Land Use Policy 121 (2022) 106334

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Land Use Policy

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

Blockchain in real estate: Recent developments and empirical applications

Anniina Saari *, Jussi Vimpari , Seppo Junnila
Aalto University School of Engineering, Department of Built Environment, P.O. Box 12200, Aalto, Finland

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

Keywords: The real estate sector is often presented as an exemplary field that benefits from practical blockchain applica­
Blockchain tions. The general hypothesis is that, in theory, blockchain could solve some significant challenges the real estate
Blockchain application sector is facing, such as nontransparency, inefficiencies, fraud and corruption, high costs, and trust issues.
Land administration
However, the literature focuses on blockchain’s theoretical benefits, challenges, or concepts. This research aims
Real estate
Real estate transactions
to understand the recent developments in the blockchain literature, specifically in the real estate sector, and to
Real estate management understand the current real-world applications by collecting empirical evidence from blockchain studies. The
Tokenization systematic literature review identified 262 relevant documents, after which a thematic content analysis was
performed. Conceptual blockchain literature was identified to propose blockchain benefits for the real estate
sector in four categories: land administration, real estate transactions, tokenization, and real estate management.
The thematic content analysis also identified 26 empirical applications, of which all except one were related to
land administration. Although the conceptual and theoretical blockchain literature presents blockchain as a
disruptive and transformative technology for the real estate sector, the empirical applications suggest that
blockchain adoption materializes more in hybrid, smaller-scale settings, where blockchain is merely an add-on
layer to existing systems. Overall, most of the conceptual blockchain benefits remain empirically uncon­
firmed. On the other hand, the empirical applications suggest that blockchain could, for example, increase ef­
ficiency, reduce time, and provide verifiability, transparency, and automation, even in smaller-scale, hybrid
settings. In addition, the applications indicate that blockchain could, in some cases, help reduce fraud and in­
crease security and trust compared with centralized digital solutions. Finally, the empirical insights emphasize
the role of political will, regulatory framework, availability of reliable digital data, public–private partnerships,
and educational aspects in blockchain applications.

1. Introduction technology developed first for the Bitcoin cryptocurrency in 2008

(Yli-Huumo et al., 2016). The definition of blockchain varies in the
The real estate sector accounts for approximately 60% of the world’s literature, and terminological confusion exists. Blockchain can be
wealth, totaling over USD 200 trillion (Savills, 2016), 36% of final en­ broadly described as a sequence of digital records or “blocks” linked
ergy demand in 2017, and nearly 40% of energy-related carbon dioxide using cryptography. Each block is verifiable and virtually unchangeable,
emissions globally (International Energy Agency, United Nations Envi­ distributed, and managed typically in a peer-to-peer network. The
ronment Programme, 2018). The real estate sector is defined here as blockchain allows transactions to occur without an intermediary (Yli-­
property consisting of land and buildings, immovable property of this Huumo et al., 2016), providing transparent, tamper-proof, and secure
nature, an interest vested in this, an item of real property, and buildings systems that can enable new innovative consumer and business solutions
or housing in general (Oxford English Dictionary, 2020). Despite its (Andoni et al., 2019). Blockchain also refers to the underpinning tech­
global economic, environmental, and societal significance, the real es­ nology (Oxford English Dictionary, 2021).
tate sector’s digital maturity is consistently evaluated as being low In the current review, the definition of blockchain is not limited to
compared with many other industries (Calvino et al., 2018; Manyika the above definitions but is instead regarded in the broad scope. Thus,
et al., 2021), signaling a significant potential for increasing productivity the present research regards distributed ledger technology and block­
through more widespread implementation of digitalization. chain technology as synonym categories. To date, Bitcoin and other so-
Blockchain is a decentralized transaction and data management called cryptocurrencies have received most of the growing public

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Saari).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106334
Received 8 May 2021; Received in revised form 24 June 2022; Accepted 22 August 2022
Available online 31 August 2022
0264-8377/© 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
A. Saari et al. Land Use Policy 121 (2022) 106334

Fig. 1. A three-step research process.

attention. However, a growing amount of research has focused on Toufaily et al., 2021), which leaves the applicability of blockchain
blockchain applications within different fields. The real estate sector is deficiently understood. The blockchain literature on the real estate
one of the most significant focus areas in this domain and is often pro­ sector is no exception. The current paper aims to help fill this research
vided as an example of benefiting from practical blockchain gap by bridging the empirical insights of real-world blockchain appli­
applications. cations into the conceptual real estate sector perspectives, thus bringing
Initially, in 1998, legal scholar and cryptographer Nick Szabo the theoretical discussion to firmer grounds.
envisaged a secure and decentralized property title system (Szabo, The present research aims to answer the following questions: How
2021). A decade later, the pseudonymous ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’ intro­ has the understanding of blockchain adoption benefits and challenges in
duced the blockchain concept (Nakamoto, 2008), solving the the real estate sector developed in recent years? What are the empirical
double-spending problem plaguing Szabo’s property title system. Since blockchain applications in the real estate sector? What are the empirical
then, many different blockchain proposals for the real estate sector have insights compared with the theoretical perspectives in the real estate
been presented. The general hypothesis seems to be that blockchain sector?
could, in theory, solve some of the significant challenges the real estate The current review contributes to the general blockchain research
sector faces, such as nontransparency, inefficiencies, fraud and corrup­ and understanding of blockchain application within a highly significant
tion, high costs, and trust issues. global sector, that is, real estate, by reflecting on how conceptual
Many reviews have examined blockchain’s potential, benefits, and blockchain real estate perspectives compare with the empirical insights.
challenges within the real estate sector but have mainly concentrated on The research provides a state-of-the-art outlook on the most recent de­
one area, such as land administration (Ekemode et al., 2019; Ferreira, velopments and blockchain’s likely impact on the sector. Because
2021). Bennett et al. included blockchain in their systematic research empirical blockchain research is generally scarce and the vast majority
synthesis of emerging data technologies in the global land administra­ of exponentially increasing blockchain research continues to be con­
tion sector and provided a detailed outlook of blockchain’s potential in ceptual and theoretical, bridging the theoretical perspectives to empir­
land administration in 2019 (Bennett et al., 2019). However, Bennett ical insights is meaningful.
et al. concluded that in 2019, it was simply too early to make broader The current research follows a systematic three-step methodology.
claims about the potential impacts of blockchain on the sector. Altogether, 262 documents were identified and analyzed using the
Additionally, the real estate sector, especially land administration, is Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
mentioned as one potential blockchain application in systematic litera­ (PRISMA) method (Liberati et al., 2009). A formalized thematic con­
ture reviews conducted from other perspectives, such as smart city and tent analysis with the following characteristics was used: identifying
e-government (Khanna et al., 2021; Majeed et al., 2021), smart contracts themes in the text and assigning them descriptive codes that are later
(Alotaibi and Alshamrani, 2021; Xu et al., 2021), or blockchain general merged to form meaningful, more conceptual categories. The analysis
industrial applications (Sanka et al., 2021). However, compared with compared the conceptual blockchain proposals and their benefits and
how often real estate is provided as an example of a potential blockchain challenges to the recent adoption themes (2020–) and real-world
application in the academic literature, systematic reviews providing an empirical applications.
up-to-date and thorough understanding of the potential of blockchain The current paper is structured as follows: Section 2 describes the
for the whole real estate sector beyond land administration are lacking methodology and data. Section 3 first summarize the benefits and
(Ferreira, 2021). With blockchain technology developing at such a rapid challenges the general blockchain literature suggests for the real estate
pace, research is being increasingly published, leaving previous works sector to set a starting point for understanding the recent developments.
quickly out of date. Section 3.1 then analyzes the recent insights on blockchain adoption in
Moreover, most research on blockchain in the real estate sector has the real estate sector from real estate–focused papers published from
dealt with theoretical concepts instead of empirical settings. In fact, 2020 onwards. Finally, the results presented in Section 3.3 concentrate
most research conducted on blockchain applications in general is on the only on empirical applications in the real estate sector to provide con­
conceptual level. The number of quantitative and qualitative business- crete evidence and validate the conceptual benefits and challenges.
related research studies is limited, and theory-driven empirical Section 4 discusses the results and summarizes the entire work.
research is rare (Karamchandani et al., 2020; Risius and Spohrer, 2017;

