Abstract: Effective management of land information systems (LIS) constitutes a fundamental foundation for building an inclusive society and promoting sustainable development, particularly in countries undergoing administrative governance transformation. This article examines the theoretical foundations of LIS and assesses the current operation and disclosure of this system in Vietnam. Based on a comparative analytical framework, the article refers to the legal and institutional models governing LIS in several countries implementing two-tier government, including Japan, Germany, South Korea, and France, across key areas such as land valuation, land allocation, and the implementation of land information disclosure regulations. On that basis, the article proposes recommendations to improve the legal framework for the effective operation of LIS in Vietnam.
Keywords: land information system, state land administration, two-tier government, land data, land administration.
Introduction
The management of the Land Information System (LIS) plays a crucial role in land administration, serving as a foundation for state management agencies to formulate appropriate policies for the allocation of land-based resources as well as to make decisions related to the rational exploitation of land resources. In the context of rapid urbanization in Vietnam, the LIS plays an essential role in safeguarding the lawful rights of land users within the economy. Recognizing the importance of the LIS, Chapter XII of the Law on Land 2024 requires that the national land information system be developed in a centralized and unified manner from the central to local levels, ensuring synchronization, multi-purpose functionality, and nationwide interconnectivity. Accordingly, this establishes a mechanism enabling Vietnam to develop the LIS as a system serving state administrative governance of land, administrative reform, and digital transformation in the land sector; and facilitating the connection and sharing of data with national databases and databases of ministries, sectors, and localities.
However, within a model that inherently requires transparency, openness, and accuracy of information, the issue of “public disclosure of the information system” in Vietnam still exhibits significant shortcomings. Following the official implementation of the two-tier local government model in Vietnam, changes in the organizational structure of the administrative apparatus have inevitably led to adjustments in authority, responsibility for management, and the exploitation of land data nationwide. Nevertheless, practical implementation has shown that the mechanisms for decentralization, coordination, and data control of the LIS among different levels of local government have not yet been fully or clearly designed. Statistical evidence indicates that although 34 out of 34 provinces and centrally governed cities have implemented cadastral database development, only 2,342 out of 3,321 communes have completed the digitization of cadastral maps and land records.[1] In addition, this situation reflects that the transparency and openness of the LIS remain limited, as there is currently no existing LIS in Vietnam concerning market-based land transaction prices or publicly accessible LIS relating to auctions and tenders of land use rights (LURs), thereby causing difficulties for enterprises and individuals in conducting land transfer transactions. Therefore, studying and referencing the legal frameworks and LIS management models in Japan, Germany, South Korea, and France - countries that have operated two-tier local government models - holds significant importance for Vietnam in proposing recommendations and solutions to improve the legal framework on effective LIS management.
I. Overview of land information system management
Today, the development of information technology has become a key driving force for the modernization of land administration systems in many countries around the world. In this context, the establishment and maintenance of a unified and modern Land Information System (LIS) is considered a central task of governments in all countries in order to enhance the effectiveness of state administrative governance of land and to provide an essential foundation for the efficient and sustainable development of land markets.[2]
Research based on the historical development of the LIS indicates that land information systems did not originate from technology itself, but rather from the legal needs of states to establish, record, and protect state interests in land across their territories. As early as the modern period in Europe, when states transitioned from loosely structured territorial control to property governance and taxation mechanisms based on the administrative institutions of local government, the need for cadastral records and land registers emerged as the first legal instruments to comprehensively record land-related information. According to J. Zevenbergen, this constituted the theoretical foundation for the development of a standardized and unified LIS, although at that time it existed entirely in the form of physical records.[3]
Thus, the concept of the LIS originates from the theoretical foundations of information management. In addition, the concept of LIS has been interpreted and defined by scholars and international organizations from various perspectives. From the perspective of land administration scholars, the LIS comprises land data, human and technical resources, as well as the processes and techniques for data collection, updating, processing, and dissemination.[4] According to C. Macauley, from a technological and technical perspective, the Land Information System (LIS) consists of specialized Geographic Information Systems (GIS) designed to facilitate the management and sharing of land-related geographic information among agencies involved in land administration. These systems enable the efficient processing of spatial data related to land parcels, ownership, land use, and other geographical characteristics essential for land management and planning.[5] Meanwhile, the International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) approaches the LIS from a functional and institutional perspective, considering it as a tool for legal, administrative, and economic decision-making; playing a crucial role in planning and development, and comprising two fundamental components: (i) a land database containing land-related information linked to spatial references of a defined area; and (ii) processes and techniques for the systematic and regular collection, updating, processing, and dissemination of data.[6]
Although differing in their approaches, the above concepts converge in recognizing the LIS as an integrated system in which land data constitutes the core component, accompanied by technical and technological tools serving land administration, thereby forming the basis for the development of LIS concepts in national legal frameworks and subsequent academic research. From a general perspective, the authors define the Land Information System (LIS) as mechanisms and governance policies for establishing an integrated information infrastructure, created and managed by the State, comprising a land database that is organized, updated, and exploited in accordance with unified procedures in order to serve state administrative governance of land, support the formulation and implementation of land policies, and facilitate the efficient, transparent, and sustainable use of land resources.
Given the inherent immovability of land and its organic linkage with the specific administrative–territorial structures of each country, LIS management must satisfy different standards and requirements. Nevertheless, the United Nations Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management (UN-GGIM) has called upon countries to establish LIS following a fundamental roadmap that meets core requirements for land data,[7] including:
First, ensuring technical infrastructure for LIS management. Accordingly, each country should establish legal mechanisms to develop and consolidate a unified information technology infrastructure. To achieve this objective, national management agencies at the local level should strengthen the application of science and technology, as well as modern and advanced technical solutions, to enhance management effectiveness and infrastructure performance.[8]
Second, completing fundamental land data fields as a foundation for stakeholders to benefit from the LIS. This includes ensuring transparency of information when local authorities issue administrative decisions; guaranteeing citizens’ rights to access information when conducting land transactions in the market; promoting the development of land-related investment projects; and providing information on legal status and holders of land use rights (LURs). In practice, in most countries, land administration data is typically generated from land surveys, cadastral records, land registration information, and planning maps.[9]
Third, ensuring the accessibility and interoperability of land data. For effective land administration, land data must be interoperable, publicly accessible, promptly available, ensure privacy protection, and remain “available” under all circumstances. To achieve this, the central government should establish roadmaps and policies to support the creation and maintenance of effective land data systems; and clear procedures for data collection, evaluation, monitoring, and management must be developed for local levels.
In addition to the aforementioned technical and data standards, the organizational structure of local government also directly affects the operation and management of the LIS. Compared to the three-tier model, the LIS in a two-tier local government model tends to reduce intermediary layers in the transmission and control of land data, thereby requiring a higher level of standardization and data interoperability. Specifically, in a three-tier local government model, the intermediate level (typically the district level or its equivalent) plays a significant role in collecting, verifying, and aggregating land data from the grassroots level before transferring it to the provincial or central level. However, this also constitutes a “bottleneck,” causing delays in updating data into the LIS compared to actual changes. Therefore, the transition to a two-tier local government model necessitates the redesign of LIS operational mechanisms to ensure that data are updated directly and promptly from the grassroots level while still maintaining control and standardization from higher-level local governments and the central government. In a two-tier local government model, the LIS is typically designed with three fundamental characteristics: (i) land data are centrally managed and standardized at the national or territorial level to ensure consistency and avoid fragmentation; (ii) responsibility for data collection and updating lies with grassroots administrative units or specialized local agencies, which connect to the central data system through digital platforms without passing through intermediate levels; and (iii) data monitoring and control mechanisms are primarily implemented through inspection institutions or technical standards issued by the central government.
