**6. Conclusions**

This paper addressed the extent of land tenure disputes and the most commonly used land tenure dispute resolution mechanisms based on investigations in peri-urban areas and in nearby rural areas of Debre Markos town in Ethiopia. Though the rural–urban interface is a conflict prone area, land conflicts in such areas are exacerbated in situations where there is a lack of timely assurances of peri-urban land rights and when urban areas are spatially expanding and consuming agricultural land [49,50]. To avoid disputes, governments must take into consideration the land property rights of peri-urban subsistence farmers. In this way, the sustainable development of urban areas can be attained in the peri-urban and surrounding rural areas.

For the effective management of peri-urban land and to support the urban sprawl of a town, it is essential to set up sound spatial planning techniques considering various spatial planning support systems and to integrate affected persons and different stakeholders. Moreover, spatial planning should restrict the outward growth of urban areas by designing strategies for the development of the inholdings of vacant land in the town and by implementing proper land use planning strategies.

This study has identified different types of land tenure disputes. Boundary trespassing disputes are the most frequent type both in rural and peri-urban areas. This is because of a lack of progress in defining and demarcating the boundary points. Therefore, conducting cadastral survey and mapping boundaries are of paramount importance to reduce these disputes.

Land tenure disputes are high in communal land and private land property regime types. Communal land is experiencing severe levels of encroachment. This suggests that land property rights must be secured for communal landholders. In addition, boundaries must be clearly defined and demarcated in both peri-urban and rural areas. However, peri-urban areas should be given special attention since they are the primary focus of municipalities for expropriation, which also aggravates the encroachment problem.

In the study area, the situation of land administration is not well defined. Landholders may be liable to rules from two different land administration authorities. This creates confusion and stress in the lives of peri-urban subsistence farmers. The remedy for this problem is to organize peri-urban land administration institutions. Alternatively, it would be possible to manage these areas by rural land administration and land use rules, since the land predominantly exhibits a rural character, and the majority of the landholders are subsistence farmers. In addition, the merging of the rural and urban land administration authority would be an option. Research on this issue must be carried out.

Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are the most preferred systems to resolve land tenure dispute, especially in symmetric dispute situations. This is because they are less expensive, faster, and more efficient than other approaches to dispute resolution. Many ADR mechanisms are available to resolve land tenure disputes, irrespective of the location, and of those, negotiation, mediation/conciliation, and arbitration are the most widely used methods of dispute resolution as an alternative to litigation. Strengthening alternative dispute resolution mechanisms is of paramount important for countries like Ethiopia, where most farmers rely on subsistence living.

This study attempted to identify the land tenure disputes and resolution mechanisms in Debre Markos peri-urban study areas and nearby rural kebeles. The studied areas may be representative for the peri-urban land dispute cases and resolution mechanisms in other areas, since peri-urban areas have more or less similar scenarios with respect to land dispute as a consequence of fast rate urban sprawl. However, further studies in other regions of the country must be conducted to be used as additional inputs for policy makers who have stakes in the amicable resolution of land tenure disputes.

**Author Contributions:** Conceptualization, S.K.A., T.D., W.N. and R.M.; formal analysis, T.D., S.K.A., W.N. and R.M.; funding acquisition, S.K.A. and R.M.; methodology, S.K.A., T.D., W.N. and R.M.; project administration, S.K.A. and R.M.; supervision, R.M.; validation, S.K.A., T.D., W.N. and R.M.; visualization, S.K.A., T.D., W.N. and R.M.; writing—original draft, S.K.A.; writing—review and editing, S.K.A., T.D., W.N. and R.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

**Funding:** This study is funded by EduLAND2 project fund.

**Institutional Review Board Statement:** All respondents of questionnaire and all participants of focus group discussions and key experts' interviews are not mentioned by name. Results are aggregated and cannot be traced back to individual persons.

**Informed Consent Statement:** All persons involved in the study participated voluntarily and agreed the study results derived from their responses.

**Data Availability Statement:** Not applicable.

**Conflicts of Interest:** We confirm that this work is original and has not been published elsewhere nor is it currently under consideration for publication elsewhere and the authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
