further land sub-
divisions, transfers and transactions. Land offices do not always docu­
ment these subsequent transfers well (see under ‘Manpower’ in causes
listed in Fig. 1). For example, transfer of rights through land convey­
ances and land sub-divisions should cancel the original title and result in
the issuance of new titles and updated records. However, incomplete
and sporadic digitalisation of available data (since land offices were first
computerised in the late 2000s) mean that titles and details registered in
the land book do not match spatial footprints in the measurement letter.
Data inconsistencies and lack of supervision in documenting land
conveyance have resulted in many invalid records in the existing land
databases, creating a mismatch with information in the physical land
book. Similarly, changes made in the land book are not always updated/
recorded correctly in the databases. This is a good example of shortage
of indicators to assess information delivery accountability in land
administration systems (Haldrup and Stubkjær, 2013).
In the study areas, evidence was gathered by collecting and sys­
tematically examining digital records (including scanned documents)
and comparing them with manual documents for land certificates pub­
lished by local land offices. The research gathered quantitative data and
qualitative information by interviewing men and women, land registrars
and local land officials and community leaders residing in these sites. In
addition, the study team interviewed on the challenges faced in ensuring
process and output quality. Such challenges were categorised on the
basis of materials, methods, machines, measurements, mother nature/
environment, and manpower (6Ms) as described in Fig. 1. For more
detailed examples, see Supplementary Material in A1 and A2 that detail
the inconsistencies found in the records owing to manual errors or lack
of professional discipline in data management.
2.2. Study areas
In support of this research, the ministry/BPN assigned two sites: (i) a
village in Sleman District, Yogyakarta in 2015, and (ii) three urban
wards in Surakarta city, Central Java, during 2017–18. At the time of
this study, Sleman and Surakarta land offices were those that had pro­
duced more than 70% of the estimated total titles in the district. Of this,
Sleman represents rural areas which have different social settings and
interactions than the urban areas represented by three wards in Sur­
akarta. The research comprised two main components: (i) quality
evaluation and (ii) quality improvement and problem-solving by
applying action-research techniques.
T. Aditya et al.
Fig. 1. The 6Ms that hinder completeness and accuracy of land registration.
2.2.1. Sleman village
Girikerto village is located in Turi Sub-district of Sleman District in
Yogyakarta Province. The village has 13 sub-villages or hamlets and is
located in a hilly area 500–700 m above mean sea level. The government
has categorised most of this area as a hazardous zone due to its proximity
to an active volcano, Mount Merapi, which last erupted in 2010. Most of
the land in this village is used for agriculture. In the province, this area is
well-known for growing different varieties of fruits. The District Land
Office did not have accurate records on the number of land parcels in the
village, but data compiled from tax office records suggested that the
village has approximately 7100 land parcels. Research was conducted
here between May and November 2015.
2.2.2. Surakarta ward
Surakarta city has 51 wards and at least 134,000 land parcels. As part
of the project activities, land registration work has almost been
completed in all areas. Registration was carried out in accordance with
the National Law (UUPA) and included categories of land rights such as
freehold, rights to build and rights to use. During this process, some land
parcels owned as per customary practices, earlier owned by Surakarta
Kingdom (Sunanate and Mangkunegara Princely State, two Javanese
monarchies centred in Surakarta), were converted and included in the
modern land administration system.
Of the 51 wards in Surakarta, three were chosen as study areas, i.e.,
Purwodiningratan, Kepatihan Kulon and Kepatihan Wetan Wards. Data
was gathered to examine the robustness of the monitoring and quality
practices followed and to discuss possible approaches for improving
overall quality assurance and methods for resolving disputes. Fig. 2
shows the location of the study areas.
Fig. 2. Map of Indonesia and the location of study areas (marked).
4
Land Use Policy 109 (2021) 105689
3. Methods
Quality assessments could focus on capturing the static nature of
cadastral information (Jakobsson and Giversen, 2007) like titles, maps
and measurement letters or the dynamic nature of different uses of such
information like first registration, transactions, taxation and public
function (Krigsholm et al., 2018). This paper utilises a direct quality
evaluation2 to assess the legal security of land titles based on the static
nature of information indicators covering spatial accuracy and legal
consistency of land titles. First, it assesses the spatial accuracy of land
titles. Second, it validates the completeness, linkages and temporal
validity of land titles and administrative sources as well as spatial rep­
resentations of land parcels. The paper discusses two land validation
cases. The first case deals with the validation of land titles in a Sleman
village. It was preceded by participatory mapping activities and then
followed up by collaborative survey activities to collect boundary data
of unregistered land parcels. The second case deals with the validation of
land titles in three urban wards in Surakarta. The title validation was
started first with data quality evaluation. This was followed up by
quality improvements that might have included field validation through
collaborative mapping activities.
3.1. Quality evaluation
The direct evaluation aims to examine the spatial data quality of
registered parcel boundaries and the logical consistency of electronic
records of registered parcels against their matching ownership proof. As
indicated in the previous section (Fig. 1), we identified challenges
related to the legal security of the published land titles. These challenges
relate closely to previous attempts to perform a direct evaluation of data
organisation quality (Ali et al., 2013) and to assess technical perfor­
mance indicators on data properties and data maintenance (Hilhorst,
and Meunier, 2015; Steudler et al., 2004). However, an evaluation
method suited to a complex LAS at the operational level which assesses
spatial accuracy, completeness, links to document sources and their
logical consistency and temporal validity does not exist.
This evaluation becomes critical as land offices have delivered land
administration services as electronic services. However, the perceived
legal land administration products for stakeholders (e.g., consumers,
notaries, courts) were still in paper form (e.g., titles, deeds and mea­
surement letters). Data maintenance was done through electronic land
information systems, known as KKP, which directly affect the central­
ised land databases (and its geospatial databases known as GeoKKP).
The national land databases implemented the country profile of Land
2
The direct evaluation methods resolve data quality “by comparing the data
to external or internal reference information” (Brodeur et al., 2019)
T. Aditya et al. Land Use Policy 109 (2021) 105689

Administration Domain Model (LADM) (Lemmen et al., 2015). Only
registered land records were included in the KKP. They were managed as
aggregated records per village.