In Vietnam, the role of land is recognized in Articles 53 and 54 of the Constitution 2013 as a special national resource and a vital source for national development, managed in accordance with the law and classified as public property under all-people ownership, with the State acting as the representative owner and exercising unified management. Accordingly, land information is regarded as a valuable asset and an indispensable component in the administrative–legal activities of the Government and society as a whole. Based on citizens’ right of access to information as stipulated in Article 25 of the Constitution 2013, in the field of land administration, Article 18 of the Law on Land 2024 provides for the guarantee of citizens’ right to access land information, and Vietnamese law establishes the responsibility of the State to provide land information through the national land information system.
Regarding the formation mechanism of the LIS in Vietnam, Clause 23 Article 3 of the Law on Land 2024 defines the LIS as an integrated system comprising information technology infrastructure, software, and data, developed as a centralized and unified system nationwide to manage, operate, update, and exploit land information. This system consists of three fundamental components: (i) information technology infrastructure; (ii) software of the national land information system; and (iii) the national land database.[10]
Currently, the legal framework governing the management of the Land Information System (LIS) in Vietnam is regulated by several key legal instruments, including the Law on Land 2024, the Law on Digital Transformation 2025, and guiding documents. Specifically, the Law on Land 2024 identifies the purpose of establishing the LIS as serving state administrative governance of land, administrative reform, and digital transformation in the land sector; and enabling the connection and sharing of data with national databases and those of ministries, sectors, and localities. It also stipulates the responsibilities of state agencies in the construction, management, operation, and exploitation of this system. The procedures for the construction, management, operation, and exploitation of the system are detailed in Chapter IV of Decree No. 101/2024/ND-CP. Meanwhile, the Law on Digital Transformation 2025 provides the legal framework for the integration, connection, and exploitation of information in the digital environment, in which the LIS is included as part of the national digital infrastructure.
From July 1, 2025, the two-tier local government model in Vietnam was officially put into operation, closely associated with digital transformation, marking a breakthrough institutional reform.[11] Accordingly, the transition from a three-tier to a two-tier local government model imposes new requirements on the management and operation of the LIS. Although the Law on Land 2024 and relevant legal documents have initially established a legal framework for the development and operation of the LIS, the current regulations have not yet fully reflected the new requirements arising from the two-tier local government model, specifically:
First, the current legal framework primarily focuses on the technical structure and components of the LIS, while the mechanisms for clearly delineating responsibilities among different levels of local government in the collection, updating, and control of land data have not been adequately specified in the context of changes in local government organization.
Second, existing regulations have not fully established mechanisms to ensure data interoperability and consistency among different levels of local government after the removal of the intermediate administrative tier. The absence of detailed provisions on procedures for data verification, validation, and synchronization may lead to risks of fragmentation or inconsistency in the LIS across localities.
Third, the current legal framework has yet to develop comprehensive mechanisms for the public disclosure and sharing of land information in the form of open data to serve the market. In particular, LIS relating to market-based land prices, as well as activities of auction or tender of land use rights (LURs), have not been integrated into a unified LIS at the national level. This deficiency not only reduces the effectiveness of state supervision over the land market but also limits access to land information for citizens and enterprises.
It can be observed that improving the LIS management mechanism in the context of operating a two-tier local government model is not merely a matter of upgrading information technology infrastructure, but also one of institutional design for land data governance in alignment with the new organizational structure. This requires Vietnam to develop more specific legal provisions on the decentralization of data management, coordination mechanisms among state agencies, and methods for ensuring the public disclosure and transparency of land information in the digital environment.
II. Experiences in land information system management in selected countries
2.1. Experience of Japan
First, the land information management system (LIS) in Japan is reflected in legal policies governing the responsibility for collecting and utilizing fundamental land-use planning data at the local level. Specifically, Article 2 of the National Land Use Planning Act 1974 of Japan provides that provincial-level planning (or urban planning) consists of three main components: land-use planning, infrastructure planning, and a list of development projects. In particular, land-use planning is designed to align with regional orientations, identifying two principal zones: (i) “urbanization areas” – including existing urban areas and those to be developed within the next 10 years; and (ii) “urbanization control areas” – where urban development is restricted. To develop a modern and detailed LIS for land-use planning, Articles 2 and 5 of the Basic Act on the Advancement of Utilizing Geospatial Information 2007 of Japan establish requirements for local authorities to develop and promote the use of land data based on the application of Geographic Information Systems (GIS). Notably, GIS technology enables authorities at different levels of government to provide and supplement information to one another as a tool for consultation based on reliable and highly efficient data, grounded in fundamental principles and the allocation of responsibilities from central authorities. As a result, the LIS model for land-use planning in Japan demonstrates a high degree of integration, synchronization, and consistency in terms of spatial, temporal, and substantive dimensions. Consequently, overlaps in the application of different land-use planning instruments are virtually impossible, as each type of planning serves distinct purposes and encompasses different parameters and planning objects.
This clear classification, specificity, and integration with development objectives have transformed land-use planning in Japan into an “investment promotion instrument,” serving as a practical reference for investors seeking to access land-use planning information in order to implement projects in Japan.
Second, in Japan, the effective operation of the LIS is also demonstrated through policies ensuring the protection of citizens’ rights to access transparent and accurate land information. In this regard, the Real Property Registration Act 2004 of Japan provides the legal basis for organizing a unified and centralized real estate registration system at the central level under the authority of the Ministry of Justice. At the same time, the authority to carry out land registration activities is delegated to local-level bodies, namely the Legal Affairs Bureaus and registration offices where the real property is located.
It can thus be observed that, for a country operating a two-tier local government model such as Japan, the legal framework governing the operation of the real estate registration system demonstrates significant advantages in its capacity for centralized and synchronized processing of large volumes of real estate data, enabling the collection, updating, and storage of extensive records. With an effective and transparent information system, local governments are able to proactively respond to administrative–territorial changes, such as adjustments to administrative boundaries or land parcels, without disrupting state administrative governance of land. At the same time, the LIS model for real estate registration in Japan contributes to reducing the time required for approval and the implementation of administrative procedures by mitigating concerns over risks of inaccuracies in land data within the market. Accordingly, it helps to minimize disputes, complaints, and conflicts arising when citizens engage in land-related transactions and legal procedures.
In addition, with respect to the operation of the LIS for land price management, Japan promulgated the Land Price Publication Act in 1969. Pursuant to Articles 2 and 6 of this Act, the central authority - the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) - annually discloses on March 1 the “national standard land price index,” based on surveys conducted at tens of thousands of locations nationwide. This serves as an official benchmark for state agencies, banks, and enterprises in activities such as mortgage lending, asset valuation, and land clearance compensation.[12] Based on this, prefectural governments are authorized to formulate and publicly announce “standard land prices” at the provincial level within their respective jurisdictions, published annually on July 1 to reflect local market conditions. Subsequently, grassroots authorities conduct land valuation for the purpose of calculating property tax on real estate, based on surveys and the “standard land price” tables issued by the respective prefectures.
Thus, under the Land Price Publication Act, local governments are responsible for periodically publishing “standard land prices” through appropriate information systems. This regulation enables citizens to monitor trends in land price fluctuations in the market, thereby mitigating speculation or price inflation in the real estate sector. According to the authors’ assessment, having experienced significant economic consequences from the “real estate bubble” during the period 1996–2006,[13] Japan recognizes the importance of controlling the economic benefits derived from land. Accordingly, Japan has established a mechanism for public disclosure of standard land prices, which not only supports local governments in land valuation for administrative procedures but also serves as a reference basis for market-based land transactions.