2
A. Saari et al. Land Use Policy 121 (2022) 106334

exclusion was that the document only mentioned blockchain or real

estate but did not discuss them in the same context, which occurred for
more than half of all excluded articles. The second most common reason
for exclusion was that the document only mentioned real estate as a
general blockchain application without concrete examples or justifica­
tions with almost 20% share. The assessment of the full-text documents
resulted in the final literature of 262 documents categorized by their
publishing year, publication type, and primary field of publication.
More than half of the documents were published after 2019 as Fig. 2
illustrates. The annual number of published papers presented an
increasing trend. Most of the literature was journal articles (52.9%) and
Fig. 2. Publishing year of the documents and number of documents with conference proceedings (21.1%). The remaining literature included
empirical focus.
book sections, reports, theses, and magazine articles, as illustrated in
Fig. 3.
2. Methodology and data The document focus presented in Fig. 3 shows that conceptual papers
and documents containing some descriptions of blockchain examples in
This systematic review followed a three-step approach to under­ the real estate sector contributed the most significant shares of the
standing blockchain applications in the real estate sector, as Fig. 1 literature, closely followed by documents whose primary focus was on
illustrates: blockchain in the real estate sector. The primary field of each publica­
The first step began with a literature search in the following elec­ tion in Fig. 3 shows computer and information science publishing
tronic databases: Scopus, Proquest, Web of Science, and Science Direct. comprised most of the papers, with an almost 45% share of the litera­
The search terms (“blockchain OR ”block chain” OR “distributed ledger” ture. The real estate sector accounted for the second most popular field
OR “DLT”) AND “real estate” were used. Only English peer-reviewed (16%), followed by business and management (7.3%). The publication
sources published after 2008 were included. The searches were run fields highlight that the most recent focus of the research field has been
from June 9, 2020, to June 15, 2020, on December 31, 2020, and from technical. The principal authors’ locations included 58 countries alto­
November 5, 2021, to December 31, 2021. A limited updated literature gether, implying that the research theme has received worldwide
search was conducted on Google Scholar in two rounds: the first round attention. Three of the most active countries were India, the US, and the
on August 20, 2020, which screened the first 36 results pages. The UK.
following rounds on November 6, 2021, and December 31, 2021, The second step of the research process analyzed the data with
screened the first 10 results pages. On Google Scholar, articles directly thematic content analysis using QDAS software, ATLAS.ti version 8.4.4,
referring to real estate in their title (e.g., property, housing, land) were to identify three themes: conceptual proposals, recent adoption themes
included. The final studies contained primarily academic literature, but from 2020 onwards, and empirical applications. The systematic quali­
some reports, theses, and magazine articles were included because tative review began without a coding framework in mind. For the con­
blockchain technology has also been developing rapidly outside ceptual proposals, the analysis started by studying the documents,
academia. Including both perspectives ensures a broader state-of-the-art marking all the sentences describing blockchain proposals in the real
understanding of the technology’s applicability in the real estate sector. estate sector, and assigning preliminary codes to describe the usage.
The PRISMA flow chart in Fig. A1 in Appendix 1 summarizes the Then, the descriptive preliminary codes were grouped into more con­
study selection process and is used to improve the reporting of this ceptual code categories. After identifying the blockchain proposals,
systematic review. The first phase of the study selection screened the descriptive codes were appointed for the benefits and challenges sug­
articles’ records and excluded nonrelevant document types, for example, gested for the identified blockchain real estate proposals. The descrip­
indexes, tables of contents, and glossaries. The current research has tive codes were later conceptualized by merging codes with similar
focused on the real estate sector, excluding documents with construc­ meanings together, as suggested by Friese (Friese, 2019), to allow
tion, cryptocurrency, energy, supply chain, and pure Internet of Things meaningful analysis. A similar method of first assigning descriptive
(IoT) focus. The second phase assessed the eligibility of the documents codes and later merging them into conceptual categories was conducted
by reading full-text documents. In this phase, the main reason for for the recent themes discussing blockchain adoption in the real estate

Fig. 3. Literature by publication types and primary publication fields.

3
A. Saari et al. Land Use Policy 121 (2022) 106334

sector from 2020 onwards and for the real-world empirical applications. and actors instead of whole-of-sector digital transformation designs and
The benefits and challenges of all three themes were identified and aims for minimal disruption to existing institutions and infrastructures.
analyzed similarly. Whereas Sandberg regarded today’s land administration applications as
As Fig. 1 illustrates, the number of documents analyzed in each “considerably more modest propositions to incorporate the blockchain
thematic content analysis round varied. The third and final step system into the existing registration systems for control purposes, not to
continued the analysis by comparing the results of the different rounds replace them” (Sandberg, 2021), Bennett et al. concluded that the
of thematic content analysis to understand how the benefits and chal­ hybrid approach appears to offer a way to overcome blockchain adop­
lenges conceptually proposed differed from the recent adoption themes tion challenges by minimizing disruption while maximizing the benefits
and those assessed in the empirical applications. The queries, code powered by smart contracts (Bennett et al., 2021).
grouping, network features, research memo features, and visual net­ Nicolaou-Manias and Wu have recently concluded that incorporating
works provided by ATLAS.ti helped answer the research questions in the blockchain into existing registries is a safer first step than replacing them
analysis phase. (Nicolaou-Manias and Wu, 2021). Others have also considered replacing
current land registries with blockchain-based land and title registries
3. Results: blockchain in the real estate sector unrealistic (Nastri, 2021; Yapicioglu and Leshinsky, 2020). In 2019,
Allessie et al. examined blockchain applications for digital government
The research showed that the conceptual and theoretical blockchain and concluded that blockchain is always “just one layer of a more
literature, which has continued to increase exponentially, has proposed developed service” (Allessie et al., 2019).
blockchain benefits and challenges for the real estate sector in four Interestingly, the theoretical literature has even recently introduced
broad categories—land administration, transactions, tokenization, and blockchain as disruptive, revolutionary, or transformative for the real
real estate management—which here are presented in the order of estate sector (Khanna et al., 2021; Ahmad et al., 2021; Hewa et al., 2020;
prevalence (see Table A in the supplementary material for an overview). Kim and Huh, 2020; Ullah and Al-Turjman, 2021; Chow and Tan, 2021).
The land administration category contains blockchain-based applica­ This finding suggests that the typical blockchain narrative is so strong
tions that specify a link to the land and title registration systems. The that it has not kept up with current developments in the real estate
proposed blockchain applications in the land administration category sector. Rodima-Taylor proposed that the performance of blockchain in
mainly consist of technical concepts (Spielman, 2020; Soner et al., 2021; land administration should be viewed in the light of “imaginaries and
Ali et al., 2020; Thakur et al., 2020; Konashevych, 2020a; Mendi et al., metaphors surrounding empirical applications,” reminding us that
2020). The transaction category refers to commercial and residential blockchain is not the first technology to evoke powerful narratives about
real estate sales where the participants may be professional or retail its advantages (Rodima-Taylor, 2021).
investors or consumers. Tokenization refers to digitally representing real The recently highlighted hybrid approach has not been without
estate as blockchain-based tokens. The tokenization category also in­ criticism. One way to implement the hybrid approach is to store hashes
cludes platforms for real estate tokenization and crowdfunding. The last of the original data on the blockchain and keep the original data off-
category, real estate management, includes blockchain proposals for chain. However, Konashevych noted that although the idea has even
concepts such as rental platforms, real estate data storage solutions, and been piloted, hashing does not protect the data, only the hashes of the
multiple listing services. All four categories are interrelated and over­ original data, leaving the centralized registry still vulnerable (Kona­
lapping, especially transaction and tokenization. shevych, 2021). If the original data were destroyed, it would be unre­
The main benefits the blockchain literature has continued to coverable through the published hashes. Lemieux et al. warned that
conceptually and theoretically propose for the real estate sector in these hybrid models could offer the worst from both the centralized and future
four categories are increased trust and efficiency, reduced corruption decentralized worlds when considering the balance between informa­
and fraud, inclusion, and cost reduction. The literature simultaneously tion governance risks and new strategic business opportunities, pro­
has continued to highlight certain blockchain adoption challenges: posing that information executives embrace decentralization as quickly
implementation complexities, legal uncertainties, and technical issues. as possible (Lemieux et al., 2020). Nevertheless, Lemieux et al. agreed
Moreover, even from the beginning, the mostly conceptual and theo­ that hybrid approaches may be prudent and remain the primary appli­
retical literature has shown that blockchain adoption would still require cation mode for the foreseeable future, even with their limitations
intermediation in the real estate sector, especially within the land (Lemieux et al., 2020). Garcia-Teruel questioned whether a small-scale,
administration category. partial blockchain implementation in land administration could provide
significant benefits for the conveyancing system (Garcia-Teruel, 2020).
3.1. Real estate literature’s recent emphasis on blockchain adoption The hybrid approach, modest as it may be, does seem to help with
complex blockchain implementation, which the theoretical blockchain
Since 2020, the real estate literature has started to pay more atten­ literature has identified as the most significant blockchain challenge
tion to blockchain adoption. Interestingly, even if the general block­ within land administration.
chain literature continues to propose concepts and benefits in the four Legal issues were theoretically identified as the land administration’s
broad categories described above, the real estate-focused blockchain second most significant blockchain challenge. Compared with fully
literature concentrates primarily on land administration. Tokenization decentralized solutions, the hybrid approach likely eases legal chal­
also receives some attention, but transactions and real estate manage­ lenges with its minimal disruption to current systems. Even if the hybrid
ment receive only limited attention. This finding implies that even if, approach does not provide the decentralization benefits proposed by the
theoretically, blockchain could be adopted in four categories in the real theoretical blockchain literature, the most often theoretically proposed
estate sector, the recent literature suggests that not all these categories blockchain benefits of increased trust, efficiency, and fraud prevention
are currently relevant. may still be realized with the hybrid approach, depending on the
The first recent emphasis of blockchain adoption within land implementation details.
administration is the hybrid approach, which refers to phased adop­ The second recent emphasis on blockchain land administration
tion, initially proposed in 2017 (Lemieux, 2017a, 2016) and 2018 studies has shown how the mere digitization of land records has
(Graglia and Mellon, 2018). Bennett et al. described the current block­ benefited many developing countries but has highlighted the limitations
chain application in land administration with the concept of a ‘hybrid and drawbacks of these centralized digitalization initiatives. One of the
approach,’ referring to the combined use of conventional database main limitations is that centralized digital registries are prone to fraud
technologies integrated with blockchain technology (Bennett et al., (Benbunan-Fich and Castellanos, 2018; Bennett et al., 2021). For
2021). The hybrid approach focuses on specific land dealings, activities, example, Kshetri described how the digitalization process shifted power

