Re-engineering of Turkish land administration

References

• Ali Z, Tuladbar A, Zevenbergen J., 2010. Developing a Framework for Improving the Quality of a Deteriorated Land Administration System Based on an Exploratory Case Study in Pakistan. Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Research, 7(1): 30–57.
   Google Scholar
• Bandeira P, Sumpsi JM, Falconi C., 2010. Evaluating Land Administration Systems: A Comparative Method with an Application to Peru and Honduras. Land Use Policy, 27(2): 351–363.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett R, Rajabifard A, Williamson I, Wallace. J., 2012. On the Need for National Land Administration Infrastructures. Land Use Policy, 29: 208–219.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett R, Tambuwala N, Rajabifard A, Wallace J, Williamson I., 2013. On Recognizing Land Administration as Critical, Public Good Infrastructure. Land Use Policy, 30: 84–93.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bennett R, Wallace J, Williamson I., 2008. Organising Land Information for Sustainable Land Administration. Land Use Policy, 25: 126–138.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bogaerts T, Williamson IP, Fendel EM., 2002. The Role of Land Administration in the Accession of Central European Countries to the European Union. Land Use Policy, 19: 29–46.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cete M, Magel H, Yomralioglu T., 2006. The Needs for Improvement in Turkish Land Administration System: Lessons Learned from German Case. Proceedings of the XXIII FIG Congress, 8–13 October, Munich, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Chimhamhiwa D, van der Molen P, Mutanga O, Rugege D, 2009. Towards a Framework for Measuring End to end Performance of Land Administration Business Processes – A Case Study. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 33: 293–301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Çete M., 2008. An Approach for Turkish Land Administration System. PhD Thesis, Graduate School of Natural and Applied Sciences, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey, 225 pages (in Turkish).
   Google Scholar
• Çete M, Palancıoğlu HM, Geymen A, Alkan M., 2010. The Turkish Cadastral Information System and Lessons Learned. Scientific Research and Essays, 5(7): 625–633.
   Google Scholar
• Çete M., 2010. The Recent Reforms in the Turkish Cadastre. Proceedings of the FIG Congress 2010, 11–16 April, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Demir O, Uzun B, Çete M., 2008. Turkish Cadastral System. Survey Review, 40: 54–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Döner F, Thompson R, Stoter J, Lemmen C, Ploeger H, van Oosterom P, Zlatanova S., 2010. 4D Cadastres: First Analysis of Legal, Organizational, and Technical Impact – with a Case Study on Utility Networks. Land Use Policy, 27: 1068–1081.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Enemark S., 2001. Land Administration Infrastructures for Sustainable Development. Property Management, 9(5): 366–383.
   Google Scholar
• EU, 2004. European Union Land Policy Guidelines, Guidelines for Support to Land Policy Design and Land Policy Reform Processes in Developing Countries, EU Task Force on Land Tenure, 35 pages. http://ec.europa.eu/development/icenter/repository/EU_Land_Guidelines_Final_12_2004_en.pdf (accessed 3 March 2012).
   Google Scholar
• FIG, 1995. FIG Statement on Cadastre, International Federation of Surveyors, FIG Publication No. 11. http://www.fig.net/commission7/reports/cadastre/statement_on_cadastre.html (accessed 10 March 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Ikejiofor CU., 2006. Integrative Strategies or Functional Interface? Emerging Trends in Land Administration in Contemporary Enugu, Nigeria. International Development Planning Review, 28: 137–158.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Inan HI, Sagris V, Devos W, Milenov P, van Oosterom P, Zevenbergen J., 2010. Data Model for the Collaboration between Land Administration Systems and Agricultural Land Parcel Identification Systems. Journal of Environmental Management, 91: 2440–2454.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaplan RS, Norton DP., 1996. Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy into Action. Boston, MA, Harvard Business School Press: 322.
   Google Scholar
• Kaufmann J, Steudler D., 1998. Cadastre 2014 – A Vision for a Future Cadastral System, Results 1994–98 of Working Group 1 of FIG Commission 7, Rüdlingen and Bern, Switzerland, 38 pages. http://www.fig.net/cadastre2014 (accessed 3 March 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Lemmen C, van Oosterom P, Eisenhut C, Uitermark H., 2010. The Modelling of Rights, Restrictions and Responsibilities (RRR) in the Land Administration Domain Model (LADM). Proceedings of the FIG Congress 2010, 11–16 April, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Mitchell D, Clarke M, Baxter J., 2008. Evaluating Land Administration Projects in Developing Countries. Land Use Policy, 25: 464–473.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• PCCEU, 2003. Common Principles on Cadastre in the European Union, Permanent Committee on Cadastre in the European Union (PCCEU), Rome, 3 December. http://www.eurocadastre.org (accessed 20 February 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Rajabifard A, Williamson I, Steudler D, Binns A, King M., 2007. Assessing the Worldwide Comparison of Cadastral Systems. Land Use Policy, 24: 275–288.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robertson WA., 2002. Anticipating the Further Development of Cadastral Systems. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 26: 383–402.
   Google Scholar
• Silva MA, Stubkjaer E. 2002. A Review of Methodologies used in Research on Cadastral Development. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 26: 403–423.
   Google Scholar
• Steudler D, Rajabifard A, Williamson IP., 2004. Evaluation of Land Administration Systems. Land Use Policy, 21(4): 371–380.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steudler D, Williamson IP., 2005. Evaluation of National Land Administration System in Switzerland. Survey Review, 38(298): 317–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steudler D., 2006. Swiss Cadastral Core Data Model – Experiences of the Last 15 years. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 30: 600–613.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thellufsen C, Rajabifard A, Enemark S, Williamson I., 2009. Awareness as a Foundation for Developing Effective Spatial Data Infrastructures. Land Use Policy, 26: 254–261.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ting L, Williamson IP., 1999. Cadastral Trends: A Synthesis. The Australian Surveyor, 4(1): 46–54.
   Google Scholar
• TKGM, 2011. Official Website of the Turkish General Directorate of Land Registry and Cadastre. http://www.tkgm.gov.tr (accessed 2 August 2011).
   Google Scholar
• UN–FIG, 1996. The Bogor Declaration. UN Interregional Meeting of Experts on the Cadastre, 18–22 March, Bogor, Indenosia, FIG Publication No. 13A. http://www.fig.net/pub/figpub/pub13a/figpub13a.htm (accessed 10 March 2012).
   Google Scholar
• UN–FIG, 1999. The Bathurst Declaration on Land Administration for Sustainable Development. Report from the UN–FIG Workshop on Land Tenure and Cadastral Infrastructures for Sustainable Development, 18–22 October, Bathurst, NSW, Australia. http://www.fig.net/pub/figpub/pub21/figpub21.htm (accessed 10 March 2012).
   Google Scholar
• UNECE, 1996. Land Administration Guidelines, United Nations Publication, ISBN 92-1-116644-6, New York and Geneva, UNECE, 111 pages. http://www.unece.org (accessed 15 February 2012).
   Google Scholar
• UNECE, 2000. Report of Workshop on Public/Private Sector Relationships in the Establishment of Land Registration Systems. http://www.unece.org (accessed 15 February 2012).
   Google Scholar
• van der Molen P, 2002. The Dynamic Aspect of Land Administration: An Often-forgotten Component in System Design. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 26: 361–381.
   Google Scholar
• van Oosterom P, Ploeger H, Stoter J, Thompson R, Lemmen C, 2006. Aspects of a 4D Cadastre: A First Exploration. Proceedings of the XXIII FIG Congress, 8–13 October, Munich, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• van Oosterom P, Lemmen C, Ingvarsson T, van der Molen P, Ploeger H, Quak W, Stoter J, Zevenbergen J., 2006. The Core Cadastral Domain Model. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 30: 627–660.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wallace J, Williamson I., 2006. Developing Cadastres to Service Complex Property Markets. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 30: 614–626.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williamson I, Ting L., 2001. Land Administration and Cadastral Trends – A Framework for Re-engineering. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 24: 339–366.
   Google Scholar
• Williamson IP., 2001. Re-engineering Land Administration Systems for Sustainable Development – from Rhetoric to Reality. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geo-information, 3(3): 278–288.
   Google Scholar
• Williamson IP., 2001. Land Administration ‘Best Practice’ Providing the Infrastructure for Land Policy Implementation. Land Use Policy, 18: 297–307.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yomralioglu T., 2003. A Worldwide Comparison of Cadastral Systems – Country Data of Turkey, The Cadastral Template. http://www.cadastraltemplate.org/countrydata/tr.htm (accessed 17 January 2012).
   Google Scholar
• Yomralioglu T, Uzun B, Nisanci R., 2008. Land Valuation Issues of Expropriation Applications in Turkey. Land Reform, 1: 80–90.
   Google Scholar