It is precisely through the flexible combination of market mechanisms and appropriate state intervention that Japan has maintained the stability and soundness of its land market, even during periods of significant volatility.[14]
Notably, owing to a stable LIS for land price data, while many countries worldwide still rely on relatively manual methods to construct land price adjustment coefficients when determining market prices in an approximate manner, Japan is able to apply modern methods grounded in actual market data, while still comprehensively evaluating the economic benefits derived from land based on specific land-use purposes (residential, commercial, industrial, etc.) and the location of land parcels across provinces, regions, or urban areas.[15] Consequently, with a modern methodology for constructing land price coefficients based on transparent data sources, Japan is able to mitigate conflicts in determining compensation prices in cases of land acquisition and clearance, as well as discrepancies in cost calculations when the government allocates or leases land.
2.2. Experience of South Korea
Since 2013, based on the National Spatial Data Infrastructure Act, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of South Korea has officially put into operation the Korea Land Information System (KLIS) with the expectation of enhancing transparency in land-related administrative procedures and eliminating inequality and corruption associated with land management. The objectives of establishing and operating KLIS under this Act include: (1) ensuring the effective management of geospatial information – Article 1; and (2) facilitating citizens’ access to and use of spatial data – Article 3.
With the objective of effective geospatial information management, KLIS has been developed to ensure the public disclosure of fundamental land data and to promptly support the Government in formulating and implementing accurate and effective policies. Previously, changes in land transactions and land valuation were only investigated by administrative units and regulated under separate legal frameworks; however, since its establishment, KLIS has enabled the Government to monitor these activities in detail at the level of districts and regions. As a result, central authorities are able to promptly and accurately capture changes and improve the quality of land policies.[16]
According to the authors’ assessment, in the process of implementing the two-tier local government model, South Korea’s legal framework is notable for its mechanisms of supervision, accountability, and responsibility imposed on lower-level local authorities with respect to the transparency, completeness, and legality of collected data. Accordingly, higher-level local governments are able to exercise autonomy in updating, reviewing, and enriching land data while still ensuring oversight and approval from specialized agencies from the central to local levels. Specifically, Article 7 of the Act requires the heads of provincial-level administrative authorities to formulate action plans on spatial data policies for the specialized agencies under their management. At the same time, Clause 1 Article 8 provides that heads of local administrative authorities intending to establish or amend such action plans must consult relevant specialized management agencies within 30 days. This constitutes an effective accountability mechanism to prevent abuse of power, lack of transparency, and subjectivity in the process of developing KLIS.
Assessments indicate that the unified, modern, and comprehensive KLIS at the national level serves as a critical database enabling local governments in South Korea to address shortcomings in land administration that previously relied on manual methods.
With the objective of facilitating citizens’ access to and use of spatial data, a distinctive feature of the KLIS in South Korea is that its data structure is built on open data sources - allowing citizens to access and obtain online certification of land-use planning and to consult publicly disclosed and transparent information on land prices anytime and anywhere via web-based platforms.[17] As a result, the quality of public administrative services has been significantly improved, while time and costs have been substantially reduced.
In addition, the LIS model for land price information in South Korea includes a system for the appraisal of standard land prices and specific land prices within a publicly accessible database, accompanied by a clear allocation of responsibilities and accountability mechanisms. Regarding the public database, Article 3 of the Decree on Public Disclosure of Real Estate Values issued by the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport in 2005 requires the Minister of this Ministry (MOLIT) to be responsible for the development, appraisal, and annual public disclosure of standard land prices, following consultation with the Central Land Price Disclosure Committee under Article 19 and professional valuers in accordance with the Valuation Act. Specifically, the Minister of MOLIT conducts a comprehensive assessment based on factors such as market price information, rental prices of comparable land parcels, costs of creating land with equivalent utility value, fairness and regional characteristics, as well as the capacity to forecast price fluctuations of standard land parcels. Accordingly, standard land price data are constructed based on approximately 500,000 representative land parcels, reflecting approximately 32 million parcels nationwide, and serve as the basis for determining specific land prices.[18]
Furthermore, pursuant to Article 7 of the Decree on Public Notification of Real Estate Values 2020, the system of specific land price information is approved and publicly disclosed annually by the heads of provincial-level local authorities for each land parcel (excluding standard land parcels). Accordingly, the annual establishment of an LIS following a unified procedure demonstrates the high predictive capacity of the land price management model. As a result, the legal framework governing specific land prices in South Korea remains stable and consistent on an annual cycle, whereas some other countries only determine specific land prices when actual calculation needs arise. Notably, a distinctive aspect of this Decree is that it allows landowners to lodge complaints within 30 days if they disagree with the announced prices. According to the authors’ assessment, this provision reflects South Korea’s advanced approach in preventing potential conflicts of interest between the State and citizens, particularly in administrative activities prone to disputes and complaints, such as compensation, land clearance, or issues relating to land use fees when the State allocates or leases land.
2.3. Experience of Germany
In Germany, arising from the requirement for information transparency, the LIS model (referred to as ALKIS) has been implemented since 2015 to consolidate land-use statistical data. Within the federal state structure, Articles 30 and 83 of the Basic Law of Germany allocate land management authority to the Länder (states) and local authorities (cities and districts); the legal framework governing ALKIS is uniformly regulated by a system of standards (the ALKIS Model) approved by the Working Committee of the Surveying Authorities of the Länder. Accordingly, the input data constituting ALKIS primarily include the land register (Grundbuch), the cadastral system (Liegenschaftskataster), and statutory planning and land price systems. A distinctive feature of ALKIS lies in its governance authority and open data structure. Designed to meet the need for interoperable land information access among Länder and local governments (districts), ALKIS input data are coordinated and standardized nationwide, with local authorities (cities and districts) playing a central role in system operation.[19]
Accordingly, the city/district level demonstrates effectiveness as an “extended arm” of the Länder in managing specific territories. The Länder level assumes responsibility for inspection, supervision, and final accountability in the transmission and processing of land data. Within this distinctive institutional framework, this constitutes a post-audit mechanism of supervision and accountability, serving as the key to ensuring that land data remain coherent, standardized, and unified. Compared with traditional methods of updating information in physical land registers, data in electronic land registration systems can be more easily adjusted and updated through digital means.[20] As a result of these efforts, since its implementation, ALKIS has provided an open land data source for all 16 Länder nationwide, ensuring that citizens can access information contained in land title registers and cadastral records integrated with macro-level land regulation instruments such as land-use planning, statutory land prices, and legal information of each parcel.