4
A. Saari et al. Land Use Policy 121 (2022) 106334

and even increased corruption and fraud in the Bhoomi system in India estate transactions.
because digitalization moved the management of the records from the The recent literature has also shed light on blockchain imple­
villages to district-level offices, where the records were prone to cor­ mentation barriers within the real estate sector. Ullah et al. investigated
ruption and fraud (Kshetri, 2021). Kshetri also reported cyberattacks on barriers to digitalization in general in the Australian real estate sector,
recently digitized centralized records in India, leading to approximately concluding that blockchain adoption barriers are complex (Ullah et al.,
3 million land property disputes in 2018 (Dinesh Kumar and Manaswini, 2021). Whereas the previous literature has often highlighted the diffi­
2021). The digital registry adopted in 2013 brought significant effi­ culties of creating smart contracts, recently, the interpretation of smart
ciency advantages in Kazakhstan but left the centralized system prone to contract language (processing language, computer code) to natural
fraud and technical failures (Akhmetbek and Špaček, 2021). In Georgia, language has received more attention. For example, both Nastri and
building a digital land registry database did not fully solve the public Garcia-Teruel et al. illustrated how the knowability of the smart con­
trust crisis in government agencies because there were concerns of tract’s content and contractual rule binding the individual might
corruption and cyber threats toward the centralized database (Shang become an issue unless natural language is used, for example, in the
and Price, 2018). Even if the Swedish land registry was digitized in the metadata of the smart contract (Garcia-Teruel and Simón-Moreno, 2021;
1970 s and has not suffered from similar trust issues, the land trans­ Nastri, 2021).
action process is inefficient and nontransparent (McMurren et al., 2021). The first blockchain adoption emphasis for real estate tokeni­
Konashevych noted that even if many countries have used electronic zation is the legal and governance aspects. Garcia-Teruel et al.’s com­
cadastral systems for years, they still rely heavily on paper transactions parison of different legal systems identified differences in asset-backed
(Konashevych, 2020b). Even if blockchain cannot resolve how to bring tokens’ validity, even within the EU (Garcia-Teruel and Simón-Moreno,
citizens and properties into the formal land registry system initially—a 2021); they showed that tokenization in five countries would have
primary land administration challenge identified already in the theo­ different legal standings, even with generally less regulated limited
retical blockchain literature (Vos et al., 2017; Kalyuzhnova, 2018; property rights. Hence, the following question emerges: If the legal
Anand et al., 2017)—this recent highlight on blockchain versus digita­ viability varies greatly between countries within the EU, how far are we
lized centralized registries is meaningful, especially for emerging with genuine, global cross-border transactions (Garcia-Teruel and
economies. Simón-Moreno, 2021)? Similarly, Wang noted that the conflicting reg­
The third recent emphasis in land administration adoption ulatory regimes that prevent the free and international exchange of se­
literature has started paying increasing attention to the institutional and curity tokens may undermine the advantages of tokenization (Wang,
organizational aspects of blockchain adoption that significantly impact 2020). Currently, it is unclear how the token economy can achieve
implementation. Blockchain should not be viewed as producing uniform global alignment. Creta and Tenca provided another example of the
results in all markets and societies but rather as part of a “distributed importance of regulatory certainty for blockchain applications (Creta
calculative agency shaped by local histories, geographies, policies, and and Tenca, 2021); their interviews with real estate crowdfunding plat­
regulations” (Rodima-Taylor, 2021). Others have also recently high­ form operators in Italy identified that the main challenge is Italy’s cur­
lighted the local and country-specific context that should be included in rent regulatory framework, which did not include explicit token-focused
blockchain application analysis (Ferreira, 2021; Adam and Fazekas, regulations. Some respondents even said that they were working with
2021; Ashurst and Tempesta, 2021; von Wangenheim, 2020). Such a companies in other countries where regulation was already in force
detailed analysis of the complexities of land tenure issues has recently (Creta and Tenca, 2021). The respondents to the Asia Securities Industry
been examined, for example, in Ghana (Mintah et al., 2021). Lemieux and Financial Markets Association survey also highlighted regulatory
et al. suggested paying attention to each solution’s physical and logical and legal uncertainty as the main challenge to tokenized security (Chow
architecture because different configurations provide different out­ and Tan, 2021). Simultaneously, the recent literature has provided some
comes (Lemieux et al., 2020). Kshetri emphasized how different groups examples of countries that have started to clarify their regulatory
interpret various technological systems differently (Kshetri, 2021). The framework (Chow and Tan, 2021).
theoretical and conceptual literature has identified complex imple­ The second blockchain adoption emphasis for real estate toke­
mentation requiring collaboration with many stakeholders as the main nization was the intermediate structures, such as special purchase ve­
blockchain challenge within land administration (Graglia and Mellon, hicles (SPVs) or funds, which are still regarded as preferable options for
2018; Vos et al., 2017). tokenization rather than directly tokenizing real estate ownership
The fourth recent land administration adoption emphasis has (Garcia-Teruel and Simón-Moreno, 2021; Baum, 2021). The intermedi­
encouraged attention beyond the firm level to the whole sector-wide ate structure seems to be in line with the “hybrid approach” discussion
broader ecosystem (Bennett et al., 2021; Lemieux et al., 2020; Yuthas, related to blockchain land administration. Interestingly, Chow and Tan
2021). For example, Proskurovska described how seemingly minor highlighted how the currently available real estate investment trusts
changes in the value chains could eventually disrupt the existing (REITs) have solved some of the issues that tokenization aims to tackle.
transactional routines if the Swedish blockchain land administration Nevertheless, REITs have limitations and inefficiencies (Chow and Tan,
pilot succeeds in moving into production; she detailed how brokers and 2021). To support this case, Baum described how the limited “pragmatic
other organizations, whose market share the Swedish blockchain system execution possibilities” of property investment strategies explain the
could potentially be reduced, launched a new platform called Tambur in considerable difference in the actual allocation of real estate in institu­
2018, only months before live testing of the blockchain application. The tional investors’ portfolios in 2019 (around 10%) compared with the
consortium made the workflow more efficient with traditional tech­ allocation suggested by modern portfolio theory (as much as 30–60%)
nology while preserving the status quo. Because only brokers can (Baum, 2021). Interestingly, it is relatively easy to see similarities in this
interact with the banks on the platform, the platform solidified the discussion to how digitization has already solved some, but not all, land
brokers’ role in the Swedish real estate transactions (Proskurovska, administration challenges. The real estate tokenization literature’s
2021). third adoption emphasis was the demand for the products. On the one
The recent blockchain literature on real estate transactions has hand, Chow and Tan believed that the COVID-19 pandemic accelerated
highlighted how implementing blockchain concepts to reduce infor­ the adoption of digital services for consumers, businesses, and even the
mation asymmetries in real estate transactions would require updated government, especially in the Asia-Pacific region, contributing to the
policies or reward mechanisms for the parties to share information. Not demand for financial products using apps (Chow and Tan, 2021).
all parties would likely benefit from the reduced information asymme­ Additionally, they argued that the growing number of cryptocurrency
tries (Hoksbergen et al., 2021). Some parties’ resistance to reducing and nonfungible tokens (NFT) will also increase the number of investors
information asymmetries is likely a blockchain adoption barrier in real able, ready, and willing to invest in real estate tokens. They also

