Rethinking the Impact of Land Certification on Tenure Security, Land Disputes, Land Management, and Agricultural Production: Insights from South Wello, Ethiopia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting paper which tackles a topical issue in land governance. It has potential to inform policy, scolars and practical lessons.

1. The  subject matter is relevant. It is challenging for authors to link land management to land certification. They must decide if they drop it or invest more effort in establishing a relationship. The fleeting reference to gender should be better articulated or dropped.

2.The key words  should include a  more recognised geographical tag like  Ethiopia / Africa

3. Some redundant / meaningless sentences throughout the document 

4. Introduction should define concepts used like household, gender

5.The unit of analysis is not clearly defined and/ or varies from  conjugal, household , courts to a region and whole country. This should be articulated when used.

6. The introduction should describe the land certification- definition, reasons duration and number of households / units targetted, etc

7. Research questions ( line 118-123) could be better articulated using tenure security instead of " safe in their tenure, " lessened disputes" could be better articulated  impact on disputes, . Authors use preservation, conservation, land management interchangeably- they should be consistent.

9. Line 126 WHICH policy platforms? Which debates?

Line 134 is this a chapter or article or paper?

10 . Some of the literature which should be in the introduction is in the discussion section

11. Figure 1 the year?

12. Line 144  what is" delayed freehold"

13 line 152  sentence seems incomplete

14 The referencing line 178 and 182 seems incomplete

13. Is there any reason the article avoids referencing Kenyan land certification program which is most well known and is in the same region? 

15. Line 202  seems incomplete/ unclear

16. Line 205/ 6 seems a sweeping generalisation

17. Land disputes. This should be presented more clearly. The definitions, the unit of analysis, the results. Currently to line 525. It includes methodology issues, definitions, research findings, -should be reorganised

18. Line 225- 234 refers to two schools of thought- only one is articulated

19. Methodology

 This is where the unit of analysis should be articulated.

Line 284 proportional means purposive? Justify 

Household how is this defined in the study ? 

Line 289 is secondary sources

Here you discuss triangulation

Make a comment about validation and limits of the data. 

Line 336- 337 is this a range or respective?

Table 2 cite the year

20. Does reference to excluded households ( who hold small pieces of land) mean that they were evicted? Did you interview them or observe them to inform your conclusions on dispute, land management and prodction

21.Are the households monogamous or polygamous- how did land certification deal with this?

 

22. Line 360 - did farmers have a choice or was certification compulsory?

23. Line 452 is not a land dispute issue and should be presented separatley

24. Have a separate subheading for the limits/ challenges of implementing certificate as articulated in line 455 - 460. It seems land certificaton initially increases disputes in adjudication process...

 

25. Figure 5 is a useful presentation of units of analysis- did research also quantify the informal dispute resolution mechanism? Some comment on methodology and experience 

 

26. Line 472- 476 seems to be a research method challenge and be moved to relevant section 3

27. Line 482 also a research challenge issue move to section 3

28. Figure 6 does it include cases that did not go to the formal court? If not authors should comment on this

 

29. Line 503 is a sampling issue which should be in the methodology section

30. Line 508- 516 seems out of place. Seems more of a description of the context of study area which should be in the introduction either way it seems out of place here

31. Line 520- 533 seems methodology issue 

32. Line 538-542 - implies non- certified land holders  do not practise SLM. Is this true? Does a land certificate automatically translate to SLM or there is some training or mediation aimed at certified land holders? Section 4. 4 the  relationship has not been convicingly proved

33. Line 558- 563 - not clear what the relationship/ relevance to land certification is.. 

34. Section 4. 5  the gender reference is woefully inadequate and not linked to research method or result

 

35. Line 645 - 650 belongs in the introduction and background sections

 

 

 

This requires some editing 

Author Response

Please see the attachment 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The main content of this article is about reevaluating land certification's impact on tenure security, land disputes, land management, and agricultural production in Ethiopia. Based on land use data from 25 various sources, including Woreda and zonal agriculture, court, land, and Natural Resource Management (NRM) offices, the article analyzes how land titling strengthens tenure security, lowers land-related disputes, motivates farmers to employ Soil and Water Conservation (SWC) practices, and raises the productivity of farm plots in Dessie Zurai and Kutaber Woredas. An exploratory survey utilized both qualitative and quantitative techniques and data. The results show that a positive relationship between land certification and tenure security. Furthermore, enhanced tenure security has played a positive role in reducing land-related disputes, initiating farmers to invest in SWC practices and improving the productivity of farm plots.

In the introduction section, the author emphasized the importance of land. It is suggested that the following points be optimized:

1) Please supplement the relevant literature on land certification assist and land-related issues in the third to last paragraphs of the introduction, as the original article has too few and relatively simple references. The author should cite more literature to supplement the discussion on land certification assist and land-related issues.

2) In the last paragraph of this section, the author should add literature based on static or cross-sectional data analysis.

3) The author should ensure consistency in the presentation of proprietary terms throughout the article and check for consistency throughout the text.

In the Methods and Result section, the author introduced the data sources and processing methods, as well as the model methods. The following suggestions can be made for optimization:

1) The calculation process in this section is too simple. The author should explain each part of the formula and strengthen the explanation of the calculation results.

2) The author should check the format of all formulas in this section to comply with the journal's standards.

In other aspects, the following suggestions are recommended for the author to consider and actively check and modify:

1) Please check whether the grammar is smooth in some sentences, whether the format of the charts and tables, and the reference list comply with the journal's publishing standards.

2) Having more coherent and better articulated sections, especially Introduction, discussion, and conclusions.

3)A discussion can be improved. It is logical that the discussion should be given before the conclusion (or Discussion and conclusion, not Conclusion and discussion). Also, the discussion section should be little reorganized. The discussion section should better emphasize how the obtained results can be used and why they are important. How are the results of this research similar/different from other research in this field? What are the possible causes? 

Finally, I encourage the author to make the necessary revisions and resubmit the article. Good luck!

The main content of this article is about reevaluating land certification's impact on tenure security, land disputes, land management, and agricultural production in Ethiopia. Based on land use data from 25 various sources, including Woreda and zonal agriculture, court, land, and Natural Resource Management (NRM) offices, the article analyzes how land titling strengthens tenure security, lowers land-related disputes, motivates farmers to employ Soil and Water Conservation (SWC) practices, and raises the productivity of farm plots in Dessie Zurai and Kutaber Woredas. An exploratory survey utilized both qualitative and quantitative techniques and data. The results show that a positive relationship between land certification and tenure security. Furthermore, enhanced tenure security has played a positive role in reducing land-related disputes, initiating farmers to invest in SWC practices and improving the productivity of farm plots.

In the introduction section, the author emphasized the importance of land. It is suggested that the following points be optimized:

1) Please supplement the relevant literature on land certification assist and land-related issues in the third to last paragraphs of the introduction, as the original article has too few and relatively simple references. The author should cite more literature to supplement the discussion on land certification assist and land-related issues.

2) In the last paragraph of this section, the author should add literature based on static or cross-sectional data analysis.

3) The author should ensure consistency in the presentation of proprietary terms throughout the article and check for consistency throughout the text.

In the Methods and Result section, the author introduced the data sources and processing methods, as well as the model methods. The following suggestions can be made for optimization:

1) The calculation process in this section is too simple. The author should explain each part of the formula and strengthen the explanation of the calculation results.

2) The author should check the format of all formulas in this section to comply with the journal's standards.

In other aspects, the following suggestions are recommended for the author to consider and actively check and modify:

1) Please check whether the grammar is smooth in some sentences, whether the format of the charts and tables, and the reference list comply with the journal's publishing standards.

2) Having more coherent and better articulated sections, especially Introduction, discussion, and conclusions.

3)A discussion can be improved. It is logical that the discussion should be given before the conclusion (or Discussion and conclusion, not Conclusion and discussion). Also, the discussion section should be little reorganized. The discussion section should better emphasize how the obtained results can be used and why they are important. How are the results of this research similar/different from other research in this field? What are the possible causes? 

Finally, I encourage the author to make the necessary revisions and resubmit the article. Good luck!

Author Response

Please see the attachments 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form

Accept in present form