Notably, in Germany, the control of land price speculation in the market and the stabilization of real estate prices are achieved through comprehensive control of land data within LIS-type systems operated by local authorities. Within this framework, there exists the statutory land valuation system (Amtliche Grundstückswertermittlung).[21] This system constitutes an indispensable instrument for the State in formulating land-use planning and land-related policies (such as taxation and compensation land prices in cases of land acquisition) as well as in the credit system.[22] The Real Estate Valuation Ordinance (ImmoWertV) stipulates that the data required for land valuation - collected by local authorities - include: location data of the valuation subject, valuation timeframes, conditions to be considered in valuation (including legal status, actual conditions, other relevant factors, and location characteristics), and forecasts of objective events that may affect land value (such as abnormal events occurring on land, including natural disasters or floods in the locality).[23]
Specifically, pursuant to Article 195 of the German Federal Building Code (BauGB), all contracts relating to the purchase or exchange of land parcels must be registered with the office of the land valuation committee (Geschäftsstelle) at the district level (the lowest administrative unit). Article 873 of the German Civil Code (BGB) stipulates that only transactions recorded by a notary in the land register (Grundbuch) have legal validity, and notaries are obliged to transfer the relevant data. Consequently, parties engaging in land transactions cannot conceal transaction details from the land valuation committee offices. Under the authority prescribed in Article 193 BauGB, these committees compile a land price collection database (Kaufpreissammlung). Furthermore, pursuant to Clause 2 Article 195 BauGB, the committees provide the entire dataset of market land prices to local tax authorities for the purpose of establishing statutory land values serving annual state administrative governance of land prices.[24]
The authors assess that the mechanism of comprehensive delegation of authority through a post-audit framework—from the Länder level down to district-level land valuation committee offices—renders the process of land data collection streamlined, efficient, and effective. This is because the supervision exercised by higher-level authorities (Länder) over district-level land valuation offices is limited to administrative supervision (Dienstaufsicht) and legal supervision (Rechtsaufsicht), without interference in professional or technical matters. Such a mechanism enables district-level land valuation offices to perform their professional functions independently, free from subjective influence or interference that could distort land price data from other authorities. These provisions demonstrate the advanced nature of Germany’s LIS management in land pricing, where delegation of authority and the prioritization of accountability are central principles.[25]
At the same time, according to the authors, the LIS for land prices within Germany’s two-tier local government model also demonstrates a high level of democratic governance through the obligation to publicly disclose land price information to all citizens with access needs. Specifically, the BauGB requires specialized authorities at the district level to operate land price information systems within their jurisdictions, publish standard values for undeveloped land as well as other relevant data, and prepare land valuation reports for governmental bodies, private enterprises, and citizens upon request. This ensures that land price data collected by valuation committees serve not only as a tool for controlling market information but also as a publicly accessible reference source for all stakeholders in society.[25]
2.4. Experience of France
As a country that has organized state administrative governance under a two-tier local government model since before the 1980s, France’s LIS management policies under its previous institutional model remain highly relevant. Within a distinctive institutional framework, France assigns regional authorities primarily supervisory functions, while lower-level local units such as departments and communes are regarded as “territorial collectivities,” meaning they possess their own executive bodies and operate under a strong decentralization mechanism, facilitating the establishment of autonomous local governments.[26] As a result, land-related LIS management policies at each administrative unit are collected and operated in a specific, timely, and accurate manner.
Specifically, in France, GEOFONCIER is an electronic information portal established in 2010 by the French Order of Chartered Surveyors (Ordre des Géomètres-Experts – OGE) and managed under a decentralized state framework. This system centrally stores all surveying activities, parcel subdivision, and land boundary establishment nationwide, and allows for direct, real-time updates of cadastral changes. A distinctive feature of the decentralization mechanism lies in the allocation of authority for updating and developing land data to specific agencies: the Directorate General of Public Finances (DGFiP) is responsible for managing cadastral and land registration data nationwide, while local authorities are responsible for land-use planning and development planning based on data provided by the DGFiP system.
In the operation of local government in France, GEOFONCIER demonstrates a substantive decentralization mechanism between local authorities and specialized agencies, leveraging the strengths of each entity to ensure the quality of input data. Accordingly, the LIS model in France exhibits several notable characteristics: (i) continuous, real-time updating of cadastral data rather than periodic updates linked to administrative reforms; (ii) a sustainable public–private partnership (PPP) model between the State and professional cadastral surveyors (Géomètres-Experts); and (iii) the operation of a unified GEOFONCIER data portal.[27] Data updates are conducted immediately upon any change in land parcel boundaries, through “cadastral survey documents” prepared by legally recognized surveyors and directly integrated into the digital system. These professionals perform independent technical functions, including boundary determination and cadastral mapping, under the strict supervision of provincial-level authorities.
At the same time, to control real estate speculation that may distort LIS data in the market, France applies an open data mechanism to establish an interoperable real estate database between notarial offices and state authorities, thereby accurately reflecting market conditions. A typical example is the BIEN database (Base d'Informations Économiques Notariales), maintained by notaries, which stores detailed information on real estate transactions since 1990, including sale prices, property types, locations, and related factors.[28] In addition, pursuant to Article L213-2 of the Urban Planning Code (Code de l’urbanisme), all real estate transfers within pre-emption zones must be notified in advance by the owner (through a notary) to the competent commune-level authority. Under Articles L211-1 and L213-3, provincial-level authorities are empowered to exercise pre-emption rights in certain cases where reports from commune-level authorities indicate that the declared price in the declaration of intent to alienate (DIA) is lower than the actual market value or inconsistent with public interest objectives.
According to the authors, this represents a highly effective institutional suggestion for Viet Nam, whereby the LIS model for controlling land transaction prices promotes the participation of private notarial offices alongside state administrative governance authorities at the local level. Meanwhile, in some countries, the involvement of private and non-state actors in ensuring the transparency of land transactions in the market remains limited. As a result, if parties collude to declare artificially low prices for tax evasion purposes, they may face the risk of losing their property to the State at such undervalued prices, without any possibility of reclaiming the “off-contract” price difference. However, the authors emphasize that this mechanism is not designed to arbitrarily appropriate citizens’ civil transactions. Rather, grounded in the State’s regulatory authority over national economic resources, these measures function as safeguards to deter and prevent speculative practices, market manipulation, and tax evasion that distort LIS data. This approach enables notaries to accurately verify the “true price” in real estate transactions.[29] At the same time, the close coordination between notaries and commune-level authorities enhances the capacity for management, supervision, and detection of violations of tax laws.[30] Accordingly, data provided by notaries are regarded as a reliable source for determining market prices.
III. Recommendations and solutions for Viet Nam and several developing economies
3.1. Improving the fundamental legal framework for LIS at the local level
Viet Nam should design and develop a multi-purpose LIS with flexible adaptability, enabling the centralized storage of land data at a single focal point and facilitating the rapid and accurate sharing of information with all entities having legitimate needs and rights to access such data. Specifically, according to the PAPI 2024 report, the level of public disclosure of land-use information across most provinces in Viet Nam remains at a low to medium level. Notably, following the administrative merger into 34 provinces and centrally governed cities, provincial indicators published by PAPI show that the proportion of citizens able to access key information such as land-use planning and plans at the local level remains extremely low; in most provinces, this rate was only around 10–20% prior to the merger. This situation underscores the urgent need to further完善 a specialized legal framework governing the management and public disclosure of LIS in the land sector in Viet Nam. This is because the legal provisions on LIS management under Chapter XII of the Law on Land 2024 remain largely formalistic and do not clearly and specifically define the responsibilities of local-level authorities. In particular, in the context of changes to the local government model, the authority to manage LIS at the district level remains inadequately addressed. In addition, Clause 1 Article 10 of Resolution No. 197/2025/QH15 introduces several specific digital transformation policies, such as the development of a Big Data database on land law to digitize legal normative documents; the establishment of open data repositories to support review and adjustment processes; and the application of artificial intelligence (AI) in professional activities to assist cadastral officials. However, to date, this Resolution has not yet been concretely guided for implementation in land management activities by the Government or relevant ministries, including the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment and the Ministry of Science and Technology.
Japan - one of the pioneering countries in state administrative governance of land based on modern information systems - provides a valuable legal framework for Viet Nam in the process of improving its nationwide LIS. Specifically, as a country undergoing LIS modernization, Viet Nam may draw lessons from Japan’s Basic Act on the Advancement of Utilizing Geospatial Information 2007. The core contents of this Act, including provisions on the functions, duties, and powers of competent authorities in LIS management; fundamental principles for LIS governance; and specific mechanisms and policies of central authorities to support local governments in promoting the use of geospatial information, offer significant legal references for Viet Nam, particularly in the context of the enactment of the Law on Digital Transformation 2025. Furthermore, the legal institution of land registration in Germany demonstrates outstanding effectiveness in terms of data interoperability and transparency in management. Accordingly, Viet Nam may adopt Germany’s legal experience in promoting the digitalization of land data collection and utilization processes under its land registration laws, thereby strengthening the responsibilities of cadastral officials in data provision and processing, and advancing substantive digital transformation of the LIS in Viet Nam.