5
A. Saari et al. Land Use Policy 121 (2022) 106334

regarded the increasing trend in central bank digital currencies as a assets, and most used a hybrid structure (e.g., a REIT or SPV).
promising development that could lower administrative and transaction However, the literature did not include enough technical details to
costs in post-tokenization processes (Chow and Tan, 2021). provide a uniform description of all the applications. For example, the
On the other hand, Baum continued to question the investor demand literature has been lacking details on how the United Arab Emirates
for security tokens for single real estate assets, stating the evidence for (Dubai) used blockchain in its rental process. In Estonia, the e-Land
such both through history and the current period seems sketchy (Baum, registry has shortened the transaction process from three months to
2021, 2020a). In addition, market participants would need to be eight days (e-estonia.com, 2022). However, this shortening was not
comfortable with blockchain to invest in single-asset real estate tokens. attributed to the use of blockchain, even if the government of Estonia
Nevertheless, the literature has provided some examples of single-asset has reportedly been using KSI Blockchain to secure its critical data,
tokenization around the world. The critical factor limiting the growth of including property registry (Nicolaou-Manias and Wu, 2021). Another
real estate security tokens is the lack of a centralized marketplace to noteworthy point about these identified blockchain applications within
facilitate the trading of tokens (Chow and Tan, 2021). Currently, real land administration is that most applications were for a specific function
estate security tokens are restricted to only being traded on the platform linked to land registry registries rather than full-scale land administra­
where they are listed. If the platform lacks market depth and a higher tion processes, supporting Bennett et al.’s recent views (Bennett et al.,
enough number of trading participants, liquidity can become an issue 2021). Finally, empirical evaluations existed for 12 of 26 applications
(Chow and Tan, 2021). identified in the blockchain for the real estate sector.
Overall, the recent blockchain adoption literature for real estate has This section provides an overview of how the empirically assessed
concluded that more empirical observations are required (Bennett et al., benefits and challenges of blockchain application in the real estate
2021; Konashevych, 2020b). Rodima-Taylor noted that because the sector compare to the theoretically proposed ones. To keep the discus­
current blockchain application is diverse and disorganized, empirical sion relatively focused, the analysis covers the empirical insights as a
insights are of “paramount importance” (Rodima-Taylor, 2021). Simi­ whole instead of an application-by-application or category analysis.
larly, Adam and Fazekas called for experimentation, development, and Because only a few of the empirically assessed blockchain applica­
rigorous testing of innovative cases (Adam and Fazekas, 2021). If tions were in use, little can be concluded about the theoretical block­
blockchain adds value on top of digitalization, the digital processes chain benefits in the real estate sector, and the outcomes of blockchain
could be altered and moved to blockchain applications (Adam and applications have been somewhat unclear (Konashevych, 2021; Laz­
Fazekas, 2021). uashvili et al., 2019).
The main theoretical blockchain benefit for the real estate sector was
3.2. Empirical insights increased trust, which many of the empirical applications (e.g., Geor­
gian) aimed at (Allessie et al., 2019; Rodima-Taylor, 2021; Lemieux
The current research identified 26 empirical applications discussed et al., 2020; Lazuashvili et al., 2019). The empirical insights have pro­
in the blockchain for real estate sector literature until 31 December posed that blockchain would increase trust mainly through verifiability
2021. Table B in the Supplementary Materials lists all the identified (Bennett et al., 2021; Goderdzishvili et al., 2018; Kshetri, 2021; Chang
applications by category. In addition to these applications, the literature and Wang, 2021; Kempe, 2017 Mar) but would, in some of the appli­
has mentioned some other examples of blockchain land administration cations, bring new trust issues, for example, related to data (Lemieux,
initiatives and real estate tokenization platforms (see, e.g., a list of 2017b), as already proposed theoretically. Trust was also difficult to
tokenizations in (Baum, 2021). However, these were excluded from the empirically verify (Lemieux, 2017a). The second most often mentioned
practical application overview unless more detailed information was theoretical blockchain benefit for the real estate sector has been effi­
provided. Interestingly, all the detailed empirical applications con­ ciency. The empirical findings indicated that blockchain application
cerned blockchain land administration or tokenization; no detailed ap­ could indeed increase efficiency in the real estate sector (Alketbi et al.,
plications were described for real estate management or transactions. 2020; Allessie et al., 2019; Bennett et al., 2021; Shang and Price, 2018;
Because most of the empirical applications had a link to land and title Kempe, 2017 Mar), reduce time (Akhmetbek and Špaček, 2021;
registries, they were categorized under land administration. Table B in Rodima-Taylor, 2021; Kempe, 2017; Alketbi et al., 2020; Allessie et al.,
the Supplementary Materials shows the empirically estimated main 2019), provide automation (Akhmetbek and Špaček, 2021; Alketbi et al.,
blockchain benefits and practical adoption challenges for each appli­ 2020; Bennett et al., 2021; Chang and Wang, 2021; Kempe, 2017 Mar),
cation if empirical evaluations were available. and simplify current processes (Akhmetbek and Špaček, 2021; Allessie
Five land administration applications were in use, for example, in et al., 2019; Bennett et al., 2021). The empirical studies also suggested
Afghanistan, Estonia, Georgia, India (Andhra Pradesh), and the United that blockchain in real estate could increase verifiability (Kshetri, 2021;
Arab Emirates (Dubai), whereas in most others, no progress beyond Shang and Price, 2018; Goderdzishvili et al., 2018; Kempe, 2017; Chang
pilots or tests has been reported. At least three land administration ap­ and Wang, 2021) and transparency (Alketbi et al., 2020; Allessie et al.,
plications, for example, Honduras, Ukraine, and the US (Cook County, 2019; Bennett et al., 2021; Lazuashvili et al., 2019; Chang and Wang,
Illinois), have been reported as discontinued. Most of the applications 2021; Kempe, 2017 Mar). The other empirically estimated blockchain
have been developed in public–private partnerships, where a govern­ benefit in the real estate sector was fraud and corruption prevention
mental actor or local official has partnered with one or multiple private (Alketbi et al., 2020; Allessie et al., 2019; Bennett et al., 2021; Kshetri,
sector parties, most typically blockchain technology providers. 2021; Kempe, 2017 Mar; McMurren et al., 2021), supporting the theo­
Most land administration empirical applications fall into Bennett retical benefit. Fraud reduction in empirical applications has mainly
et al.’s hybrid solutions category, where blockchain has been imple­ been achieved through publicity (Alketbi et al., 2020; Bennett et al.,
mented as “a somewhat independent technology layer while not dis­ 2021; Kempe, 2017 Mar).
rupting the existing technology arrangements” (Bennett et al., 2021). On the other hand, the electronic ID systems blockchain systems
Generally, the empirical applications strongly show how Bennett et al.’s require might open new avenues for fraud, a concern raised, for
and Allessie et al.’s 2019 statements (Allessie et al., 2019) still hold true: example, in the Estonian context (Sullivan and Burger, 2017). Overall,
blockchain has neither been transformative nor even disruptive for the blockchain applications might help reduce some types of fraud, but
public sector and land registries, contrary to how blockchain was leave doors open for others (Lemieux, 2017a, 2016; Kempe, 2017).
initially portrayed. Blockchain has often been complementary or only Overall, the empirical insights have supported that blockchain could
partially substitutes for existing online public services. These empirical indeed increase security, at some level (Konashevych, 2021; Kshetri,
findings seem to validate the hybrid approach. Similarly, most tokeni­ 2021), for users (Kempe, 2017), especially for data (Allessie et al., 2019;
zation applications detailed in the literature have concerned single Akhmetbek and Špaček, 2021; Lazuashvili et al., 2019).

