2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.undsp.2017.11.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Legal considerations for urban underground space development in Malaysia

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
14
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
14
0
Order By: Relevance
“…However, the decision on whether it is practical to establish a fixed downward limitation on UUS ownership remains controversial [98], as the required volume of supporting and developed space depend on geotechnical conditions (such as soft clay and hard rock) and land use purposes (such as high-rise complex building and low-rise residential building), which are dynamic over time [100]. For countries without a fixed downward limitation, UUS ownership is generally extended to the depth where UUS can be "reasonably necessary" below a minimum disposal depth (i.e., 6 m for agriculture, 10 m for building, and 15 m for industry, Malaysia [100]), or has "no interests in exclusion" (Germany), or a "plausible interest can be manifested" (Switzerland) [96]. In practice, however, these stipulations lack manageability and often make judgment time-consuming, particularly in countries with wide UUS use.…”
Section: Rrrs Of Uusmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, the decision on whether it is practical to establish a fixed downward limitation on UUS ownership remains controversial [98], as the required volume of supporting and developed space depend on geotechnical conditions (such as soft clay and hard rock) and land use purposes (such as high-rise complex building and low-rise residential building), which are dynamic over time [100]. For countries without a fixed downward limitation, UUS ownership is generally extended to the depth where UUS can be "reasonably necessary" below a minimum disposal depth (i.e., 6 m for agriculture, 10 m for building, and 15 m for industry, Malaysia [100]), or has "no interests in exclusion" (Germany), or a "plausible interest can be manifested" (Switzerland) [96]. In practice, however, these stipulations lack manageability and often make judgment time-consuming, particularly in countries with wide UUS use.…”
Section: Rrrs Of Uusmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Appropriate legislation can help to prevent boundary disputes and clarify the real extent of ownership RRRs in underground environments (Figure 3). Current legislation is mostly relevant to the ground surface; they have some limitations for registering and managing underground spaces [18,[29][30][31]. There are still some challenges that should be addressed to modernise ULA [4].…”
Section: Legal Aspectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There are still some challenges that should be addressed to modernise ULA [4]. Therefore, it is important to Current legislation is mostly relevant to the ground surface; they have some limitations for registering and managing underground spaces [18,[29][30][31]. There are still some challenges that should be addressed to modernise ULA [4].…”
Section: Legal Aspectsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…With focus shifting from 2D to 3D property legislation, the concept of 3D property rights and its legal framework has been set up successively in some countries, for example the USA, Australia, the Netherlands, Sweden, Japan, and Korea. Legal issues related to 3D property seem to focus on some main topics, according to surveys of legal 3D publications [8,9]: (1) forms of 3D property rights, such as the independent model of "air rights" and the "sharing" model of condominium [10,11]; (2) standardization of 3D property, especially regarding the legal perspective of the Land Administration Domain Model (LADM) standard, such as Rights, Restrictions and Responsibilities (RRRs) [12][13][14][15]; (3) implementation, limits and consideration of national 3D property legislation [9,16]; and (4) registration of 3D property [17,18], such as registration and integration of 3D legal and physical objects [19][20][21]. The legal reform of 3D property rights is imperative for various countries around the world, because legal ambiguity cannot meet the increasing use of multi-storied developments and leave a latent trouble for future tenure security.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%