At present, Decree No. 357/2025/ND-CP, which officially took effect on March 1, 2025, has opened up a significant opportunity for the development and management of the Land Information System (LIS) in Viet Nam, enabling regulatory authorities to minimize “grey areas” in real estate information, while supporting tax administration and the process of retrieving real estate information when citizens carry out land-related administrative procedures. However, upon examining the operation of LIS in several countries such as Japan, the Republic of Korea, and France, the authors argue that, in order to implement the new policies set out in the Decree, Viet Nam must ensure a modern information infrastructure system that is continuously updated so as to avoid information latency and inaccuracies that may cause damage to users. In addition, the Decree has not yet addressed a number of issues, such as the responsibility for updating information of competent state authorities operating the LIS; that is, after any changes or fluctuations in real estate information occur, which authority is responsible for updating such information on the LIS; what the time limit for such updates is; and whether real estate information on the LIS is publicly accessible nationwide. Therefore, in order to ensure the effective operation of the LIS at the local level, the authors recommend further study on the implementation roadmap to ensure that the LIS model is synchronized with Viet Nam’s infrastructure and technological systems.
3.2. Policy recommendations on the management of the Land System (LIS) within the system of land use planning, land use plans, and fundamental land surveys
At present, the legal framework governing information on land use planning and land use plans in Viet Nam has undergone numerous changes. Up to this point, Point b, Clause 3, Article 12 of Resolution No. 254/2025/QH15 recognizes the legal validity of provincial-level land use planning following administrative consolidation and does not permit the formulation of land use planning and land use plans at the commune level. In order to ensure the management of land information by local authorities at two levels, Resolution No. 254/2025/QH15 stipulates that the provincial level is responsible for organizing the formulation and adjustment of provincial planning for the 2021–2030 period, with a vision to 2050, in which the allocation of land use quotas to the commune level must be determined. Accordingly, for commune-level authorities to be able to manage land information within their jurisdiction, the provincial level must complete the adjustment and review of provincial planning and allocate land use quotas to the commune level.
However, current laws do not prescribe a time limit for the adjustment and allocation of land use quotas from the provincial level to the commune level, nor for commune-level land use plans. As a result, as of March 2026, only 12 out of 34 provinces and centrally governed cities in Viet Nam have completed the adjustment of provincial planning for the 2021–2030 period, with a vision to 2050; among these, adjustments to provincial planning for the 2021–2030 period combined with the allocation of land use quotas to communes have been approved.[31]
Notably, the most significant gap lies in the inadequacies in the development of plans for managing the land use information system at the commune level. According to the preliminary report on the results of the 2025 rural and agricultural census, published on January 14, 2026, Viet Nam currently has 34 provinces and 2,634 communes;[32] accordingly, on average, each province must allocate land use quotas to 77 communes. These data are inherently managed at the commune level, which is the only level capable of directly capturing, collecting data, and proposing context-specific solutions appropriate to local conditions. Nevertheless, current legal provisions do not allow the commune level to participate in the process of reviewing and adjusting contents related to the allocation of land use quotas for their respective jurisdictions. This poses a potential challenge, as the exclusion of commune-level local authorities from consultation, contribution of opinions, and expression of land use demands in the process of approving provincial planning for the 2021–2030 period in conjunction with the allocation of land use quotas constitutes a significant deficiency in the legal framework, creating the risk of rendering the entire local land policy ineffective.
Thus, in order to comprehensively address the existing shortcomings in the improvement of land use planning and land use plans, Viet Nam needs to promote the nationwide implementation and application of a comprehensive Land Information System (LIS) through a unified LIS software deployed down to each local level. This system must ensure standardized and uniform procedures and rules, from data collection, analysis, and aggregation to the periodic disclosure of information. In addition, it is necessary to ensure that the LIS contains complete datasets, including land area, cadastral records, land users, land prices, land use planning, land use plans, and periodic land inventories.
Viet Nam may selectively refer to the practice of fundamental land information surveys under the GEOFONCIER electronic portal model developed in 2010 by the Order of Chartered Surveyors of France (OGE). This model is managed in France under a State-delegated mechanism, centrally storing all activities related to surveying, parcel subdivision, and the establishment of land boundaries nationwide, while allowing direct, real-time updates of cadastral changes. This model provides an opportunity to address existing issues in LIS management, which remains fragmented and dispersed, by enabling local authorities to update cadastral data immediately upon the occurrence of changes, rather than depending on cycles of adjustment to land use planning, land use plans, or administrative boundary changes. At the same time, France’s delegation mechanism to the OGE demonstrates compatibility with the trend of “socialization” of public services in Viet Nam and the digitization of land and real estate data serving state land administration under Decree No. 357/2025/ND-CP. Therefore, Viet Nam should examine the substance of certain provisions on delegation mechanisms in order to develop a legal framework governing supervision, inspection, and substantive accountability of local authorities, while reducing the burden on the central level in the implementation and operation of the LIS for land management. These experiences not only contribute to improving the accuracy and transparency of data and reducing information “latency,” but also reinforce the role of the LIS as a real-time land management tool with strict control across different levels of government.
In addition, pursuant to Clause 1, Article 14 of Decree No. 49/2026/ND-CP, all decision-making authority regarding land recovery, land allocation, land lease, and permission for change of land use purpose, among others, is vested in the provincial-level People’s Committees. On that basis, provincial-level People’s Committees decentralize and delegate authority to competent agencies and individuals to perform tasks as appropriate. Although this constitutes a foundational provision promoting substantive empowerment, the Decree and its annexes do not provide criteria or reference scope for provincial-level People’s Committees to determine what constitutes “appropriateness,” nor do they establish mechanisms for accountability, monitoring, supervision, and inspection by provincial-level local authorities over the activities of decentralized or delegated entities. This represents a potential legal gap that may create loopholes for abuses of position and power, or exploitation of legal shortcomings for personal gain in the process of developing the LIS for land management in Viet Nam.
Alongside countries such as the Republic of Korea and the Federal Republic of Germany, Viet Nam is currently among those operating a two-tier local government model while promoting decentralization, devolution, and empowerment of local authorities to ensure synchronization and interconnectivity in the development of the LIS for land management. Accordingly, Viet Nam may study and refine legal provisions concerning empowerment mechanisms accompanied by accountability in the operation of the LIS, drawing on international experience, notably the provisions under Clause 1, Article 7 and Clause 1, Article 8 of the Act on the National Spatial Data Infrastructure of the Republic of Korea. Specifically, the Act requires that specialized management agencies may only develop, use, and collect national spatial data on the basis of an action plan approved by the head of the local administrative authority. Such plans must also be subject to review by specialized agencies, thereby ensuring consultation and transparency. In addition, by referring to Germany’s information control policies, Viet Nam may consider a “post-audit” model - allowing the provincial level to conduct inspection and supervision at the final data stage while empowering the commune level to carry out the investigation, updating, and adjustment of land data.
3.3. Recommendations on mechanisms and policies for improving the legal framework on LIS in land finance management
3.3.1. Recommendations on solutions for operating the LIS in the formulation of land price tables
Vietnamese law has not yet provided regulations specifying input data standards used for the development of the LIS for land price tables. Under current regulations, provincial-level People’s Committees are responsible for submitting to provincial-level People’s Councils for decision on the adjustment, amendment, and supplementation of land price tables for promulgation and application from January 1 of the following year. However, the process of collecting land price data under Articles 14 and 16 of Decree No. 71/2024/ND-CP, as amended by Decree No. 226/2025/ND-CP, does not clearly specify the sources from which the Department of Agriculture and Environment obtains land price data for the development of land price tables; which commune- or ward-level local authorities are responsible for collecting and updating such data and information for the Department; and what transactions these data are derived from or what references are used. Meanwhile, under Clause 2, Article 14 of Decree No. 71/2024/ND-CP, local actors with comprehensive knowledge of economic conditions or private notary offices are excluded from the consultation process.