6
A. Saari et al. Land Use Policy 121 (2022) 106334

Because most of the blockchain applications assessed empirically administration initiatives in public during the pilot and even benefit
were hybrid applications where blockchain was added on top, the from such publicity (Benbunan-Fich and Castellanos, 2018). This pub­
government’s role in land administration processes might increase, as licity and public–private partnership have been most evident in the
estimated, for example, in the Swedish application (Rodima-Taylor, Swedish application, where the publicity for both the government and
2021). Overall, the governments retained a central role in land admin­ private companies has been significant (Kempe, 2017). In the dis­
istration blockchain applications (Akhmetbek and Špaček, 2021; Alles­ continued Honduran application, the government never made public
sie et al., 2019; Bennett et al., 2021; Kshetri, 2021; Lazuashvili et al., comments (Benbunan-Fich and Castellanos, 2018). Governmental or
2019; Lemieux et al., 2020; Rodima-Taylor, 2021), confirming the the­ local blockchain strategies also demonstrated indirect governmental
ory that blockchain has not been disintermediating the real estate sector. support.
The empirical insights proved that removing the governmental role has In addition to governmental support, the empirical applications also
not been the target of many applications (Rodima-Taylor, 2021; Akh­ stressed the educational aspects mentioned but that have not received
metbek and Špaček, 2021; Kempe, 2017). that much attention in the theoretical challenges. It would seem that
The Indian application in Andhra Pradesh has shown how decen­ overall, other blockchain initiatives, general experience, or familiarity
tralizing the land registries to the village level helped fight corruption with blockchains or cryptocurrencies in the region have helped pave the
compared with the previous centralized digital solution that allowed the path toward blockchain real estate adoption. This pro-blockchain
large- and middle-scale farmers to take advantage of the centralized environment was most often noted in the Georgian (Benbunan-Fich
systems at the expense of small farmers (Kshetri, 2021); hence, in some and Castellanos, 2018; Rodima-Taylor, 2021; Eder, 2019) and
cases, blockchain could provide added benefits of fraud prevention, Kazakhstan (Akhmetbek and Špaček, 2021) applications. In addition to
trust, and security compared with centralized digital solutions. Even if pre-existing familiarity with blockchains, the empirical assessments
the blockchain system used in Andhra Pradesh was permissioned and the proposed that educating the public about blockchain benefits may also
number of nodes limited, blockchain guaranteed that the nodes be an implementation driver. In the Indian Andhra Pradesh imple­
(agencies) could not tamper with the records without other nodes mentation, the officials visited villages to address concerns, educate
noticing, acting as balances and checks to each other (Kshetri, 2021). landowners, and explain blockchain benefits (Kshetri, 2021). The
However, the other empirical assessments did not contain further Georgian application also reported similar educational activities for the
comparisons to centralized digital solutions, so concluding with the population (Shang and Price, 2018). Educational matters might also
current literature would be implausible. Only Kempe argued that the become implementation challenges, here in line with the theory. For
Swedish application could not be accomplished without blockchain example, a lack of local blockchain expertise was identified as a scaling
(Kempe, 2017). challenge in the Indian application (Kshetri, 2021). In the Canadian
Blockchain’s ability to reduce costs received mixed assessments in application, failed change management was evaluated as one of the
the empirical studies. Blockchain could help reduce some costs (e.g., constraints explaining why a more traditional approach was chosen
costs for the citizens in Kazakhstan (Akhmetbek and Špaček, 2021) and instead of the piloted blockchain system. Educational aspects were not
Andhra Pradesh, India (Kshetri, 2021), the process automation costs for always blockchain related; the high illiteracy rates of the Andhra Pra­
service providers in the Dubai application, and transaction costs in the desh population seemed to limit the full blockchain benefits (Kshetri,
Swedish application (Allessie et al., 2019; McMurren et al., 2021; 2021).
Kempe, 2017) but may increase others. For example, in the Swedish The empirical findings confirmed that implementation was also
application, hybrid solutions might increase operation costs because empirically an application challenge. The implementation challenges
blockchain costs just come on top of the current structures. Similarly, in were related to the availability of reliable digitized data. If such data
the Georgian application, where the hybrid approach used Bitcoin on existed, the empirical applications considered an implementation
top of current systems, the process was even more expensive than a enabler, as highlighted in the Georgian application (Benbunan-Fich and
centralized solution (Lazuashvili et al., 2019). None of the empirical Castellanos, 2018; Lazuashvili et al., 2019; Shang and Price, 2018; Eder,
studies contained implementation cost assessments. Kshetri described 2019). Similarly, if there was a lack of data overall, implementation was
how using a local blockchain company helped decrease implementation very challenging. Suppose the existing data were not trustworthy,
costs in the Andhra Pradesh, India application (Kshetri, 2021). Overall, entering new data rather than transferring the untrustworthy data to the
blockchain implementation and operation costs, especially in the cur­ blockchain was suggested to be a better option (Benbunan-Fich and
rent hybrid settings, need more empirical research to draw conclusions Castellanos, 2018). This was the case in Honduras. The other imple­
on blockchain’s economic viability within the real estate sector. mentation challenges were mostly related to complexities and scaling,
The empirical applications shed more light on the challenges of which would require significant further work (Akhmetbek and Špaček,
blockchain applications, suggesting some blockchain application en­ 2021; Bennett et al., 2021; Kempe, 2017 Mar; McMurren et al., 2021).
ablers, if not even drivers. The empirical findings supported the theory The empirical insights also supported the theory that, currently,
that blockchain implementation in the real estate sector has required regulatory uncertainty is a barrier and blockchain applications require
governmental support and political will to increase transparency and legal changes. The importance of regulation has been most evident in the
reduce fraud. In most cases, blockchain land administration applications Swedish application. Despite the technological readiness, the applica­
were conducted in public–private partnerships. The government’s sup­ tion could not move to production because electronic signatures were
port and will to increase transparency was regarded as a critical driver, not yet valid in real estate transactions in Sweden (Bennett et al., 2021;
for example, in the Georgian and Indian applications (Benbunan-Fich Rodima-Taylor, 2021; Kempe, 2017 Mar; McMurren et al., 2021). Also,
and Castellanos, 2018; Kshetri, 2021). The empirical assessments also in the tokenization context, Chang and Wang suggested that “The ICO
highlighted the importance of the autonomy of the governmental actor Guidelines,” published by the Swiss authorities in February 2018, have
(Allessie et al., 2019; Benbunan-Fich and Castellanos, 2018). In the In­ contributed to the choice of tokenization location (Chang and Wang,
dian Andhra Pradesh application, political rivalry was identified as an 2021), signaling that regulatory certainty affects blockchain adoption
implementation challenge, because of which the project failed to gain within the real estate sector.
broad support (Kshetri, 2021). The importance of political will was also Technical blockchain challenges have often been theoretically dis­
evident in the Honduran application, which was discontinued for po­ cussed, and some have been assessed in empirical settings, such as long-
litical reasons and a lack of governmental support (Lemieux et al., 2020; term data preservation and public–private key management (Lemieux,
Benbunan-Fich and Castellanos, 2018). 2017a, 2016). However, the empirical applications highlighted the
Interestingly, when the implementing parties’ interests were aligned, central role of smart contracts in blockchain applications in the real
they seemed willing to openly discuss their blockchain land estate sector (Allessie et al., 2019; Bennett et al., 2021; Chang and Wang,