Registered land records and corresponding paper documents were
subjected to a quality evaluation. The quality elements include spatial
data quality, thematic accuracy, logical consistency and temporal val­
idity. Spatial data quality sub elements used for assessing land titles are:
the location must comply with neighbouring land boundaries, the dif­
ference between textual and geometrical area should be less than 5%,
shape and boundary distances must conform visually with aerial imag­
ery or title plan. Also, spatial completeness of land parcels in a (rural)
village or an (urban) ward must be full, which means registered, un­
registered and not confirmed land titles are mapped.
The sub-element thematic accuracy deals with information accuracy
of titles and document sources regardless of whether the information is
only partially typed or not typed at all. Logical consistency includes the
topological consistency of land parcels (e.g., no sliver and overlapping
areas) and domain consistency (for example, value entered into KKP is
coherent with land book archive; or ID number of measurement letter
entered into KKP is correct). Lastly, the evaluation also deals with time
stamp (real-time accuracy) and lineage correctness to assess temporal
validity of land titles.
The evaluation procedures were a mixture of software scripts (using
spreadsheet software, the KKP itself and GIS/CAD software back and
forth) and onscreen, visual inspections. This involved comparing the
graphical area of individual parcels against their measurement diagram
and textual area as stated in measurement letters. Visual inspections and
distance measurements helped assess shape, boundary distances and
location of registered land parcels on the map against their digital copies
in measurement letters. If digital copies do not exist, digitalisation needs
to be done. As summarised in land-registration literature, digitalisation
of land-tenure documentation is an important step to ensure the ‘speed
and ease of data collection, more efficient data management,
inclusionary potentials for poor and vulnerable groups and greater
transparency’ (Lengoiboni et al., 2019).
The KKP already has a quality rating system. However, this only
deals with information availability and not necessarily quality. By
default, the system marks the quality of individual land records based on
the availability of registration documents (i.e., a measurement letter and
a land book representing a land title) and the content and lineage of the
associated land record. The classification rating is based on the existence
of: georeferenced spatial data of land parcels, spatial representation on
the measurement letter, textual description on the measurement letter
and land register (see Supplementary Material B1). The rating does not
assess spatial accuracy, attribute accuracy, logical consistency and
temporal validity. The current rating system does not support incre­
mental improvement strategies.
Problems could arise since the system’s quality criteria only recog­
nises whether a land right (as per the land book identity number) is
plotted on a cadastral map with attributes specifying parcel identity and
measurement letter number. Actual land status may not be updated
electronically but only marked and changed on paper documents.
Similarly, incomplete digitalisation means some electronic records may
be correct, but the actual documents stored in the archiving system
might not be updated accordingly. Revisions were made to the original
rating system based on the proposed evaluation method and are sum­
marised in Table 1, which also provides possible solutions to validate
land titles. Spatial quality criteria include differences in area and dis­
tance between textual and graphical data as well as adjacency of land
parcels. Logical consistency criteria include lineage of right transfers
and matching information between digital records and paper
documents.
A revised quality classification yielded five classes, shortened as C1
to C5, ranging from minor to major corrections. Typically, C1 had minor
issues with logical consistency or thematic accuracy. It would only
require a new definition of linkage between registration documents (e.

Table 1
Proposed quality classification and corresponding corrections.
KKP Paper documents Land Records Judgement criteria Revised Treatments for
rating Classes for validations
Quality
Improvement
Plotted on Land Spatial Textual Spatial Textual Spatial Logical
Cadastral Book/ Representation Description on data on data on Quality consistency
maps Registry on the the Land Land (Area, between
Measurement Measurement Records Records Distance, paper
Letter/Title plan Letter (*А) (*B) Shape, Documents &
Adjacency) Electronic
(*C) Records (*D)

KW 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes OK OK OK OK – None

…. Yes Yes Yes Yes OK OK OK Not OK C1 Editing records
KW 2 Yes Yes No Yes OK OK Not OK Not OK C2 Redrwaing, Spatial
Adjustment
…. Yes Yes No Yes NE (S) OK Not OK OK C3 Document Tracing,
Editing Records,
Redrawing
KW 3 Yes Yes No No NE (S) NE (T) Not OK Not OK C4 C3 treatment +
Collaborative mapping
KW 4 No Yes Yes Yes NE (S) OK OK OK C2 Redrwaing, Spatial
Adjustment
…. No Yes Yes Yes NE (S) NE (T) Not OK Not OK C4 C3 treatment +
Collaborative mapping
KW 5 No Yes No Yes NE (S) NE (T) Not OK Not OK C4 document
Tracing+Collaborative
mapping
KW 6 No Yes No No NE (S) NE (T) Not OK Not OK C5 Document Tracing +
Collaborative Mapping

Remarks:(*A) NE(S): Not Eligible Spatially: No information at all/partially correct/wrong location/wrong shape;
(*B) NE(T): Not Eligible Textually: No information at all/partially identical/no lineage/not up to date;
(*C) Spatial Quality Criteria: The difference area between textual and geometry area is less than 5%, the distance and shape conform with aerial imagery/title plan
(visual), the adjacency with neighbouring parcels is acceptable (visual);
(D) Logical Consistency Criteria: Identity, underlying rights, lineage of right transfer entered in land records match data on paper documents.

5
T. Aditya et al.
g., title plan, measurement letters and land book) with the cadastral map
to ensure the logical consistency of land records. Very few records
classified into the C1 class will have to be edited for thematic accuracy.
C2 had medium spatial accuracy issues while C3 had significant spatial
accuracy, logical consistency and temporal validity issues. C4 had major
issues in spatial accuracy and logical consistency also seen as uncon­
firmed land titles that required field validation activities. Land titles
with C5 labels mainly were unresolved C4 land titles.
3.2. Quality improvements
Based on the findings summarised in Table 1, data corrections can
affect electronic records or paper documents or both. They can deal with
spatial and legal data. In order to improve data quality, treatments are
applied to land registration data. Treatments equal to corrections
applied to ensure that land titles are valid.
