Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Influence of land tenure interventions on human well-being and environmental outcomes

Abstract

Land tenure security is increasingly recognized as a foundational element for advancing global sustainable development agendas, but questions remain about how it affects human well-being and environmental outcomes. We identify 117 studies that aimed to estimate the causal effect of land tenure security interventions on these outcomes. Approximately two-thirds of these studies reported positive links between improved tenure security and human well-being or environmental outcomes. Close to half of the studies that examined social and environmental outcomes reported positive impacts on both. The majority of studies assessed government-implemented interventions that statutorily recognized rights through land titling and formalization in the 1990s and 2000s. More research is needed to bolster the body of evidence on the effects of non-technical interventions (for example, capacity building and awareness raising) and the devolution of rights to inform future land policy efforts and accelerate sustainable development.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.

from$8.99

All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Global distribution and characteristics of the studies and land tenure interventions included in this analysis.
Fig. 2: Changes in de jure and de facto tenure status and in tenure form before and after interventions of the studies reviewed.
Fig. 3: Distribution of human well-being and environmental outcomes from the reviewed studies.

Data availability

The data sets generated and/or analysed during the current study are available on reasonable request.

References

  1. 1.

    Safeguarding Land Tenure Rights in the Context of Agricultural Investment (FAO, 2015).

  2. 2.

    Deininger, K., Augustinus, C., Enemark, S. & Munro-Faure, P. Innovations in Land Rights Recognition, Administration, and Governance (World Bank, 2010).

  3. 3.

    Global Environment Outlook: GEO-6 Summary for Policymakers Report No. 978-1-108-70768-8 (UN Environment Programme, Cambridge Univ. Press, 2019).

  4. 4.

    Sunderlin, W. D., Hatcher, J. & Liddle, M. From Exclusion to Ownership? Challenges and Opportunities in Advancing Forest Tenure Reform (Rights and Resources Initiative, 2008).

  5. 5.

    Home, R. ‘Culturally unsuited to property rights?’: colonial land laws and African societies. J. Law Soc. 40, 403–419 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Framework and Guidelines on Land Policy in Africa (UN Economic Commission for Africa, 2010).

  7. 7.

    Improving Access to Land and Tenure Security (IFAD, 2008); https://www.ifad.org/en/document-detail/asset/39500436

  8. 8.

    Securing land tenure and property rights for stability and prosperity. USAID https://www.usaid.gov/land-tenure (2017).

  9. 9.

    Deere, C. D. & Doss, C. R. The gender asset gap: what do we know and why does it matter? Fem. Econ. 12, 1–50 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Meinzen-Dick, R. et al. in Gender in Agriculture: Closing the Knowledge Gap (eds Quisumbing, A. R. et al.) Ch. 5 (FAO & Springer, 2014).

  11. 11.

    Rudel, T. K. & Hernandez, M. Land tenure transitions in the global south: trends, drivers, and policy implications. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resour. 42, 489–507 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Boone, C. Legal empowerment of the poor through property rights reform: tensions and trade-offs of land registration and titling in sub-Saharan Africa. J. Dev. Stud. 55, 384–400 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Chimhowu, A. The ‘new’ African customary land tenure. Characteristic, features and policy implications of a new paradigm. Land Use Policy 81, 897–903 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Kerekes, C. B. & Williamson, C. R. Unveiling de Soto’s mystery: property rights, capital formation, and development. J. Inst. Econ. 4, 299–325 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    de Soto, H. The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in The West and Fails Everywhere Else (Basic Books, 2000).

  16. 16.

    Joireman, S. F. The mystery of capital formation in sub-Saharan Africa: women, property rights and customary law. World Dev. 36, 1233–1246 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Alchian, A. A. & Demsetz, H. The property right paradigm. J. Econ. Hist. 33, 16–27 (1973).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Robinson, B. E., Holland, M. B. & Naughton-Treves, L. Does secure land tenure save forests? A meta-analysis of the relationship between land tenure and tropical deforestation. Glob. Environ. Change 29, 281–293 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Meinzen-Dick, R., Quisumbing, A., Doss, C. & Theis, S. Women’s land rights as a pathway to poverty reduction: framework and review of available evidence. Agric. Syst. 172, 72–82 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    O’Sullivan, M. B. Gender and Property Rights in Sub-Saharan Africa: a Review of Constraints and Effective Interventions Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS8250 (World Bank, 2017).