7
A. Saari et al. Land Use Policy 121 (2022) 106334

2021). In tokenization, smart contracts might become exponentially categories: land administration, real estate transactions, tokenization,
more valuable if the size of the portfolio and the number of investors and real estate management, but recent developments have focused
were to increase (Chang and Wang, 2021). Another empirically primarily on land administration and tokenization. Twenty-six empirical
acknowledged technical enabler was the existing digital identity solu­ applications were identified, and all of them, except one, were related to
tion (Kshetri, 2021; Lazuashvili et al., 2019; Sullivan and Burger, 2017). the land administration category. Thus, empirical insights could only be
The only empirically assessed tokenization, the BrickMark applica­ provided for theoretical benefits in the land administration category. On
tion, has interesting similarities to the typical land administration ap­ the other hand, this was also suggested by the literature review because
plications: the hybrid approach (in tokenization: an intermediate land administration was also the most discussed theoretical real estate
structure instead of the real estate asset tokenized directly) and small- category for blockchain.
scale application (in tokenization: single asset). Even if tokenization Interestingly, no empirical applications within the second most
theoretically can provide fractionalization and financial inclusion to popular real estate transaction category were identified. This finding
retail investors, the BrickMark tokens have been offered only to might signal that the grand theoretical promise of disintermediated,
accredited institutional investors, with only a handful holding the to­ peer-to-peer real estate transactions has remained a distant dream. Most
kens (Chang and Wang, 2021). The same limitation has been true for likely, the transaction applications would need to be built on top of the
most other tokenization applications described in the literature, indi­ functioning blockchain land administration applications, potentially
cating that tokenization was also adopted so that it would cause mini­ through tokenization. Even if the literature contained some single ex­
mum disruption. Thus, the grand promises of tokenization have amples of, for example, houses purchased with cryptocurrencies, this
currently been left unconfirmed. However, BrickMark was reportedly development track for real estate transactions seems very unlikely given
planning to make BrickMark tokens available to retail investors through the high volatility of cryptocurrencies.
an EU-regulated security token offering. Overall, one tokenization Some land administration applications included a shared workflow
application did not confirm the demand for single-asset real estate to­ for the transaction process, such as the Swedish application. This linkage
kens. Thus, Baum’s concerns (Baum, 2021, 2020b) have remained allowed for some inferences on the potential blockchain benefits for real
unanswered. estate transactions. For instance, the Swedish pilot would suggest that
The empirical applications proposed that the less disruption there is the theoretical benefits of transaction efficiency and transaction cost
to current systems, the easier the blockchain implementation would be, reduction could be achieved. However, the Swedish application has
supporting the theory that the hybrid approach can be a relevant heavily stressed the importance of governmental support, reinforcing
implementation mode. This suggestion is, of course, intuitively easy to that blockchain real estate transactions would be unlikely to materialize
understand, but again, it rests in stark contrast to how blockchain has without linkage to current land administration systems.
often been portrayed, even in the recent literature. The empirical ap­ The literature included some descriptions of tokenization applica­
plications showed that resistance may occur in many ways. In Kazakh­ tions, and one application was also studied in empirical settings. Even if
stan’s application, widespread service distribution among banks was inclusion was the most often proposed theoretical real estate tokeniza­
limited because the banks would need to adhere to cryptographic pro­ tion benefit, it has not yet materialized in the current applications to a
tection and information security requirements (Akhmetbek and Špaček, large extent. The described real-world real estate tokens have currently
2021). The subtle power shifts that blockchain applications bring have only been available to limited groups and primarily used within inter­
also received empirical attention, for example, in the Swedish applica­ mediate structures. The contemporary cryptocurrency and nonfungible
tion (Rodima-Taylor, 2021). The failure to align interests between the token (NFT) publicity may lower the general public’s threshold to pur­
parties has been empirically acknowledged as an implementation bar­ chase real estate security tokens, especially among younger tech-savvy
rier (Benbunan-Fich and Castellanos, 2018; Lemieux et al., 2020). generations. Nevertheless, few conclusions can be made based on the
Similarly, the more the users can rely on existing interfaces (e.g., web­ current cryptocurrency and NFT hype because its long-term viability
sites) to access the systems and do not need to know anything about contains many uncertainties.
blockchain, as in the Georgian (Shang and Price, 2018) and Indian Similarly, it is impossible to make large-scale, long-term conclusions
(Kshetri, 2021) applications, the less resistance there has tended to be on current real estate tokenization applications. If the current single
(Allessie et al., 2019). tokenization initiatives or platforms were to scale, it would be crucial
In line with the small-scale, hybrid approach discussion, the empir­ that secondary trading platforms are developed.
ical conclusions proposed that even though the full benefits of block­ Although even the most recent blockchain literature has often pre­
chain adoption have not been realized (Lemieux et al., 2020; Kshetri, sented blockchain as disruptive or transformative for the real estate
2021; Lazuashvili et al., 2019), blockchain has potential in the real es­ sector, the empirical applications implied that blockchain adoption in
tate sector (Akhmetbek and Špaček, 2021; Bennett et al., 2021). The the sector materialized more in hybrid, smaller-scale settings, where
empirical conclusions also highlighted how blockchain alone cannot blockchain was merely an add-on layer—as proposed already in 2019
solve the primary land administration challenges (Rodima-Taylor, (Bennett et al., 2019; Allessie et al., 2019) and aligned with the recent
2021) but instead requires institutional infrastructure (Shang and Price, discussion, as highlighted in Section 3.2.
Dec 28, 2018) and broader sociotechnical arrangements (Bennett et al., The empirical applications proposed that blockchain could, for
2021). Many empirical studies have highlighted that the current appli­ example, increase efficiency, reduce time and provide verifiability,
cations had plans to further develop the system, for example, Georgia, transparency, and automation, even in smaller-scale, hybrid settings.
Sweden, and BrickMark tokenization (Shang and Price, 2018; God­ The empirical insights also indicated that blockchain could, in some
erdzishvili et al., 2018; Lazuashvili et al., 2019; Kempe, 2017; Allessie cases, help reduce fraud and increase security and trust compared with
et al., 2019). centralized digital solutions. Another interesting observation was that
most of the empirical cases were in transitioning and developing coun­
4. Discussion & conclusions tries, which may imply that the real estate sector in developed countries
has been locked into existing technologies (i.e., high path dependency).
The current research has provided a comprehensive, state-of-the-art However, more research should be conducted on whether current
assessment of blockchain potential and applications in the real estate centralized digital solutions could be enhanced with other, more tradi­
sector by bridging theoretical perspectives with empirical insights. It tional technologies to make the current systems more efficient, secure,
contributes to general blockchain research by clearly distinguishing and fraud-preventative to ensure whether blockchain would be the only
between theoretical and empirically assessed blockchain benefits and option, as claimed in the context of some of the applications.
challenges. Blockchain real estate proposals have emerged in four The empirical insights highlighted how institutional changes and

8
A. Saari et al. Land Use Policy 121 (2022) 106334

Fig. A1. PRISMA flow diagram summarizing the literature retrieval process.

process redesigning should complement blockchain application: tech­ enablers and barriers, power shifts, the role of policy and regulation, and
nology alone cannot solve the current real estate sector issues. The role ways to align interests on the system’s level because the enablers and
of political will, regulatory framework, availability of reliable digital challenges may change as the applications proceed to further stages.
data, public–private partnerships, and educational aspects in blockchain Generally, more research should assess the sector-level impacts of the
applications have all been emphasized. Overall, the recent literature’s applications that have moved into production. For practitioners
call for a more detailed country- and context-specific analysis of considering or applying blockchain in the real estate sector, conducting
blockchain applications was relevant. The empirical applications thorough impact assessments would be advisable to help identify
confirmed that country-specific institutional, environmental, and orga­ possible resistance.
nizational factors can shape the benefits, challenges, barriers, and en­ The current study’s main limitation is that it does not allow an easy
ablers of blockchain applications. comparison of the research results directly to blockchain’s benefits and
The current applications were primarily in the early stages, pilots, or challenges, as identified in other blockchain research, because the cur­
small-scale production. Scaling and gaining widespread distribution of rent research did not use an existing framework when identifying the
these current blockchain applications in the real estate sector would benefits and challenges. Being limited to papers found through academic
require significant further work and aligning interests with new stake­ databases and Google Scholar, the present study lacks the most recent
holders, which could be very demanding. The recent literature has industry developments. The academic literature has struggled to keep up
started paying more attention to the resistance that will need to be with blockchain technology’s development pace. Also, not all real-world
overcome for scaling applications. Overall, even if recent applications applications end up being examined and published in the literature.
did not seem to disrupt the real estate sector, it might be too early to Additionally, the real estate management category could be underrep­
draw conclusions for the future. Were the applications to succeed in resented in this research because it was not possible to include smart city
battling resistance, getting buy-in from new participants, and scaling the and IoT blockchain literature, which would likely include links to the
solutions, the effects may be disruptive for some actors, such as real real estate management category. However, other blockchain research
estate agents in the Swedish application. has discussed the smart city and IoT themes. Another limitation is that
Further works should continue assessing blockchain adoption the present study adopted a general and encompassing definition for

9
A. Saari et al. Land Use Policy 121 (2022) 106334

blockchain without analyzing the effects of different blockchains, for Office of the European Union,, Luxembourg. https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.27
60/942739.
example, permissioned or permissionless blockchains. Finally, using a
Alotaibi, L., Alshamrani, S., 2021. Smart contract: security and privacy. Comput. Syst.
literature review as the methodology in assessing empirical blockchain Sci. Eng. 38 (1), 93–101.
applications limits the findings to what has been published thus far and Anand A., MCKibbin M., Pichel F. Colored coins: Bitcoin, blockchain, and land
does not allow for direct comparisons of the empirical applications. administration. In Washington DC; 2017.
Andoni, M., Robu, V., Flynn, D., Abram, S., Geach, D., Jenkins, D., et al., 2019.
Future studies have several options. The economic viability of Blockchain technology in the energy sector: a systematic review of challenges and
blockchain applications within the real estate sector is still very difficult opportunities. Renew. Sustain Energy Rev. 100, 143–174.
to estimate because the empirical insights so far have provided very little Ashurst, S., Tempesta, S., 2021. Real Estate and Land Registry Use Case. Blockchain
Applied: Practical Technology and Use Cases of Enterprise Blockchain for the Real
data. Blockchain systems are very complex and contain many stake­ World. Productivity Press,.
holders. The financial standing of other players may decrease, while Baum A. PropTech 2020a: the future of real estate [Internet]. Saïd Business School:
others may increase; costs within a company somewhere could increase University of Oxford Research; 2020 [cited 2020 Apr 2]. Available from: 〈https://
www.sbs.ox.ac.uk/sites/default/files/2020–02/proptech2020.pdf〉.
and decrease elsewhere. What are the “public” economic benefits of land Baum A. Tokenisation – The Future of Real Estate Investment? [Internet]. The Future of
administration blockchain applications? What types of economic Real Estate Initiative: Saïd Business School, University of Oxford; 2020b Jan p. 61.
viability studies should be concluded, and which systems should they be (The Future of Real Estate Initiative). Available from: 〈https://www.sbs.ox.ac.uk
/sites/default/files/2020–01/Tokenisation%20Report.pdf〉.
compared with? Against which parameters should they be compared? Baum, A., 2021. Tokenization - the future of real estate investment? J. Portf. Manag Issue
Moreover, because blockchain is a foundational technology, the long- 2021, 21 (Special Real Estate).
term potential of blockchain in the real estate sector cannot be Benbunan-Fich, R., Castellanos, A., 2018. Digitalization of land records: from paper to
blockchain. In San Francisco. 2018 10.
concluded based on the current applications. Hence, continued multi­
Bennett, R.M., Pickering, M., Kara, A.K., 2021. Hybrid approaches for smart contracts in
field research on real estate blockchain applications is required. land administration: lessons from three blockchain proofs-of-concept. Land 10 (2),
220 (Feb).
Bennett, R.M., Pickering, M., Sargent, J., 2019. Transformations, transitions, or tall tales?
CRediT authorship contribution statement
A global review of the uptake and impact of NoSQL, blockchain, and big data
analytics on the land administration sector. Land Use Policy 83, 435–448. Apr 1.
Anniina Saari: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Calvino F., Criscuolo C., Marcolin L., Squicciarini M. A taxonomy of digital intensive
Investigation, Methodology, Writing – original draft preparation, sectors [Internet]. OECD; 2018 Jun [cited 2021 Mar 25]. (OECD Science,
Technology and Industry Working Papers; vol. 2018/14). Report No.: 2018/14.
Writing – reviewing and editing, Jussi Vimpari: Conceptualization, Available from: 〈https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/industry-and-services/a-taxonomy-
Writing – reviewing and editing, Supervision, Seppo Junnila: Concep­ of-digital-intensive-sectors_f404736a-en〉.
tualization, Writing – reviewing and editing. Chang C., Wang R. FROM REAL TO DIGITAL: ASSET TOKENIZATION AND THE CASE OF
BRICKMARK [Internet]. Shanghai: Fudan Fanhai Fintech Research Center; 2021
[cited 2021 Dec 5] p. 13. Available from: 〈https://fisf.fudan.edu.cn/uploads
Declaration of Competing Interest /file/20210203/20210203035233_90042.pdf〉.
Chow Y.L., Tan K.K. Is tokenization of real estate ready for lift off in APAC? J Prop Invest
Finance. 2021 Jan 1;
None Creta F., Tenca F. Tokenomics: A new opportunity in the Real Estate business? A
qualitative approach to crowdfunding and blockchain interaction. First Monday
Data availability [Internet]. 2021 Oct 4 [cited 2021 Nov 16]; Available from: 〈https://journals.uic.ed
u/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/10699〉.
Dinesh Kumar, R., Manaswini, V.N.S., 2021. Chapter 6 - Applications of blockchain in
Data will be made available on request. smart cities: detecting fake documents from land records using blockchain
technology. In: Krishnan, S., Balas, V.E., Julie, E.G., Robinson, Y.H., Kumar, R.
(Eds.), Blockchain for Smart Cities. Elsevier, pp. 105–117.
Acknowledgments
Eder G. Digital Transformation: Blockchain and Land Titles. Paris: OECD; 2019 p. 12.
(2019 OECD Global Anti-Corruption & Integrity Forum.).
This work was supported by Aalto University’s Smartland-project, e-estonia.com. KSI® blockchain in Estonia [Internet]. KSI Blockchain in Estonia.
Frequently Asked Questions. 2019 [cited 2022 Jan 7]. Available from: 〈https://e-es
which is funded by Finnish Strategic Research Council at the Academy
tonia.com/wp-content/uploads/2020mar-faq-ksi-blockchain-1–1.pdf〉.
of Finland (decision No. 327800). Ekemode, B.G., Olapade, D., Shiyanbola, E., 2019. Resolving the Land Title Registration
Debacle: The Blockchain Technology Option. The proceedings of Environmental
Appendix A Design and Management International Conference. Obafemi Awolowo University,,
Ile-Ife, Nigeria.
Ferreira, F.S., 2021. Blockchain for real estate: a systematic literature review. 29TH Int.
See Fig. A1 in appendix section. Conf. Inf. Syst. Dev. Valencia, Spain 12.
Friese S.. Qualitative Data Analysis with ATLAS.ti - Third Edition. 3rd ed. SAGE; 2019.
413 p.
Appendix B. Supporting information Garcia-Teruel R.M. Legal challenges and opportunities of blockchain technology in the
real estate sector. J Prop Plan Environ Law. 2020 Jan 1;ahead-of-print(ahead-of-
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found in the print).
Garcia-Teruel, R.M., Simón-Moreno, H., 2021. The digital tokenization of property
online version at doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2022.106334. rights. A comparative perspective. Comput. Law Secur Rev. 41, 105543. Jul 1.
Goderdzishvili, N., Gordadze, E., Gagnidze, N., 2018. Georgia’s Blockchain-powered
References Property Registration: Never blocked, Always Secured: Ownership Data Kept Best!
Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Theory and Practice of
Electronic Governance. ACM,, Galway Ireland, pp. 673–675.
Adam, I., Fazekas, M., 2021. Are emerging technologies helping win the fight against
Graglia, J.M., Mellon, C.Blockchain, 2018. and Property in 2018: At the End of the
corruption? A review of the state of evidence. Inf. Econ. Policy, 100950. Sep 15.
Beginning. Innov. Technol. Gov. Glob. 12 (1–2), 90–116 (Jul).
Ahmad, I., Alqarni, M.A., Almazroi, A.A., Alam, L., 2021. Real estate management via a
Hewa, T., Ylianttila, M., Liyanage, M., 2020. Survey on blockchain based smart contracts:
decentralized blockchain platform. Comput. Mater. Contin. 66 (2), 1813–1822.
applications, opportunities and challenges. J. Netw. Comput. Appl., 102857. Nov 7.
Akhmetbek, Y., Špaček, D., 2021. Opportunities and barriers of using blockchain in
Hoksbergen, M., Chan, J., Peko, G., Sundaram, D., 2021. Illuminating and bridging the
public administration: the case of real Estate registration in Kazakhstan. NISPAcee J.
vortex between tacit and explicit knowledge: counterbalancing information
Public Adm. Policy 14 (2), 41–64. Dec 1.
asymmetry in high-value low-frequency transactions. Decis. Support Syst. 149,
Ali, T., Nadeem, A., Alzahrani, A., Jan, S., 2020. A Transparent and Trusted Property
113605. Oct 1.
Registration System on Permissioned Blockchain. 2019 International Conference on
International Energy Agency, United Nations Environment Programme. 2018 Global
Advances in the Emerging Computing Technologies (AECT). Al Madinah Al
Status Report - Towards a zero-emission, efficient and resilient buildings and
Munawwarah. IEEE,, Saudi Arabia, pp. 1–6.
construction sector [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2021 Mar 25]. Available from: 〈http
Alketbi, A., Nasir, Q., Abu Talib, M., 2020. Novel blockchain reference model for
s://www.worldgbc.org/sites/default/files/2018%20GlobalABC%20Global%20Stat
government services: Dubai government case study. Int J. Syst. Assur Eng. Manag 11
us%20Report.pdf〉.
(6), 1170–1191. Dec 1.
Kalyuzhnova, N., 2018. Transformation of the real estate market on the basis of use of
Allessie, D., Sobolewski, M., Vaccari, L., Pignatelli, F., European Commission, Joint
the blockchain technologies: opportunities and problems. MATEC Web of
Research Centre, 2019. Blockchain for digital government - an assessment of
Conferences. EDP Sciences,, Irkutsk, Russia, p. 06004.
pioneering implementations in public services. Science for Policy. Publications