Corrections were made to electronic records and paper-based regis­
tration documents to ensure completeness, temporal validity and logical
consistency, especially conceptual and domain consistency (Jakobsson
and Giversen, 2007). If land titles meet the criteria of spatial data quality
but not of logical consistency (C1), the digital records require a minor
correction on data link and a minor spatial repositioning to avoid
overlaps against registered land parcels. If land titles do not meet spatial
quality criteria (C2), data has to be extracted and measurement letters
redrawn to make position, distances, polygon area and adjacency of
individual parcels acceptable. If land titles do not meet both the spatial
quality and logical consistency criteria (C3), electronic data revision and
document tracing are required. As seen in Fig. 3, treatments to C2 and
C3 classes can vary from redrawing (treatment 1), spatial adjustments
(treatment 2) and document tracing (treatment 3). Document tracing
involves tracking back and examining paperwork on a registered parcel.
Land titles were validated from one block to another block in a ward.
As a result, there could have been parcels with no registration or invalid
Fig. 3. Assessment criteria for validating land titles and resulting classes, C1–C5.
6
Land Use Policy 109 (2021) 105689
registration data, which are considered unconfirmed land titles (C4).
Thus, at the end of office work in this research, a list of quality status of
land parcels in each village was created, with land parcels categorised as
confirmed and unconfirmed. Confirmed land parcels were ones where
the land titles had successfully been validated through mapping work
from the office. Spatial representations and land registration documents
in both electronic and paper format were valid and updated. Uncon­
firmed land parcels meant that their digital records were incomplete or
inconsistent when compared to spatial and registration documents
related to the current state of the parcels (see Fig. 3).
The map and the complete list of land status were used by surveyors
to facilitate participatory validation in the field by respective stake­
holders. Field activities for improving the quality of land titles with C4
include community validation (treatment 4), field visit (treatment 5)
and interview with landowners (treatment 6). The latest class, C5, refers
to land titles not resolved by other treatments. Such land parcels in a
village or an urban ward have not been registered successfully in the
past due to either their unconfirmed or unregistered status. When status
is confirmed as unregistered, treatment method 7 (cadastral survey) can
be implemented to demarcate the fixed boundaries of unregistered
parcels against neighbouring parcels for first titling.
3.3. Field validation using a collaborative mapping approach
Collaborative mapping refers to producing a local reference map
with necessary and thematic geospatial information, usually acquired
and compiled through joint survey and mapping activities involving
local governments, communities and relevant stakeholders (Aditya
et al., 2017). Data acquisition and compilation, synchronisation, veri­
fication and presentation are accomplished through ortho-rectified
aerial images or high-resolution satellite images as the base. Collabo­
rative mapping starts from the smallest unit area (e.g., neighbourhoods)
and extends to larger areas (e.g., blocks, corridors or villages) in a
T. Aditya et al.
district or city. In the land-registration context, collaborative mapping
means using aerial photographs or satellite images as a canvas to vali­
date registered parcels. This means ascertaining the quality of registered
parcels with the help of community representatives over a series of
mapping sessions. For feasible systematic land registration, a careful
design is needed, one that allows legal and technical work to be com­
bined in one visit, where ‘landholders may be used as survey assistants,
witnesses and more’ (Törhönen, 2004).
Surveyors and assistant surveyors organised a village meeting to get
community representatives to provide feedback on the adjacency and
validity of unknown land parcels. During this visit, the current dweller
must also be interviewed, if required. Collaborative mapping enables
community representatives and landowners to participate in land
boundary and ownership validation and updates. Community repre­
sentatives comprise community neighbourhood leaders (locally known
as ketua RW and RT) and local leaders who know a lot about the
neighbourhood (in urban areas). In Sleman, each sub-village has a land
community group consisting of the sub-village leader and RW leaders.
Local knowledge and acquaintance with local residents can help accel­
erate the mapping session. Thus, local leaders are important to this ac­
tivity. Surveyors served as facilitators of the mapping sessions.
Surveyors could correct maps using information gained from commu­
nity representatives in the mapping sessions.
Community mapping was undertaken in all sub-villages (known
locally as dusun) to verify land boundaries and their status (registered or
not registered) and to verify administrative boundaries (delineating
village and sub-village administrative areas). In all, more than 75 people
were involved in the mapping activities. Mapping sessions should verify
place names, administrative boundaries and ownership boundaries.
Based on the quality evaluation done in each sub-village, land bound­
aries were plotted and identified. As a result, registered and unregistered
land parcels were clearly identified.
Landowners of unregistered land parcels were mobilised by com­
munity groups to install boundary markers since their ownership status
was clear. In accordance with this process, such landowners and their
neighbours completed a ‘contradictory delimitation’ in which sub-
Fig. 4. Collaborative mapping workflow in systematic land registration.
7
Land Use Policy 109 (2021) 105689
village leaders facilitated it before the field survey. Once the boundary
demarcation of unregistered parcels was clear, the research team con­
ducted a land survey in each parcel with assistance from the community
groups. Researchers, on behalf of government surveyors, conducted a
joint field survey for boundary demarcation, involving village leaders
and neighbours. Boundary measurements were undertaken within the
community blocks in the sub-village area. All unregistered land parcels
were surveyed using Global Navigation Satellite System (GNSS) devices
with the Real Time Kinematic (RTK) method. Fig. 4 shows the workflow
of collaborative mapping activities in rural areas. Treatments 1, 2 and 3
in office work and treatments 5, 6 and 7 in the field correspond to the
treatment methods summarised in Fig. 3.
3.4. Field survey for spatial accuracy assessments
The team undertook field measurements for both confirmed and
unconfirmed certified land to assess plotting quality. The survey team
prepared a field checking map, representing the results of title validation
covering three categories, i.e., (1) unregistered, (2) confirmed, (3) un­
registered land parcels. Unregistered land parcels are presented in
purple colour. Confirmed and unconfirmed certified land parcels are
presented in white, grey and yellow parcels (see Fig. 5). The map will
also include those land parcels that contain data entry errors (presented
in red parcels).
The field survey for selected land parcels was conducted using GNSS
and distance laser devices. GNSS measurements applied the RTK GNSS
survey method using existing cadastral reference points in the field. For
urban parcels covered by vegetation, buildings and urban canopy, laser
was used to measure the distance between two boundary points. For
selected parcels, boundary points were determined based on boundary
markings in the field. Where boundary markings were not visible, the
corner points of buildings constructed on the respective parcel were
considered boundary points. Based on this, field measurements were
compared against those drawn on the final map. This comparison aimed
to assess the appropriateness of spatial data quality of land title
validation.
T. Aditya et al.
Fig. 5. A map prepared for field checks and spatial accuracy assessments in the field.
To assess the quality of maps produced from office work, some
confirmed land titles in Girikerto, resulting from collaborative mapping
activities, were checked against the GNSS survey data of boundary
points of registered land parcels.
3.5. Time required to complete the process
The time taken to complete the entire process was considered
corroboration of the main quality assessments since it indicated not only
the time but the resources needed to validate land titles. Time was
calculated by collecting information on the average time required for
completing quality evaluation and for uploading the results of quality
improvements of land titles for the three urban wards in Surakarta.
4. Results
Results are organised based on quality evaluation findings and data
quality improvements needed in rural and urban study areas. They will
be presented with a field survey (for assessing the spatial accuracy of the
revised cadastral map) and work time estimates (to provide a rational
projection of the title validation timeline).
4.1. Results of quality evaluation
4.1.1. Rural case
Registered land parcels were validated in the office before verifying
them in the field. The study area was grouped into four categories (C1,
C2, C3, C4 and C5) for title validation (see Table 1). Of 4767 land titles,
53.6% were classified as C2 and C3. The remaining 46.4% fell in either
8
Land Use Policy 109 (2021) 105689
C4 or C5 category. These were targets for field validation using the
collaborative mapping approach which jointly applies various treat­
ments (4, 5, 6 and 7). All parcels not included in land title validation
were classified as unregistered.
4.1.2. Urban case
Quality assessments involve matching electronic records to mea­
surement letters and land books. The comparison must verify that in­
formation matches and that the current status of certified land parcels is
recorded. For quality evaluation in the three villages, a total of 1992
land parcels were examined. Only 13% (265 land parcels) were found to
have valid titles and did not require further work. Land titles categorised
as C1 (639 land plots or 32%) needed only links edited; 535 land plots
(27%) were classified C2 and 331 land plots (17%) were C3. The
remaining 11% were C4 category land parcels that required treatment 4
to improve quality.
4.2. Results of quality improvements
4.2.1. Rural case
Meetings were conducted with landowners, community representa­
tives and sub-village leaders to participate in collaborative mapping
activities to validate administrative (sub-village) boundaries and un­
registered land parcels (Fig. 6). In principle, these can be considered
follow-up efforts (Fig. 3), through community validation, field interview
and cadastral resurvey. The results of the mapping, in terms of indi­
vidual land status (i.e., registered, unregistered and unconfirmed/un­
known), were plotted on a working map (Fig. 7).
Table 2 summarises the results of the quality improvement that
T. Aditya et al.
Fig. 6. Discussion in a collaborative mapping session in a sub-village
Source: Author documentation.
covered boundary survey and mapping work in Girikerto of Sleman
(rural area) and Surakarta wards (urban area).
In rural areas, the team successfully validated 4767 registered land
parcels out of a total of 8623 land parcels. Of 3856 unregistered land
parcels, 3278 had been demarcated with markers by landowners and
were jointly surveyed by the research team and village leaders (Fig. 8).
These are now ready for first titling by land office registrars. For the
remaining 578 unregistered land parcels, land boundaries were only
Fig. 7. A portion of map of the revised cadastral map after collaborative mapping activities.
9
Land Use Policy 109 (2021) 105689
delineated on the cadastral map. Unregistered land parcels not marked
by landowners were mostly mired in ownership disputes or had owners
who did not stay in the village.
After completing collaborative mapping activities in 13 sub-villages,
the research team and community leaders jointly conducted field sur­
veys for individual land parcels. On average, a team surveyed 25–30
farmland parcels a day. Four teams conducted the GNSS survey to
measure coordinates of boundary markers installed by landowners who
had applied for land titling. The joint survey for all unregistered parcels
was completed in under 30 days.
All unregistered land parcels were identified. Most of them are ready
for land certification as boundary surveys have been completed for 84%
of them. Collaborative mapping and boundary surveys helped identify
land parcels where data differed from what was plotted on the village
tax map. The tax map contained 7100 land parcels while the mapping
project yielded 8623 parcels. Thus, the combined verification method
helped increase the spatial completeness of ownership claims in rural
areas.
4.2.2. Urban case
Quality evaluation of the records of three urban wards led to im­
provements. Data/entries were rectified through office and field activ­
ities (seen as treatments in Fig. 3). Using System’s editing tool and
treatments 1, 2 and 3 for C2 and C3 helped increase the number of land
parcels with valid titles from 13% to 89% of total land parcels.
Redrawing, spatial adjustments of land boundaries, and document
tracing work helped improve the quality of 866 C2 and C3 land titles. At
the end of the quality evaluation, almost 94.8% of land parcels in the
three urban wards had valid certificates; 1.6% can be considered un­
confirmed cases, while 3.6% have no certificates.
T. Aditya et al.
Table 2
Results of quality improvements in study areas.
Study Area Parcels that did not require quality Office work
improvements
C1 C2 C3
* (1) (1), (2),
(3)
A B C D E F
Rural Study 0 826 1257 489
Area
Urban Study 265 639 535 331
Area
Note: *=editing of records and linking; (1) to (6) = types of treatment methods as in Fig. 3.
Fig. 8. Joint boundary survey to map unregistered parcels
Source: Author documentations.
For C4 land titles, community meetings were convened to validate
the parcel list and map of unconfirmed titles. It was found that of 222
land titles, 119 could be plotted through participatory mapping (see
Table 2). Land titles were validated by community leaders based on the
remaining empty plots, the list of owners and the land tax map. For the
remaining 32 unconfirmed titles (Table 2), home visits and interviews
were conducted. However, none of the remaining unconfirmed cases
could be conclusively resolved. Fig. 9 presents the results of quality
improvement in three Surakarta wards: Kepatihan Kulon, Kepatihan
Wetan and Purwodiningratan.
An ‘unconfirmed’ status indicates that field verification and in­
terviews could not collect copies of land certificates from the land­
owners for review. Local land offices could apply internal blocks to
unconfirmed land parcels to ensure that no rights conveyance occurs
before title validation. In total, there are 32 unconfirmed land parcels in
urban wards and 934 in the rural study areas. Data maintenance for
those unconfirmed cases will require future applicants to prove their
legal standing and specify the location of the land parcel on the cadastral
map. Some examples of inconsistent records are given in Table 3.