Similar to Viet Nam, Japan is among the countries applying a “standard land price” system for each area as a basis for calculating taxes, fees, and charges related to land in accordance with legal regulations. However, unlike Viet Nam, Japan’s system operates on the basis of a publicly accessible LIS for land prices, built upon modern and transparent input data collection and calculation processes, taking into account multiple economic factors that land may generate for users and incorporating consultation from various specialized agencies. Therefore, the authors argue that, in order to comprehensively address the above shortcomings, Viet Nam may refer to Japan’s experience in terms of management authority and procedures for developing an LIS for land prices. Specifically, pursuant to Articles 2 and 6 of the Land Price Act 1969, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism (MLIT) annually publishes “standard land price indices” based on surveys conducted at tens of thousands of points nationwide. Accordingly, Viet Nam may adopt this index construction process in the development of land price tables in order to ensure the transparency and completeness of the collected data.
3.3.2. Recommendations on solutions for operating the LIS to address the disparity between State land prices and market land prices
One of the main reasons why the data used for developing land price tables at the provincial level has not ensured objectivity and has failed to accurately reflect land values is that the database on market land prices remains incomplete and distorted. Meanwhile, Viet Nam has attempted to significantly increase land values in land price tables in order to keep pace with market prices. This creates a potential risk of forming a real estate bubble in 2026, which is projected to rise significantly compared to the average level in the 2016–2025 period.[33] According to a survey by VARS,[34] observations of price fluctuations in several apartment projects already put into use in Ha Noi show that transfer prices in the second quarter of 2025 increased by 120% to 180% compared to prices prior to October 2023. This development indicates that price increases are not only concentrated in newly launched projects but have also spread to older apartment segments, reflecting a lack of control in price formation and irrationalities in the supply–demand relationship. Investors may withdraw funds from banks - where interest rates can never keep pace with inflation - and channel them into more attractive investment avenues such as real estate in order to manipulate and profit from speculation and investment activities.[35] A potential challenge arising from this situation is the increase in speculative behaviors, price manipulation, and market destabilization in land use rights transactions. Therefore, according to the authors, it is imperative to establish mechanisms to control behaviors that distort land transaction information in the market and to promote the development of the LIS to publicize land prices in Viet Nam, ensuring that the State retains regulatory control over the market and prevents price shocks.[36]
Given the similarities in the Latin notarial model, Viet Nam may refer to France’s experience in applying an integrated real estate data system linking notarial offices and state authorities, developed in a centralized manner to accurately reflect market conditions. A typical model is the BIEN database, which allows notaries, including private notaries, to accurately determine the “actual price” in real estate transactions and thereby create a reliable data source for determining market real estate prices. At the same time, strengthening close coordination between notaries and tax authorities enhances the capacity of local authorities to manage, supervise, and detect violations of tax laws and fraud in the declaration of transfer values of land use rights.
In addition, with reference to the legal framework of the Federal Republic of Germany, in terms of competence, the functions of land valuation committees in that country are similar to those of land price appraisal councils and specific land price appraisal councils as provided under Article 161 of the Land Law 2024 of Viet Nam. However, in Viet Nam, such councils are established only by decision of the Chairperson of the provincial-level People’s Committee and, in certain cases, the commune-level People’s Committee as prescribed in Point l, Clause 1, Article 5 and Point i, Clause 1, Article 9 of Decree No. 151/2025/ND-CP. Meanwhile, in Germany, pursuant to Article 192 of the Federal Building Code (BauGB), each city or district is required to establish a standing valuation committee operating on a continuous basis, with independent authority and functions separate from other bodies. This provision suggests that Vietnamese law should introduce a mechanism for establishing a dedicated council, agency, or organization responsible for land valuation at each locality, operating on a specialized and independent basis. Accordingly, this would provide a foundation for establishing the operational mechanism of the LIS for land prices at the local level. Furthermore, based on Germany’s experience, Viet Nam may also consider the mechanisms and authority of specialized local agencies in publicly disclosing LIS-based land price information on information platforms, enabling citizens and enterprises to refer to such data when conducting negotiations for the transfer of land use rights in a transparent manner.
IV. Conclusion
Effective management of the Land Information System (LIS) is an urgent requirement and a key objective for Viet Nam in the new era. This is not only a solution to reform institutional organization, improve the legal framework, and streamline cumbersome procedures and administrative processes, but also reflects a clear political commitment of countries operating a two-tier local government model. Effective LIS management contributes to strengthening decentralization, promoting autonomy, and enhancing public governance efficiency at the local level. To achieve this, the legal framework for LIS management, particularly with respect to the identification of data within each component of state administrative governance, must be clearly and appropriately defined. At the same time, promoting digital transformation is also a decisive factor for the success of the model and the effectiveness of land data management activities.
REFERENCES
1. Hoang Anh, Building a unified, centralized, interconnected, “accurate, sufficient, clean, live” and updated land database, VnEconomy, (15:05, 15/10/2025),
https://vneconomy.vn/xay-dung-co-so-du-lieu-dat-dai-thong-nhat-tap-trung-lien-thong-dung-du-sach-song-va-cap-nhat.htm
2. Hoang Thi Huong & Ngo Thi Ha, Determinants of success in the operation of Viet Nam’s land information system, Journal of Economics and Business, University of Economics and Business – Viet Nam National University, Hanoi, Vol. 5 No. 1, 63, 64, (2025)
3. Jacob Arie Zevenbergen, Systems of Land Registration - Aspects and Effects, Netherlands Geodetic Commission (NCG), 1-4 (2002), https://scispace.com/pdf/systems-of-land-registration-aspects-and-effects-46j3f78qga.pdf
4. PETER DALE & JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, LAND ADMINISTRATION, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS, OXFORD, 92 (2000).
5. Craig Macauley, Du Dao-sheng, Kazuhiko Akeno, Tae-jung Min, Metadata standards development activities in the Asia - pacific region, World Spatial Metadata Standards, 83, 83-85 (2005)
6. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Land Administration Guidelines With Special Reference to Countries in Transition, ECE/HBP/96, 60 (1996), https://unece.org/DAM/hlm/documents/Publications/land.administration.guidelines.e.pdf.
7. United Nations Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management (UN-GGIM), Framework for Effective Land Administration - A reference for developing, reforming, renewing, strengthening, modernizing, and monitoring land administration, E/C.20/2020/29/Add.2, 22-23 (2020), https://ggim.un.org/meetings/GGIM-committee/10th-Session/documents/E-C.20-2020-29-Add_2-Framework-for-Effective-Land-Administration.pdf.
8. Richard Groot, Spatial data infrastructure (SDI) for sustainable land management, ITC Journal, Vol. 3/4, 287, 289 (1997).
9. Ian P Williamson, Land administration “best practice” providing the infrastructure for land policy implementation, Land Use Policy, Vol. 18, Issue 4, 297, 298 (2001).
10. Clause 3 Article 163, Law on Land 2024.
11. Le Anh Tuan, Local governance: Opportunities and challenges for the operation of the two-tier local government model in Viet Nam in the context of digital transformation, Journal of State Organization and Labour, (15:31, 05/01/2026), https://tcnnld.vn/news/detail/71000/Quan-tri-dia-phuong-Co-hoi-va-thach-thuc-doi-voi-van-hanh-mo-hinh-chinh-quyen-dia-phuong-02-cap-o-Viet-Nam-trong-boi-canh-chuyen-doi-so.html
12. Hiromitsu Ishi, Land tax reform in Japan, Journal of Economics, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1 (1991)
13. Van Cuong, Real estate crisis: from Japan to China, Electronic Journal of Construction, (19:05, 07/03/2023), https://tapchixaydung.vn/khung-hoang-bat-dong-san-nhin-tu-nhat-ban-den-trung-quoc-20201224000016250.html
14. Masaru Honma, Scientific Real Estate Considerations of Land Value Development and Regulations Including Topographical and Geological Factors Based on the History of Development of Slope Land, Journal of the Japan Society of Engineering Geology, Vol. 64, No. 6, 333 (2024).