  21. 21.

    Fenske, J. Land tenure and investment incentives: evidence from West Africa. J. Dev. Econ. 95, 137–156 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Lawry, S. et al. The impact of land property rights interventions on investment and agricultural productivity in developing countries: a systematic review. J. Dev. Effect. 9, 61–81 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Holden, S. T. & Ghebru, H. Land tenure reforms, tenure security and food security in poor agrarian economies: causal linkages and research gaps. Glob. Food Sec. 10, 21–28 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Higgins, D., Balint, T., Liversage, H. & Winters, P. Investigating the impacts of increased rural land tenure security: a systematic review of the evidence. J. Rural Stud. 61, 34–62 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Lisher, J. Guidelines for Impact Evaluation of Land Tenure and Governance Interventions (UN-Habitat, 2019).

  26. 26.

    Kaplan-Hallam, M. & Bennett, N. J. Adaptive social impact management for conservation and environmental management. Conserv. Biol. 32, 304–314 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Albertus, M., Diaz-Cayeros, A., Magaloni, B. & Weingast, B. R. Authoritarian survival and poverty traps: land reform in Mexico. World Dev. 77, 154–170 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Stamm, V. The World Bank on land policies: a West African look at the World Bank policy research report. Africa 74, 670–678 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Ito, J., Bao, Z. & Ni, J. Land rental development via institutional innovation in rural Jiangsu, China. Food Policy 59, 1–11 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Meinzen-Dick, R. & Mwangi, E. Cutting the web of interests: pitfalls of formalizing property rights. Land Use Policy 26, 36–43 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Deininger, K., Goyal, A. & Nagarajan, H. Inheritance Law Reform and Women’s Access to Capital: Evidence from India’s Hindu Succession Act Policy Research Working Paper No. WPS5338 (World Bank, 2010).

  32. 32.

    Mueller, V., Billings, L., Mogues, T., Peterman, A. & Wineman, A. Filling the legal void? Impacts of a community-based legal aid program on women’s land-related knowledge, attitudes, and practices. Oxford Dev. Stud. 46, 453–469 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Giné, X. Land Security in Rural Thailand: Evidence from a Property Rights Reform https://landportal.org/ru/library/resources/land-security-rural-thailand-evidence-property-rights-reform (World Bank, 2005).

  34. 34.

    Alix-Garcia, J., Kuemmerle, T. & Radeloff, V. C. Prices, land tenure institutions, and geography: a matching analysis of farmland abandonment in post-socialist Eastern Europe. Land Econ. 88, 425–443 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Naughton-Treves, L., Alix-Garcia, J. & Chapman, C. A. Lessons about parks and poverty from a decade of forest loss and economic growth around Kibale National Park, Uganda. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 13919–13924 (2011).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Zikhali, P. Fast track land reform programme, tenure security and investments in soil conservation: micro-evidence from Mazowe District in Zimbabwe. Nat. Resour. Forum 34, 124–139 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Christensen, G. & Miguel, E. Transparency, reproducibility, and the credibility of economics research. J. Econ. Lit. 56, 920–980 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Ioannidis, J. P. A. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med. 2, e124 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Ioannidis, J. P. A. Why most discovered true associations are inflated. Epidemiology 19, 640–648 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    McCrary, J., Christensen, G. & Fanelli, D. Conservative tests under satisficing models of publication bias. PLoS ONE 11, e0149590 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Ban, N. C. et al. Well-being outcomes of marine protected areas. Nat. Sustain. 2, 524–532 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    McKinnon, M. C. et al. What are the effects of nature conservation on human well-being? A systematic map of empirical evidence from developing countries. Environ. Evid. 5, 8 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Brandt, J. S., Nolte, C. & Agrawal, A. Deforestation and timber production in Congo after implementation of sustainable forest management policy. Land Use Policy 52, 15–22 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Brottem, L. V. & Ba, L. Gendered livelihoods and land tenure: the case of artisanal gold miners in Mali, West Africa. Geoforum 105, 54–62 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Coomes, O. T., MacDonald, G. K. & de Waroux, Y. lP. Geospatial land price data: a public good for global change science and policy. BioScience 68, 481–484 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Robinson, B. E. et al. Incorporating land tenure security into conservation. Conserv. Lett. 11, e12383 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Pedersen, R. H. Decoupled implementation of new-wave land reforms: decentralisation and local governance of land in Tanzania. J. Dev. Stud. 48, 268–281 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    Rudel, T. Defensive Environmentalists and the Dynamics of Global Reform (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2013).