4.2.3. Spatial accuracy assessments
To assess spatial accuracy, the results of quality improvements were
compared with field measurements and differences in polygon areas and
horizontal distances assessed. The difference between values of areas of
land parcels (reference data) and values of revised cadastral maps pro­
duced after quality improvements (evaluation data) was calculated for
rural and urban study areas. Area assessments were checked against
three threshold values: (i) half of squared differences; (ii) 5% of differ­
ences and (iii) 10% of differences. It was found that accuracy degraded
from (i) to (iii). For example, rejected parcels in urban areas numbered
23 for (i), 14 for (ii), and 4 for (iii). Differences in distances were
assessed using the planimetric accuracy criteria for a map at scale
Land Use Policy 109 (2021) 105689
Field work Total number of land
parcels
C4 C5
(1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) Not registered (4),
(5), (6)
Confirmed through Unconfirmed
method (4)
G H B+C+D+E+F+G+H
1261 934 3856 8623
119 32 71 1992
1:2500 Class 3 (0.5 mm * scale). Rejection was 13 out of 34 rural land
parcels and 16 out of 39 urban parcels (see Supplementary Material C1-
C4). A comparison with field measurements suggests that the improved
cadastral map can only be used as an accurate reference for property
registration status. It cannot be used to reconstruct cadastral boundaries
of land parcels; the original title plan and field survey data would still be
required to support boundary reconstruction activities.
4.3. Time required for the process
Calculating the time required to complete title validation should help
produce estimates for the country to complete work on over 17 million
unvalidated land titles. The baseline used was the time needed to vali­
date land titles in three Surakarta wards (see Table 4).
Title validation for three wards in Surakarta required 59.5 work days
for two teams (4 persons). The average speed would thus be 8.45 par­
cels/day/person. The Surakarta experience suggests that rigid valida­
tion requires high participation and a considerable number of days.
Speed can be increased if trained personnel are available. Most recent
data (BPN, 2020) suggests that at least 17 million land titles are unva­
lidated nationwide. Using the average speed of 8.45 parcels/day/person
as the baseline, completing the task would take 1200 trained technicians
4.6 years. If only 600 trained personnel are available, the task would
take 9.2 years to complete. Here, the independent variable would be the
availability of trained technicians. To illustrate, on-job training for
effective title validation, as done in Surakarta, would take three weeks.
5. Discussion
Title validation that applies a direct quality evaluation is a must to
make sure that all registered parcels published by local land offices in a
village or a ward are assured of information quality. This step is also
important to locate unregistered land parcels that qualify for land cer­
tification. Collaborative mapping that involved community representa­
tives, in urban and rural cases, helped complete land title validation at
the end of office work. The collaborative mapping approach was fol­
lowed up by field verification and interviews with landowners and
community representatives.
Both urban and rural cases offered a clear indication of the critical
challenges in ensuring the completeness and reliability of the current
LAS. Firstly, partial data digitalisation by local land offices triggered
incomplete representation on the current condition of land titles. Sec­
ondly, the absence of a systematic approach to linking electronic and
paper documents means that many land titles are not georeferenced to
the cadastral map. Many land titles published before 1997 lacked either
information on location or field surveys. Digitalisation of each land title
(i.e., measurement letters, title plans or field sketches and registries or
land books) helped to efficiently compile, reconstruct and reposition
land titles. Thirdly, in case of ‘unconfirmed’ land titles, further investi­
gation is possible by tracking the archives of individual land parcels.
10
T. Aditya et al.
Fig. 9. Improved cadastral map of three Surakarta city wards after title validation.
Information and documents regarding persons and additional informa­
tion about the land parcels (e.g., tax letter for local office or letter from
the village leader) can be found in the land archives. However, further
investigation was not pursued in this work. Rather, it was decided to
recommend that the local office flag or internally block any further
transactions involving such land parcels for tracking in the future. This is
considered more efficient than investigating old archives as many land
parcels required further confirmation from landowners. This strategy is
viewed as a part of incremental improvement strategies to provide
tenure security while targeting the completeness and reliability of land
information. Finally, indicators prescribed for assessing quality and
applied during and after completion of the title validation steps in this
study reiterate the importance of defining accountability in data de­
livery and management (Haldrup and Stubkjær, 2013) and the need for
adopting FFP LA methods after completing data collection to incre­
mentally improve data quality and reliability (Enemark et al., 2016).
In case of rural titles (i.e., Girikerto, Sleman), inconsistent boundary
demarcation before and during the field survey emerged as a key chal­
lenge. Before the field survey was completed, the boundary demarcation
between landowners was organised by sub-village leaders and commu­
nity representatives. Family members and neighbouring landowners
agreed on the boundary markings. However, on the day of the survey,
many households moved the locations of boundary markers. During the
11
Land Use Policy 109 (2021) 105689
joint boundary survey, some cases of boundary disputes among family
members surfaced. As a result, the boundary demarcation of land parcels
caused some delays in the overall project time. Such non-technical (and
community-related) challenges can be found in every village and ward
in the country where a systematic land-registration programme is
implemented. In such cases, the approach was to delay boundary survey
activity until the landowners were ready. The findings validate firmly
identified challenges presented in Fig. 1.
As Indonesia aims to complete land registration in less than four
years from now, ensuring the quality of its published land titles will be a
challenge. Until now, the land office has only been able to estimate (i.e.,
not guarantee) the number of land parcels in the country. At the
beginning of 2019, of a total of 126 million land parcels in the country,
57 million were already registered and published (BPN, 2020). Of this,
land offices can only confirm georeferenced land titles for 40 million
land parcels (70% of those registered). Although this study is limited to
only two areas, based on the results obtained from its field work and
validation in these areas, it is clear that even parcels georeferenced in
the past will require data updates, corrections and repositioning. The
results also reconfirm outcomes highlighted in an LGAF-Indonesia study:
that quality of land data remains deficient and “less than half the
registered properties are identifiable on maps” (Deininger et al., 2012, p.
120).
T. Aditya et al. Land Use Policy 109 (2021) 105689

Table 3 current PTSL projects run by local land offices, conflicts in old and new
Common problems found in land records. land titles are likely in the near future. PTSL projects do not put quality
Electronic records Land books Measurement letters or assurance of land titles (known as K4) before land-titling activities
title plans (known as K1), as has been done in this study.