15. Real Estate and Construction Economy Bureau, Methodology of JRPPI: Japan Residential Property Price Index, MLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism), 1, 2-5 (2020), https://www.mlit.go.jp.
16. Sung-Eon Hong, Hyun-Joon Lee & Yun-Ki Kim, The Estimation of the Cadastral Digital Map's Accuracy for the KLIS's Effective Operation, The Journal of GIS Association of Korea, Vol. 15, No. 1, 81, 81-83 (2007).
17. JungHo Park, WonGeun Choi, TaeYun Jeong & JinJae Seo, Digital twins and land management in South Korea, Land Use Policy, Vol. 124, 106442, ScienceDirect (2023),
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837722004690.
18. Mie-Oak Chae & Bong-Joon Kim, A study on the method for the classification of homogeneous land price areas, Journal of Real Estate Analysis, Vol. 1, No. 1, 1 (2015).
19. Günther Steudle & Thomas Witke, Establishment of ALKIS® in Germany – Objectives and experiences, Zfv, Vol. 137, Jg. 4, 217, 219 (2012)
20. Harald Wilsch, The German “Grundbuchordnung”: History, principles and future of land registry in Germany, Zfv, Vol. 137, Jg. 4, 225, 226 (2012)
21. Benjamin Davy, The German Verkehrswert (market value) of land: Statutory land valuation, spatial planning, and land policy, Land Use Policy, Vol. 136, 106975, ScienceDirect (2024), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837723004416.
22. Sattwick Dey Biswas & Thomas Hartmann, Land valuation and land policy – implications of normative bias, Town Planning Review, Vol. 93 No.5, 457, 459 (2021).
23. WOLFGANG KLEIBER, ROLAND FISCHER & ULLRICH WERLING, VERKEHRSWERTERMITTLUNG VON GRUNDSTÜCKEN (THE VALUATION OF THE VERKEHRSWERT OF CADASTRAL PARCELS), REGUVIS FACHMEDIEN GMBH, KÖLN, 321-367 (10th ed. 2023).
24. Matthias Soot, et al, Standards for the Provision of Official Valuation Data – An Analysis with Recommendations for Action, Zfy, Vol. 5, No. 5, 1, 2 (2023).
25. WOLFGANG KLEIBER, ROLAND FISCHER & ULLRICH WERLING, supra, pp. 259–291.
26. Nguyen Phu Quang, Local government in the French Republic and implications for Viet Nam, Journal of Democracy and Law, (21:51, 02/06/2021), https://danchuphapluat.vn/chinh-quyen-dia-phuong-o-cong-hoa-phap-va-goi-mo-kinh-nghiem-cho-viet-nam-4107.html.
27. Bertrand Mercier, The French digital model for updating land and cadastral data, International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) (2024), https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/fig2024/papers/ts10e/TS10E_mercier_12518.pdf.
28. Thibault Le Corre, A database to study twenty years of dynamics in the residential real estate market in Île-de-France, OpenEdition Journals (2021), https://doi.org/10.4000/cybergeo.37430.
29. Bertrand Mercier, The French digital model for updating land and cadastral data, International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) (2024), https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/fig2024/papers/ts10e/TS10E_mercier_12518.pdf.
30. Flora Vern, Land registration systems & discourses of property, European Review of Private Law, Vol. 29 Issue 6, 835, 846 (2021).
31. Nguyen Thi Diem My, Update on planning of 34 provinces and cities after merger (period 2021–2030, vision to 2050), (09:30, 27/02/2026), https://thuviennhadat.vn/phap-luat/cap-nhat-quy-hoach-34-tinh-thanh-sau-sap-nhap-thoi-ky-2021-2030-tam-nhin-den-nam-2050-736719.html
32. Dinh Quyet, Announcement of preliminary results of the 2025 rural and agricultural census, Lang Son Newspaper, (13:09, 14/01/2026), https://baolangson.vn/cong-bo-ket-qua-so-bo-tong-dieu-tra-nong-thon-nong-nghiep-nam-2025-5072878.html
33. Anh Minh, Expert: Inflation in 2026 forecast at around 3.5%, but caution needed due to pressures, Government Electronic Newspaper, (18:51, 12/01/2026), https://baochinhphu.vn/chuyen-gia-du-bao-lam-phat-2026-quanh-35-nhung-can-than-trong-truoc-ap-luc-102260112183844303.htm.
34. Viet Nam Association of Realtors, Thematic report: “The issue of increasing real estate selling prices in Viet Nam & proposed solutions for control and mitigation”, (15:46, 21/10/2025), https://vars.com.vn/tin-tuc/bao-cao-chuyen-de-van-de-tang-gia-ban-bat-dong-san-tai-viet-nam-de-xuat-giai-phap-nham-kiem-soat-va-kiem-che-n2204.
35. Bui Hang, Expert forecasts on real estate prices in case of high inflation?, Journal of Economics - Finance, (20:13, 08/03/2022), https://tapchikinhtetaichinh.vn/du-bao-cua-chuyen-gia-ve-gia-bat-dong-san-neu-lam-phat-cao-xay-ra-57147.html
36. Hoang Ha, Improving land price law from the perspective of the speech of General Secretary To Lam, Vietnam Lawyers Electronic Magazine, (06:14, 07/10/2025), https://lsvn.vn/hoan-thien-phap-luat-ve-gia-dat-duoi-goc-nhin-phat-bieu-cua-tong-bi-thu-to-lam-a164214.html.
* Student, High-Quality Law Program, Hanoi Law University. Email: longdtck17@gmail.com, approval date: 26/3/2026.
** Student, Faculty of Economic Law, Hanoi Law University. Email: lamanhle04102004@gmail.com.
***
Student, Faculty of International Trade Law, Hanoi Law University. Email: huonggiang032352@gmail.com.
[1] Hoang Anh, Building a unified, centralized, interconnected, “accurate, sufficient, clean, live” and updated land database, VnEconomy, (15:05, 15/10/2025), https://vneconomy.vn/xay-dung-co-so-du-lieu-dat-dai-thong-nhat-tap-trung-lien-thong-dung-du-sach-song-va-cap-nhat.htm
[2] Hoang Thi Huong & Ngo Thi Ha, Determinants of success in the operation of Viet Nam’s land information system, Journal of Economics and Business, University of Economics and Business – Viet Nam National University, Hanoi, Vol. 5 No. 1, 63, 64, (2025)
[3] Jacob
Arie Zevenbergen, Systems of Land Registration - Aspects and Effects,
Netherlands Geodetic Commission (NCG), 1-4 (2002), https://scispace.com/pdf/systems-of-land-registration-aspects-and-effects-46j3f78qga.pdf
[4] PETER
DALE & JOHN MCLAUGHLIN, LAND ADMINISTRATION, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS,
OXFORD, 92 (2000).
[5] Craig
Macauley, Du Dao-sheng, Kazuhiko Akeno, Tae-jung Min, Metadata standards
development activities in the Asia - pacific region, World Spatial Metadata
Standards, 83, 83-85 (2005)
[6] United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). Land
Administration Guidelines With Special Reference to Countries in Transition,
ECE/HBP/96, 60 (1996), https://unece.org/DAM/hlm/documents/Publications/land.administration.guidelines.e.pdf.
[7] United
Nations Committee of Experts on Global Geospatial Information Management
(UN-GGIM), Framework for Effective Land Administration - A reference for
developing, reforming, renewing, strengthening, modernizing, and monitoring
land administration, E/C.20/2020/29/Add.2, 22-23 (2020),
https://ggim.un.org/meetings/GGIM-committee/10th-Session/documents/E-C.20-2020-29-Add_2-Framework-for-Effective-Land-Administration.pdf.
[8] Richard
Groot, Spatial data infrastructure (SDI) for sustainable land management,
ITC Journal, Vol. 3/4, 287, 289 (1997).
[9] Ian
P Williamson, Land administration “best practice” providing the
infrastructure for land policy implementation, Land Use Policy, Vol. 18,
Issue 4, 297, 298 (2001).
[10] Clause 3 Article 163, Law on Land 2024.
[11]. Le Anh Tuan, Local governance: Opportunities and challenges for the operation of the two-tier local government model in Viet Nam in the context of digital transformation, Journal of State Organization and Labour, (15:31, 05/01/2026), https://tcnnld.vn/news/detail/71000/Quan-tri-dia-phuong-Co-hoi-va-thach-thuc-doi-voi-van-hanh-mo-hinh-chinh-quyen-dia-phuong-02-cap-o-Viet-Nam-trong-boi-canh-chuyen-doi-so.html
[12] Hiromitsu
Ishi, Land tax reform in Japan, Journal of Economics, Vol. 32, No. 1, 1
(1991)
[13]. Van Cuong, Real estate crisis: from Japan to China, Electronic Journal of Construction, (19:05, 07/03/2023), https://tapchixaydung.vn/khung-hoang-bat-dong-san-nhin-tu-nhat-ban-den-trung-quoc-20201224000016250.html
[14] Masaru Honma, Scientific Real Estate Considerations of
Land Value Development and Regulations Including Topographical and Geological
Factors Based on the History of Development of Slope Land, Journal of the
Japan Society of Engineering Geology, Vol. 64, No. 6, 333 (2024).
[15] Real
Estate and Construction Economy Bureau, Methodology of JRPPI: Japan
Residential Property Price Index, MLIT (Ministry of Land, Infrastructure,
Transport and Tourism), 1, 2-5 (2020), https://www.mlit.go.jp.
[16] Sung-Eon
Hong, Hyun-Joon Lee & Yun-Ki Kim, The Estimation of the Cadastral
Digital Map's Accuracy for the KLIS's Effective Operation, The Journal of
GIS Association of Korea, Vol. 15, No. 1, 81, 81-83 (2007).
[17] JungHo
Park, WonGeun Choi, TaeYun Jeong & JinJae Seo, Digital twins and land
management in South Korea, Land Use Policy, Vol. 124, 106442, ScienceDirect
(2023), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0264837722004690.
[18] Mie-Oak
Chae & Bong-Joon Kim, A study on the method for the classification of
homogeneous land price areas, Journal of Real Estate Analysis, Vol. 1, No.
1, 1 (2015).
[19] Günther
Steudle & Thomas Witke, Einrichtung von ALKIS® in Deutschland – Ziele und
Erfahrungen, Zfv, Vol. 137, Jg. 4, 217, 219 (2012)
[20] Harald
Wilsch, The German “Grundbuchordnung”: History, Principles and Future about
Land Registry in Germany, Zfv, Vol. 137, Jg. 4, 225, 226 (2012)
[21] Benjamin Davy, The German Verkehrswert (market value) of
land: Statutory land valuation, spatial planning, and land policy, Land Use
Policy, Vol. 136, 106975, ScienceDirect (2024), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837723004416.
[22] Sattwick
Dey Biswas & Thomas Hartmann, Land valuation and land policy –
implications of normative bias, Town Planning Review, Vol. 93 No.5, 457,
459 (2021).
[23] WOLFGANG
KLEIBER, ROLAND FISCHER & ULLRICH WERLING, VERKEHRSWERTERMITTLUNG VON
GRUNDSTÜCKEN (THE VALUATION OF THE VERKEHRSWERT OF CADASTRAL PARCELS), REGUVIS
FACHMEDIEN GMBH, KÖLN, 321-367 (10th ed. 2023).
[24] Matthias
Soot, et al, Standards for the Provision of Official Valuation Data – An
Analysis with Recommendations for Action, Zfy, Vol 5, No. 5, 1, 2 (2023).
[25] WOLFGANG
KLEIBER, ROLAND FISCHER & ULLRICH WERLING, supra, S. 259–291.
[26] Nguyen Phu Quang, Local government in the French Republic and implications for Viet Nam, Journal of Democracy and Law, (21:51, 02/06/2021), https://danchuphapluat.vn/chinh-quyen-dia-phuong-o-cong-hoa-phap-va-goi-mo-kinh-nghiem-cho-viet-nam-4107.html.
[27] Bertrand
Mercier, The French digital model for updating land and cadastral data,
International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) (2024), https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/fig2024/papers/ts10e/TS10E_mercier_12518.pdf.
[28] Thibault Le Corre, Une base de données pour étudier vingt
années de dynamiques du marché immobilier résidentiel en Île-de-France,
OpenEdition Journals (2021), https://doi.org/10.4000/cybergeo.37430.
[29] Bertrand
Mercier, The French digital model for updating land and cadastral data,
International Federation of Surveyors (FIG) (2024),
https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/fig2024/papers/ts10e/TS10E_mercier_12518.pdf.
[30] Flora
Vern, Land registration systems & discourses of property, European
Review of Private Law, Vol. 29 Issue 6, 835, 846 (2021).
[31] Nguyen Thi Diem My, Update on planning of 34 provinces and cities after merger (period 2021–2030, vision to 2050), (09:30, 27/02/2026), https://thuviennhadat.vn/phap-luat/cap-nhat-quy-hoach-34-tinh-thanh-sau-sap-nhap-thoi-ky-2021-2030-tam-nhin-den-nam-2050-736719.html
[32] Dinh Quyet, Announcement of preliminary results of the 2025 rural and agricultural census, Lang Son Newspaper, (13:09, 14/01/2026), https://baolangson.vn/cong-bo-ket-qua-so-bo-tong-dieu-tra-nong-thon-nong-nghiep-nam-2025-5072878.html
[33] Anh Minh, Expert: Inflation in 2026 forecast at around 3.5%, but caution needed due to pressures, Government Electronic Newspaper, (18:51, 12/01/2026), https://baochinhphu.vn/chuyen-gia-du-bao-lam-phat-2026-quanh-35-nhung-can-than-trong-truoc-ap-luc-102260112183844303.htm.
[34] Viet Nam Association of Realtors, Thematic report: “The issue of increasing real estate selling prices in Viet Nam & proposed solutions for control and mitigation”, (15:46, 21/10/2025), https://vars.com.vn/tin-tuc/bao-cao-chuyen-de-van-de-tang-gia-ban-bat-dong-san-tai-viet-nam-de-xuat-giai-phap-nham-kiem-soat-va-kiem-che-n2204.
[35] Bui Hang, Expert forecasts on real estate prices in case of high inflation?, Journal of Economics - Finance, (20:13, 08/03/2022), https://tapchikinhtetaichinh.vn/du-bao-cua-chuyen-gia-ve-gia-bat-dong-san-neu-lam-phat-cao-xay-ra-57147.html
[36] Hoang Ha, Improving land price law from the perspective of the speech of General Secretary To Lam, Vietnam Lawyers Electronic Magazine, (06:14, 07/10/2025), https://lsvn.vn/hoan-thien-phap-luat-ve-gia-dat-duoi-goc-nhin-phat-bieu-cua-tong-bi-thu-to-lam-a164214.html.