10
A. Saari et al. Land Use Policy 121 (2022) 106334

Karamchandani, A., Srivastava, S.K., Srivastava, R.K., 2020. Perception-based model for Oxford English Dictionary. blockchain, n. In: OED Online [Internet]. Oxford University
analyzing the impact of enterprise blockchain adoption on SCM in the Indian service Press; 2021 [cited 2021 Dec 1]. (Draft additions December 2021). Available from:
industry. Int J. Inf. Manag 52, 102019. Jun 1. 〈https://www.oed.com/view/Entry/20347〉.
Kempe M. The Land Registry in the blockchain - testbed. A development project with Oxford English Dictionary. real estate, n. In: OED Online [Internet]. Third. Oxford:
Lantmäteriet, Landshypotek Bank, SBAB, Telia company, ChromaWay and Kairos Oxford University Press; 2020 [cited 2021 Dec 1]. Available from: 〈https://www.
Future [Internet]. Stockholm: Kairos Future; 2017 Mar [cited 2021 Nov 21]. oed.com/view/Entry/238664〉.
Available from: 〈https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e26f18cd5824c7138a Nastri, Michele, 2021. Blockchain, smart contracts and new certainties: what future for
9118b/t/5e3c35451c2cbb6170caa19e/1581004119677/Blockchain_Landregistr notaries? Blockchain, Law and Governance 221–228.
y_Report_2017.pdf〉. Proskurovska, A., 2021. Postponed Blockchain Transformation of Land and Property
Khanna, A., Sah, A., Bolshev, V., Jasinski, M., Vinogradov, A., Leonowicz, Z., et al., 2021. Markets. The Case of Sweden. In: Jedelsky, A. (Ed.), Third FIBREE Global Industry
Blockchain: future of e-governance in smart cities. Sustainability 13 (21), 11840. Oct Report - Blockchain & Real Estate. 3rd ed. Vienna. FIBREE, pp. 12–13 (Global
26. Industry Report).
Kim, S.K., Huh, J.H., 2020. Autochain platform: expert automatic algorithm Blockchain Risius, M., Spohrer, M., 2017. A blockchain research framework. Bus. Inf. Syst. Eng. 59
technology for house rental dApp image application model. EURASIP J Image Video. (6), 385–409 (Dec).
Process 2020 (1), 47. Oct 27. Rodima-Taylor, D., 2021. Digitalizing land administration: the geographies and
Konashevych O. General Concept of Real Estate Tokenization on Blockchain. Eur Prop temporalities of infrastructural promise. Geoforum 122, 140–151. Jun 1.
Law J (Internet]. 2020 Apr 6 [cited 2020b Jun 17);forthcoming. Available from: 〈htt Sandberg H. Why Blockchain Technology Will Never Replace The Land Registry Office.
ps://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3569419〉. SSRN Electron J [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2021 Nov 11]; Available from: 〈https://
Konashevych, O., 2020a. Cross-blockchain protocol for public registries. Int J. Web Inf. www.ssrn.com/abstract=3770126〉.
Syst. 16 (5), 571–610. Sanka, A.I., Irfan, M., Huang, I., Cheung, R.C.C., 2021. A survey of breakthrough in
Konashevych, O., 2021. ‘GoLand Registry’ Case Study: Blockchain/DLT Adoption in Land blockchain technology: adoptions, applications, challenges and future research.
Administration in Afghanistan. DGO2021: The 22nd Annual International Comput. Commun. 169, 179–201. Mar 1.
Conference on Digital Government Research. Omaha NE USA. ACM,, pp. 489–494. Savills. Around the world in dollars and cents. SAVILLS WORLD RESEARCH [Internet].
Kshetri, N., 2021. Blockchain as a tool to facilitate property rights protection in the 2016; Available from: 〈savills.com〉.
Global South: lessons from India’s Andhra Pradesh state. Third World Q 0 (0), 1–22. Shang, Q., Price, A., 2018. A blockchain-based land titling project in the Republic of
Dec 17. Georgia: rebuilding public trust and lessons for future pilot projects. Innov. Technol.
Lazuashvili, N., Norta, A., Draheim, D., 2019. Integration of Blockchain Technology into Gov. Glob. 12 (3–4), 72–78.
a Land Registration System for Immutable Traceability: A Casestudy of Georgia. In: Soner, S., Litoriya, R., Pandey, P., 2021. Exploring blockchain and smart contract
Di Ciccio, C., Gabryelczyk, R., García-Bañuelos, L., Hernaus, T., Hull, R., Indihar technology for reliable and secure land registration and record management. Wirel.
Štemberger, M., et al. (Eds.), Business Process Management: Blockchain and Central Pers. Commun. 121 (4), 2495–2509. Dec 1.
and Eastern Europe Forum, vol. 361. Springer International Publishing, Cham, Spielman A. Blockchain: digitally rebuilding the real estate industry [Internet] [Thesis].
pp. 219–233. Massachusetts Institute of Technology; 2016 [cited 2020 Jun 17]. Available from:
Lemieux V. Blockchain and Distributed Ledgers as Trusted Recordkeeping Systems: An 〈https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/106753〉.
Archival Theoretic Evaluation Framework. In 2017b. Sullivan, C., Burger, E., 2017. E-residency and blockchain. Comput. Law Secur Rev. 33
Lemieux, V., Rowell, C., Seidel, M.D.L., Woo, C.C., 2020. Caught in the middle? Strategic (4), 470–481. Aug 1.
information governance disruptions in the era of blockchain and distributed trust. Szabo N. Secure Property Titles with Owner Authority | Satoshi Nakamoto Institute
Rec. Manag J. 30 (3), 301–324. Jan 1. [Internet]. Secure Property Titles with Owner Authority. 1998 [cited 2021 Mar 11].
Lemieux, V.L., 2016. Trusting records: is blockchain technology the answer? Rec. Manag Available from: 〈https://nakamotoinstitute.org/secure-property-titles/〉.
J. 26 (2), 110–139. Jan 1. Thakur, V., Doja, M.N., Dwivedi, Y.K., Ahmad, T., Khadanga, G., 2020. Land records on
Lemieux, V.L., 2017a. Evaluating the use of blockchain in land transactions: an archival Blockchain for implementation of Land Titling in India. Int J. Inf. Manag 52, 101940.
science perspective. Eur. Prop. Law J. 6 (3), 392–440. Dec 5. Jun 1.
Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P.A., et al., Toufaily, E., Zalan, T., Dhaou, S.B., 2021. A framework of blockchain technology
2009. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of adoption: an investigation of challenges and expected value. Inf. Manag. 58 (3),
studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J. Clin. 103444.
Epidemiol. 62 (10), e1–e34. Oct 1. Ullah, F., Al-Turjman, F., 2021. A conceptual framework for blockchain smart contract
Majeed, U., Khan, L.U., Yaqoob, I., Kazmi, S.M.A., Salah, K., Hong, C.S., 2021. adoption to manage real estate deals in smart cities. Neural Comput. Appl. Feb 22.
Blockchain for IoT-based smart cities: Recent advances, requirements, and future Ullah, F., Sepasgozar, S.M.E., Thaheem, M.J., Al-Turjman, F., 2021. Barriers to the
challenges. J. Netw. Comput. Appl. 181 (May 1), 103007. digitalisation and innovation of Australian Smart Real Estate: a managerial
Manyika J., Ramaswamy S., Somesh K., Sarrazin H., Pinkus G., Sethupathy G., et al. perspective on the technology non-adoption. Environ. Technol. Innov. 22, 101527.
Digital America: A Tale of Haves and Have-Mores [Internet]. McKinsey Global May 1.
Institute; 2015 Dec [cited 2021 Mar 25]. Available from: 〈https://www.mckinsey. von Wangenheim, G., 2020. Blockchain-Based Land Registers: A Law-and-Economics
com/~/media/McKinsey/Industries/Technology%20Media%20and% Perspective. In: Lehavi, A., Levine-Schnur, R. (Eds.), Disruptive Technology, Legal
20Telecommunications/High%20Tech/Our%20Insights/Digital%20America%20A Innovation, and the Future of Real Estate. Cham: Springer International Publishing,
%20tale%20of%20the%20haves%20and%20have%20mores/Digital%20America% pp. 103–122.
20Full%20Report%20December%202015.pdf〉. Vos, J., Lemmen, C., Beentjes, B., 2017. Blockchain-based land administration feasible,
McMurren J., Young A., Verhulst S. Addressing Transaction Costs Through Blockchain illusory or a panacae?. In: World bank conference on land and poverty, 2017 The
and Identity in Swedish Land Transfers [Internet]. New York, NY, USA; 2018 Oct World Bank,, Washington DC, p. 32.
[cited 2021 Nov 21] p. 13. (Blockchain Technologies for Social Change). Available Wang, D., 2020. Tokenisation of corporate real estate on the blockchain: new strategies
from: 〈https://blockchan.ge/blockchange-land-registry.pd〉〈f〉. for corporate ownership and financial management. Corp. Real. Estate J. 10 (2), 13.
Mendi, A.F., Demir, Ö., Sakaklı, K.K., Çabuk, A., 2020. A new approach to land registry Sep 15.
system in Turkey: blockchain-based system proposal. Photo Eng. Remote Sens 86 Xu, Y., Chong, H.Y., Chi, M., Chi, M., 2021. Link to external site this link will open in a
(11), 701–709. Nov 1. new window. A Review of Smart Contracts Applications in Various Industries: A
Mintah, K., Boateng, F.G., Baako, K.T., Gaisie, E., Otchere, G.K., 2021. Blockchain on Procurement Perspective. In: Yi, W., Yi, W. (Eds.), Adv Civ Eng, 2021.
stool land acquisition: lessons from Ghana for strengthening land tenure security Yapicioglu, B., Leshinsky, R., 2020. Blockchain as a tool for land rights: ownership of
other than titling. Land Use Policy 109, 105635 (Oct). land in Cyprus. J. Prop. Plan Environ. Law 12 (2), 171–182. Jan 1.
Nakamoto S. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System [Internet]. 2008 Oct p. 9. Yli-Huumo, J., Ko, D., Choi, S., Park, S., Smolander, K., 2016. Where is current research
Report No.: Whitepaper. Available from: 〈https://bitcoin.org/en/bitcoin-paper〉. on blockchain technology?—a systematic review. PLOS ONE 11 (10), e0163477. Oct
Nicolaou-Manias K., Wu Y. Using Distributed Ledger Technologies to Improve and 3.
Maximise the Collection of Property Taxes. SSRN Electron J [Internet]. 2021 [cited Yuthas, K., 2021. Strategic value creation through enterprise blockchain. J. Br. Block
2021 Dec 8]; Available from: 〈https://www.ssrn.com/abstract=3899060〉. Assoc. 4 (1), 1–10. Apr 1.

11