Identification numbers of The land registry is The measurement letter In case of new applications for registration (first time registration), as
measurement letters invalid or not updated and title plan are missing validation of documents presented cannot be processed by local land
and land books differ after conveyancing. Once from the archive offices due to a variety of reasons (e.g., absence of landowners in the
from paper documents a right transfer is applied village), the process has failed in many instances. This study encoun­
or are invalid and agreed, land office
staff should update the
tered a similar experience in the urban study areas. Many field checks of
land book with notes and unconfirmed land titles were unsuccessful as actual landowners lived
stamp it to make it elsewhere. As per guidelines, absentee landowners can be represented
inactive. However, some by village leaders if the village office has records of land transactions
physical registers or land
and current information on landowners. Unfortunately, that is not al­
books were found
unstamped. Instead, land ways the case. Many subsequent transfer of land rights after the first
rights were transferred or titling are often informally carried out (directly between sellers and
subdivided into several buyers) without informing the village office (The World Bank, 2014b).
rights. Although boundary demarcation is mandatory, it is a challenge to
Invalid or no information Incomplete notes on land Missing toponym
related to lineage or sub-division and transfers information or location
ensure that all adjacent landowners or landowners representatives are
registration notes; guides; wrong present at the site when the task is undertaken. For example, as seen in
differences in area information about the case study presented in Section 4.2.1, such a situation produced 578
values between records neighbouring parcels; delineated polygons of unregistered land plots, which include land
and parcels in the map low spatial accuracy
parcels owned by persons, who were not staying in the village and did
(distances, areas,
location of neighbouring not respond to invitations sent by village leaders to participate in
parcels) or absence of boundary demarcation. In this cases, boundary demarcation should
coordinates ideally be through joint field verification and validation, with neigh­
bours confirming their land boundary markers to field officials (gov­
ernment or licensed surveyors), who will then complete the survey.
In recent years, local land offices have experienced a significant in­
Thereafter, field officials can create title plans for individual parcels and
crease in their first titling capacity, from about a million a year (before
adjacent boundaries. Unfortunately, frequent absence of landowners
2017) to 7 million a year (starting from 2017). This could fall drastically
from the site hampers timely boundary demarcation, contributing to
if adequate steps are not taken to ensure monitoring and quality assur­
under-titling and over-demarcation (Arruñada, 2018) which is likely to
ance of the registration process and of titles issued as well as the reli­
negatively affect tenure security (Hendriks et al., 2019; Simbizi et al.,
ability of databases. Both the government policy that resulted in PTSL
2014; Uwayezu and de Vries, 2018). This reason is cited by local land
and the draft of the new land legalisation law specify that the ‘positive
offices as a major challenge in preparing cadastral maps for all land
publication system’ will be enforced gradually from 2025 (Harsono,
parcels in a village.
2019), although the MoASP/BPN is doubtful about the country’s read­
The factors that accelerate speed in assuring the quality of land titles
iness to embrace such a system (Rudiyanto et al., 2016). The govern­
could vary (see in Fig. 1). The methods presented in this paper assumed
ment has committed to completing the registration of all land parcels
that data availability and quality is the same; in reality, it will be
and issuance of titles for the remaining unregistered parcels by 2025.
different from one local office to another. The current methods will need
Thus, the demanding task of improving data quality and reliability
fine tuning and modifications, reflecting on lessons learnt and consid­
should be prioritised by land offices when the ultimate goal is to improve
ering local context, to ensure better data management and governance
the security of land rights.
arrangements.
With regard to data governance, aside from digitalisation, the
simplification of upcoming land-titling procedures is essential. Simul­
6. Conclusions
taneously working on both paper and electronic data is inefficient and
cumbersome. Thus, future first titling procedures should be electronic
Although complete land registration has been the Indonesian gov­
only. For land titles published in the past, paper and electronic data
ernment’s mandate for more than 75 years, progress towards that goal
linkage must be validated. As that is not common practice under the
has been slow, at least until 2016–17. Despite recent efforts, major

Table 4
Time needed to complete title validation sequentially.
No. Work Flow Steps All

Work Work speed Team (1 team ¼ Number of days (with

volume (man/day) 2 people) assumption 1 day ¼ 8 h)

Quantity Unit

1 Digitalising measurement letters 4026 Sets 200 2 10.1

2 Entering and uploading records of measurement 1802 Sets 100 2 9.0
letters to document management system
3 Redrawing and mapping floating parcels 506 parcels 25 2 10.1
4 Conducting community validation and verification 404 parcels 20 2 10.1
5 Conducting quality check (QC) 2011 parcels 100 2 10.1
6 Conducting final validation of land records 2011 parcels 100 2 10.1
Number of parcels 2011
Number of teams 12
Required working 59.5
days (8 h/day)

12
T. Aditya et al.
challenges still remain, as approximately 30% of land titles issued in the
past were not accurately georeferenced and relevant data is often
outdated. This means that instances of double land certificates issued for
a specific parcel and inaccurate land-boundary mapping continue to
haunt the progress of land-registration activities. Indonesia has accel­
erated its efforts (i) to improve its ranking in the EoDB indicators, and
(ii) its capacity to support progress towards targets set in SDG. In
securing this, persistent land conflicts and tenure insecurity will
continue to hamper quality assurance (reliability and trust) of land re­
cords and land titles. With BPN pledging to opt for a positive tenure
system that guarantees all land titles, the current modus operandi is
unviable in the long run. It is essential to complete quality assurance
before launching land-titling (or data cleaning and improvement) pro­
jects. Alternatively measures must be put in place for parallel work on
quality assurance and land registration to eliminate discrepancies and
errors. All published land titles must be georeferenced as a national
priority. To this end, two important activities need to be undertaken, as
an integrated step, in every village and ward: (i) digitalisation of survey
documents and land titles to plot floating parcels (or flying land titles)
and (ii) systematic collaborative mapping activities and field survey to
validate results obtained from mapping and the facilitation and confir­
mation of boundary demarcation. The results of the land validation
should be the basis for data management and subsequent land admin­
istration and conveyancing services. A transition could be made from
both paper and electronic data handling to only electronic data handling
for upcoming services in land offices which have completed land-title
validation completely. Having accurate information will help reduce
fear among land users, as this gives them lead-time to take protective
measures (appeal, voluntary relocation and transfer). However, it is
essential that such a system is based on reasonably accurate information,
as changing any variables (pieces of information that go into the system)
will be a tedious process.
In regard to collaborative mapping, we concluded that community
engagement has proven to be critical in improving the quality of the land
titling process and in increasing the number of land titles confirmed/
freshly issued, in both urban and rural areas. We also found that policy-
legal configurations will influence increasing community participation
too. In rural areas, the study learned that a structured process and co­
ordination with local communities and officials in collaborative map­
ping of land parcels yields superior outputs and efficient completion. On
the other hand, in urban areas, the collaborative mapping approach was
found to be useful in validating the quality of land records and related
evidence.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Trias Aditya: Conceptualization, Methodology, Validation, Formal
analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visuali­
zation, Funding acquisition, Supervision. Purnama Budi Santosa:
Writing – review & editing, Project administration, Validation. Yulai­
khah: Writing – review & editing, Project administration, Supervision.
Nurrohmat Widjajanti: Formal analysis, Writing – review & editing.
Dedi Atunggal: Investigation. Miranty Sulistyawati: Software, Data
curation.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and
Spatial Planning /National Land Agency (MoASP/BPN) of the Govern­
ment of Indonesia for its support through “Quality Improvement of Land
Titles for Supporting One Map Policy” projects in 2015 and 2017-2018.
We thank the government’s local land offices at Sleman and Surakarta
for providing access to information and for their insights which assisted
this research. The authors are grateful to Editor-in-Chief and anonymous
reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions which help
to improve the quality of the paper. We are grateful to Shivakumar
13
Land Use Policy 109 (2021) 105689
Srinivas and R Chacko for their diligent proofreading of the paper.
Appendix A. Supporting information
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the
online version at doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105689.
References
Aditya, T., 2010. Usability issues in applying participatory mapping for neighbourhood
infrastructure planning. Trans. GIS 14, 119–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9671.2010.01206.x.
Aditya, T., Gunawan, I., Amin, S., Zawani, H., Mangunsong, R., 2017. Collaborative
Mapping of Detailed Geospatial Data for Disaster and Climate Resilience in
Indonesia, English. World Bank Group, Washington D.C.
Ali, Z., M. Tuladhar, A., Zevenbergen, A., Ajmal Bhatti, M, J., 2014. Implementing total
quality management concepts to land administration system in Pakistan. Am. J.
Rural Dev. 2, 74–80. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajrd-2-4-3.
Ali, Z., Zevenbergen, J., Tuladhar, A., 2013. Quality assessment of the land
administration system in Pakistan. J. Spat. Sci. 58, 119–146. https://doi.org/
10.1080/14498596.2012.759093.
Arruñada, B., 2018. Evolving practice in land demarcation. Land Use Policy 77, 661–675.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.05.050.
Asiama, K., Bennett, R., Zevenbergen, J., 2017. Participatory land administration on
customary lands: a practical VGI experiment in Nanton, Ghana. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf.
6. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi6070186.
Bandeira, P., Sumpsi, J.M., Falconi, C., 2010. Evaluating land administration systems: a
comparative method with an application to Peru and Honduras. Land Use Policy 27,
351–363. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.04.005.
Bennett, R.M., Alemie, B.K., 2016. Fit-for-purpose land administration: lessons from
urban and rural Ethiopia. Surv. Rev. 48, 11–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/
00396265.2015.1097584.
BPN, 2020, Land Registration Status and Outlook per Province. Dataset retrieved from
Centre of Data and Information of MoASP/BPN.
Brodeur, J., Coetzee, S., Danko, D., Garcia, S., Hjelmager, J., 2017. Redox reactions and
weak buffering capacity lead to acidification in the Chesapeake Bay. Nat. Commun. 8
(6), 369 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi8060280.
Deininger, K., Selod, H., Burns, A., 2012. The Land Governance Assessment Framework:
Identifying and Monitoring Good Practice in the Land Sector. World Bank,
Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-8758-0.
Divithure, H., Tang, C., 2013. Cadastral system migration from deeds registration to titles
registration: Case study of Sri Lanka. Surv. Rev. 45, 220–228. https://doi.org/
10.1179/1752270612Y.0000000020.
Enemark, S., Bell, K.C., Lemmen, C., McLaren, R., 2014. Fit-For-Purpose Land
Administration. FIG Publication No. 60. FIG (International Federation of Surveyor)
& The World Bank, Copenhagen, Denmark accessed July 6, 2020. 〈https://www.fig.
net/pub/figpub/pub60/Figpub60.pdf〉.
Enemark, S., McLaren, R., Lemmen, C., 2016, Fit-For-Purpose land
administration–guiding principles for Country Implementation. Ref. Doc. Version.
Global Land Tool Network - UNHABITAT, Nairobi, Kenya. 〈https://gltn.net/
download/fit-for-purpose-land-administration-guiding-principles-for-country-
implementation/〉 (accessed 6 July 2020).
Eng, P. van der, 2016. After 200 years, why is Indonesia’s cadastral system still
incomplete? In: McCarthy, J.F., Robinson, K. (Eds.), Land and Development in
Indonesia. ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute Singapore, Singapore, pp. 227–244. https://
doi.org/10.1355/9789814762106-015.
Fig, 2014, Cadastre 2014 and Beyond. FIG Publication No. 61. FIG (International
Federation of Surveyors), Copenhagen. 〈https://fig.net/resources/publications/
figpub/pub61/figpub61.asp〉 (accessed 6 July 2020).
Fig, 1999, The Bathurst Declaration on Land Administration for Sustainable
Development. FIG Publication No. 21. FIG (International Federation of Surveyors),
Frederiksberg. 〈https://www.fig.net/resources/publications/figpub/pub21/
figpub21.asp〉 (accessed 6 July 2020).
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. School of Science - Geospatial Science, Melbourne.
Haldrup, K., Stubkjær, E., 2013. Indicator scarcity on cadastre and land registration in
cross-country information sources. Land Use Policy 30, 652–664. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.landusepol.2012.05.005.
Harsono, N., 2019, Agrarian ministry hikes land registration target. Business: The
Jakarta Post. February 14, 2019. 〈https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2019/02/
14/agrarian-ministry-hikes-land-registration-target.html〉 (accessed 6 July 2020).