  49. 49.

    Masuda, Y. J. et al. How do practitioners characterize land tenure security? Conserv. Sci. Pract. 2, e186 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Holland, M. B. et al. How Does Indigeneity Influence Socio-Ecological Conditions in Community Forests? A Systematic Review Protocol (Center for International Forestry Research, 2017).

  51. 51.

    Higgins, J. & Green, S. (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011).

  52. 52.

    Waddington, H. et al. How to do a good systematic review of effects in international development: a tool kit. J. Dev. Effect. 4, 359–387 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    World Bank Country and Lending Groups. World Bank Data https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519-world-bank-country-and-lending-groups (2020).

  54. 54.

    3ie Impact Evaluation Glossary (International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, 2012); https://www.3ieimpact.org/resources/Glossaries

  55. 55.

    Campbell Systematic Reviews: Policies and Guidelines Series No. 1 (The Campbell Collaboration, 2019).

  56. 56.

    Impact Evaluation in UN Agency Evaluation Systems: Guidance on Selection, Planning and Management (United Nations Evaluation Group, 2013).

  57. 57.

    Kulkarni, N., Huang, S.-T., Louis, E. & Fletschner, D. The potential for homestead microplots to contribute to food security in rural West Bengal. In 2017 World Bank Conference on Land and Poverty (2017).

  58. 58.

    Santos, F., Fletschner, D., Savath, V. & Peterman, A. Can government-allocated land contribute to food security? Intrahousehold analysis of West Bengal’s microplot allocation program. World Dev. 64, 860–872 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. 59.

    Habitats Classification Scheme (Version 3.1). IUCN https://www.iucnredlist.org/resources/habitat-classification-scheme (2019).

  60. 60.

    Deininger, K., Ali, D. A. & Alemu, T. Impacts of land certification on tenure security, investment, and land market participation: evidence from Ethiopia. Land Econ. 87, 312–334 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Bogart, S. SankeyMATIC http://sankeymatic.com (2018).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by the David and Lucile Packard Foundation (2018-67261). W.Z. is supported by the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions and Markets.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Y.J.M., B.E.R. and T.-W.J.T. designed the research. T.-W.J.T. collected, compiled and coded the data. Y.J.M. and B.E.R. reviewed data coding. Y.J.M., B.E.R. and T.-W.J.T. conducted the data analysis and synthesis. T.-W.J.T. wrote an initial draft of the paper, Y.J.M., B.E.R., M.F.B., A. BenYishay, A. Blackman, T.B., M.C., M.B.H., T.K., B.L., M.D., L.N., T.R., J.S., P.S., P.V., W.S. and W.Z. reviewed and revised the paper.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuta J. Masuda.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Peer review information Nature Sustainability thanks Tim Balint and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary background information, Tables 1–10 and Fig. 1.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Tseng, TW.J., Robinson, B.E., Bellemare, M.F. et al. Influence of land tenure interventions on human well-being and environmental outcomes. Nat Sustain 4, 242–251 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-00648-5

Download citation

Further reading

Search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing