A divided nation: Rethinking and rescaling land tenure in the Korean (re-)unification

2020

Remote Sensing

Self Cite

When spatial land tenure relations are not available, the only effective alternative data method is to rely on the agricultural census at the regional or national scale, based on household surveys and a participatory mapping at the local scale. However, what if even these are not available, which is typical for conflict-affected countries, administrations suffering from a lack of data and resources, or agencies that produce a sub-standard quality. Would it, under such circumstances, be possible to rely on remotely sensed Earth Observation (EO) data? We hypothesize that it is possible to qualify and quantify certain types of unknown land tenure relations based on EO data. Therefore, this study aims to standardize the identification and categorization of certain objects, environments, and semantics visible in EO data that can (re-)interpret land tenure relations. The context of this study is the opportunity to mine data on North Korean land tenure, which would be needed in case of a Korean (re-)unification. Synthesizing land tenure data in conjunction with EO data would align land administration practices in the respective parts and could also derive reliable land tenure and governance variables. There are still many unanswered questions about workable EO data proxies, which can derive information about land tenure relations. However, this first exploration provides a relevant contribution to bridging the semantic gap between land tenure and EO data.

Section: A Difficult-to-access Region: North Korea In the Contexts Ofmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging the Semantic Gap between Land Tenure and EO Data: Conceptual and Methodological Underpinnings for a Geospatially Informed Analysis

2020

Remote Sensing

Self Cite

“…(3) Do case studies areas have an analogous set of historical facts or circumstances that surround the (re-)unification? In a given context, we narrowed the regional scope from the 'divided nations perspectives' and then selected Germany (OCOS) and China (OCTS) among six countries-Germany, Korea, China, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, and Mongolia (Lebow 2007;Lee and de Vries 2018). Using a network visualization technique, we identify tools of land governance and its interactions between the tools in each case study and analyze the similarity and differences between case studies.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…'(Re-)unification' is the process by which at least two separate homogenous political communities merge into a single nation with heterogeneous political communities (Lee and de Vries 2018). While the trend and pressures tend towards 'fragmentation' and 'separation' (e.g., Sudan; Yugoslavia; and Spain/Catalonia etc.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Land Governance Re-Arrangements: The One-Country One-System (OCOS) Versus One-Country Two-System (OCTS) Approach

Administrative Sciences

Chigbu

2019

Self Cite

This paper evaluates how land governance is re-arranged in a state re-structuring process. We compare the cases of the (re-)unification of China with Hong Kong with that of West and East Germany. The division and (re-)unification of these states mark different land governance re-arrangements. The China-Hong Kong (re-)unification relied on a one-country two-system (OCTS) approach, while in West and East Germany, (re-)unification resulted in the creation of a one-country one-system (OCOS). Our key interest is to identify similarities and differences in both cases and the implications of the differences. To support the analysis, we view land governance and (re-)unification from theoretical to practical lenses-structuration theory and the government tools-based approach. This supports the construction of a conceptual and analytical framework, with which we conduct an in-depth exploration to evaluate land governance re-arrangements. We find that the conceptual and analytical framework proves effective for countries, with entirely different land governance regimes, to decide whether to merge or adapt. We do not conclude which approaches for (re-)unification are appropriate to land governance re-arrangements since all countries have different historical contexts and institutional arrangements. Instead, we recommend that governments consider adaptive land governance in signification structures and focus on hierarchical enforcement in legitimation structures. While multi-level land governance in the domination structure phase is strongly required, issue-and-project-based land governance has a pivotal role in providing cross-boundary infrastructures. Nevertheless, further empirical analysis is recommended to verify how and where the re-arrangement processes are initiated and structured.The North and South Korean (re-)unification quagmire is not new in the world. There are many divided countries in need of reunification and there are others that were once divided but finally became reunified. Countries like Cyprus (Turkish and Greek Cypriots), Sudan (Sudan and South Sudan), and Yemen (South and North Yemen) are some countries in need of reunification. China, Vietnam and Germany are examples of countries that were once divided and then became reunified.Adm. Sci. 2019, 9, 21 2 of 26 systems differed vis-à-vis the ideological role of the state, this raised challenges during and after the (re-)unification process.Land governance has been critical to this transforming institutional form and function (Augustinus 2009;Borras and Franco 2010;Deininger and Feder 2009;Enemark 2012). According to Palmer et al. (2009), land governance ruminates more intensely on the matter of the rules, processes and structures about land and its use and concern about who made decisions and how implemented and enforced. As the product of open-ended interactions within structures and agency, land governance can differ significantly depending on the state structures (e.g., unitary state; federal state) and the (re-)unification mechanisms (e.g., civilizat...

“…We also view land management as a combination of interventions in governance, based on questions of how and under what conditions such land interventions are responsible and how these can be supported by technologies. It is possible, therefore, that GIA supports both smart and responsible land management [70,71], especially of difficult-to-access regions where unknown or unsupported land governance exists [21,39,40].…”

Section: Geospatially Informed Analysis (Gia)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To date, however, there is a notable paucity of evidence-based literature describing and investigating how to identify unknown land tenure relations in North Korea due to the obvious difficulties in obtaining and analyzing empirical data. Several ways of overcoming these barriers to capturing the relationship between land tenure and governance and Korean (re-)unification process have recently been suggested that involve understanding and suggesting methods and solutions to problems [21,39,40]. Drawing upon both land administrative and geospatial engineering approaches, these enabled to provide reasonably consistent evidence and knowledge-base of an association between land tenure/land governance and (re-)unification of which relatively little is known.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Testing and Validating the Suitability of Geospatially Informed Proxies on Land Tenure in North Korea for Korean (Re-)Unification

2021

Remote Sensing

Self Cite

The role of remote sensing data in detecting, estimating, and monitoring socioeconomic status (SES) such as quality of life dimensions and sustainable development prospects has received increased attention. Geospatial data has emerged as powerful source of information for enabling both socio-technical assessment and socio-legal analysis in land administration domain. In the context of Korean (re-)unification, there is a notable paucity of evidence how to identify unknowns in North Korea. The main challenge is the lack of complete and adequate information when it comes to clarifying unknown land tenure relations and land governance arrangements. Deriving informative land tenure relations from geospatial data in line with socio-economic land attributes is currently the most innovative approach. In-close and in-depth investigations of validating the suitability of a set of geospatially informed proxies combining multiple values were taken into consideration, as were the forms of knowledge co-production. Thus, the primary aim is to provide empirical evidence of whether proposed proxies are scientifically valid, policy-relevant, and socially robust. We revealed differences in the distributions of agreements relating to land ownership and land transfer rights identification among scientists, bureaucrats, and stakeholders. Moreover, we were able to measure intrinsic, contextual, representational, and accessibility attributes of information quality regarding the associations between earth observation (EO) data and land tenure relations in North Korea from a number of different viewpoints. This paper offers valuable insights into new techniques for validating suitability of EO data proxies in the land administration domain off the reliance on conventional practices formed and customized to the specific artefacts and guidelines of the remote sensing community.