Hendriks, B., Zevenbergen, J., Bennett, R., Antonio, D., 2019. Pro-poor land
administration: towards practical, coordinated, and scalable recording systems for
all. Land Use Policy 81, 21–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.09.033.
Hilhorst, T., Meunier, F., 2015. How Innovations in Land Administration Reform
Improve on Doing Business, International Bank for Reconstruction and
Development/The World Bank. World Bank, Washington, DC, pp. 1–66.
Jakobsson, A., Giversen, J., 2007. Guidelines for implementing the ISO 19100
geographic information quality standards in National Mapping and Cadastral
Agencies. Eurogeographics Expert Group on Quality.
T. Aditya et al.
Keenan, S., 2017. Smoke, curtains and mirrors: the production of race through time and
title registration. Law Crit. 28, 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-016-9194-
z.
Khezri, A., Bennett, R., Zevenbergen, J., 2018. Evaluating a fit-for-purpose integrated
service-oriented land and climate change information system for mountain
community adaptation. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ijgi7090343.
Krigsholm, P., Riekkinen, K., Ståhle, P., 2018. The changing uses of cadastral
information: a user-driven case study. Land 7, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/
land7030083.
Lemmen, C., van Oosterom, P., Bennett, R., 2015. The land administration domain
model. Land Use Policy 49, 535–545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2015.01.014.
Lengoiboni, M., Richter, C., Zevenbergen, J., 2019. Cross-cutting challenges to
innovation in land tenure documentation. Land Use Policy 85, 21–32. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.03.023.
Mitchell, D., Clarke, M., Baxter, J., 2008. Evaluating land administration projects in
developing countries. Land Use Policy 25, 464–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2007.10.004.
Moreri, K., Fairbairn, D., James, P., 2018. Issues in developing a fit for purpose system
for incorporating VGI in land administration in Botswana. Land Use Policy 77,
402–411.
Rahmatizadeh, Rajabifard, A., Kalantari, M., Ho, S., 2018. A framework for selecting a
fit-for-purpose data collection method in land administration. Land Use Policy 70,
162–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.034.
Rajabifard, A., Williamson, I., Steudler, D., Binns, A., King, M., 2007. Assessing the
worldwide comparison of cadastral systems. Land Use Policy 24, 275–288. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.11.005.
Ramadhani, S.A., Bennett, R.M., Nex, F.C., 2018. Exploring UAV in Indonesian cadastral
boundary data acquisition. Earth Sci. Inform. 11, 129–146. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s12145-017-0314-6.
Roić, M., Križanović, J., Pivac, D., 2021. An approach to resolve inconsistencies of data
in the cadastre. Land 10, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10010070.
Rudiyanto, A., Oktorialdi, Hussein, U.M., Tambunan, R., Apriyana, N., Amalia, M.,
Yulianti, S., Hernydawaty, Aswicaksana, Noor, R., Ciptadi, E.Y., Khalik, I.,
Widayati, L., Sesotyaningtyas, M., Pranadi, R., Krisnawati, S., Saryanto, C.,
Supriatna, U., 2016. A Preparation Study on Changes to Positive Land
Administration System in Indonesia (in Bahasa Indonesia). The Ministry of National
Development Planning/National Development Planning Agency, Jakarta accessed
14
Land Use Policy 109 (2021) 105689
July 6, 2020. 〈https://www.bappenas.go.id/files/kajian-trp/Kajian_Persiapan_Pe
rubahan_Sistem_Pendaftaran_Tanah_Publikasi_Positif_di_Indonesia.pdf〉.
Sachs, J., Schmidt-Traub, G., Kroll, C., Lafortune, G., Fuller, G., 2018. SDG Index and
Dashboards Report 2018. Bertelsmann Stiftung and Sustainable Development
Solutions Network, New York accessed July 6, 2020. 〈https://sdgindex.org/report
s/sdg-index-and-dashboards-2018/〉.
Simbizi, M., Bennett, R., Zevenbergen, J., 2014. Land tenure security: revisiting and
refining the concept for Sub - Saharan Africa’s rural poor. Land Use Policy 36,
231–238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2013.08.006.
Steudler, D., Rajabifard, A., Williamson, I.P., 2004. Evaluation of land administration
systems. Land Use Policy 21, 371–380. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
landusepol.2003.05.001.
The World Bank, 2019, World Bank Open Data: Free and open access to global
development data. World Bank, Washington, DC. 〈https://data.worldbank.org/
indicator/SP.POP.TOTL?locations=ID〉(accessed 8 July 2020).
The World Bank, 2020, Doing Business 2020: Economy Profile 2020 — Indonesia. World
Bank, Washington, DC. 〈https://www.doingbusiness.org/content/dam/
doingBusiness/country/i/indonesia/IDN.pdf〉 (accessed 1 July 2020).
The World Bank, 2014a, Project Performance Assessment Report - Indonesia - Land
Management and Policy Development Project. World Bank, Washington, DC.
〈https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/
documentdetail/407951468278683358/indonesia-land-management-and-policy-
development-project〉 (accessed 1 July 2019).
The World Bank, 2014b. Towards Indonesian Land Reforms: Challenges and
Opportunities: A Review of the Land Sector (Forest and Non-forest) in Indonesia. The
World Bank, Jakarta, pp. 237–243. June 2014.
Törhönen, M.P., 2004. Sustainable land tenure and land registration in developing
countries, including a historical comparison with an industrialised country. Comput.
Environ. Urban Syst. 28, 545–586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compenvurbsys.2003.11.007.
UN-ECE, 1996. Land Administration Guidelines: With Special Reference to Countries in
Transition. United Nations - Economic Commission for Europe, New York & Geneva.
Uwayezu, E., de Vries, W., 2018. Indicators for measuring spatial justice and land tenure
security for poor and low income urban dwellers. Land 7, 84. https://doi.org/
10.3390/land7030084.
Yildiz, O., Erden, Ç., 2020. Cadastral updating: the case of Turkey. Surv. Rev. 0, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00396265.2020.1759982.
Zevenbergen, J.A., 2002. Systems of Land Registration: Aspects and Effects. Nederlandse
Commissie voor Geodesie Netherlands Geodetic Commission, Delft, The
Netherlands.