IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i14p7730-d592208.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Landscape Governance and Sustainable Land Restoration: Evidence from Shinyanga, Tanzania

Author

Listed:
  • Judith Nzyoka

    (World Agroforestry (ICRAF), UN Avenue, Gigiri, P.O. Box 30677, Nairobi 00100, Kenya)

  • Peter A. Minang

    (World Agroforestry (ICRAF), UN Avenue, Gigiri, P.O. Box 30677, Nairobi 00100, Kenya)

  • Priscilla Wainaina

    (World Agroforestry (ICRAF), UN Avenue, Gigiri, P.O. Box 30677, Nairobi 00100, Kenya)

  • Lalisa Duguma

    (World Agroforestry (ICRAF), UN Avenue, Gigiri, P.O. Box 30677, Nairobi 00100, Kenya)

  • Lucas Manda

    (World Agroforestry (ICRAF), Coca-Cola Road, Mikocheni B Light Industrial Area, P.O. Box 6226, Dar-es-Salaam, Plot 22, Tanzania)

  • Emmanuel Temu

    (World Agroforestry (ICRAF), Coca-Cola Road, Mikocheni B Light Industrial Area, P.O. Box 6226, Dar-es-Salaam, Plot 22, Tanzania)

Abstract

Inclusive land restoration is increasingly considered to be a critical sustainable pathway to the achievement of sustainable development goals (SDGs) in developing countries. The literature suggests that good governance practices support successful sustainable natural resource management. The study assesses the role of landscape governance in a long-term thriving forest and landscape restoration project in Shinyanga. We apply the good governance principles, which include participation, representation and legitimacy, actor interactors, equity and fairness, accountability and transparency, and respect for local knowledge. Descriptive methods are used to analyze the data collected through focus group discussions and key informant interviews. The evidence suggests that all of the principles contributed positively to the successful restoration, except for accountability and transparency. Building on local knowledge and institutions, the local rules and norms of restoration constituted the foundation of the success. Equity and empowerment were the least influential attributes due to the exclusion of women in the management of the restoration areas. The actors identified the enhancement of the incentives, equitable benefit-sharing mechanisms, performance, and accountability instruments as the key governance aspects that would benefit land restoration at the landscape level. Furthermore, cohesion and synergies amongst the different actors, the governing structures, and recognizing formal and informal institutions’ interactions are vital determinants of restoration outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Judith Nzyoka & Peter A. Minang & Priscilla Wainaina & Lalisa Duguma & Lucas Manda & Emmanuel Temu, 2021. "Landscape Governance and Sustainable Land Restoration: Evidence from Shinyanga, Tanzania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(14), pages 1-24, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:14:p:7730-:d:592208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/14/7730/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/14/7730/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Selman, 2004. "Community participation in the planning and management of cultural landscapes," Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 47(3), pages 365-392.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Eda Ustaoglu & Brendan Williams, 2022. "Institutional Settings and Effects on Agricultural Land Conversion: A Global and Spatial Analysis of European Regions," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(1), pages 1-35, December.
    2. Marcellus Forh Mbah & Linda A. East, 2022. "How Can “Community Voices” from Qualitative Research Illuminate Our Understanding of the Implementation of the SDGs? A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(4), pages 1-15, February.
    3. Salla Eilola & Lalisa Duguma & Niina Käyhkö & Peter A. Minang, 2021. "Coalitions for Landscape Resilience: Institutional Dynamics behind Community-Based Rangeland Management System in North-Western Tanzania," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-23, October.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Mengting Liu & Yueqing Ji, 2020. "Determinants of Agricultural Infrastructure Construction in China: Based on the “Participation of Beneficiary Groups” Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-14, January.
    2. GEVAERT, Anouk & KUPERS, Stefan Jonathan & HEIJMAN, Wim, 2014. "Participatory Landscape Planning: The Case Of The “Westvaardersplassen” In The Netherlands," Review of Agricultural and Applied Economics (RAAE), Faculty of Economics and Management, Slovak Agricultural University in Nitra, vol. 17(2), pages 1-11, November.
    3. Luis Miguel Moctezuma Teresa & José Luis Aparicio López & Columba Rodríguez Alviso & Herlinda Gervacio Jiménez & Rosa María Brito Carmona, 2022. "Environmental Competencies for Sustainability: A Training Experience with High School Teachers in a Rural Community," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(9), pages 1-17, April.
    4. Hongtao Jia & Lei Zhu & Jing Du, 2022. "Fuzzy Comprehensive Evaluation Model of the Farmers’ Sense of Gain in the Provision of Rural Infrastructures: The Case of Tourism-Oriented Rural Areas of China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-18, May.
    5. Donghyun Kim & Up Lim, 2016. "Urban Resilience in Climate Change Adaptation: A Conceptual Framework," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-17, April.
    6. Antonio Santoro & Martina Venturi & Mauro Agnoletti, 2021. "Landscape Perception and Public Participation for the Conservation and Valorization of Cultural Landscapes: The Case of the Cinque Terre and Porto Venere UNESCO Site," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-24, January.
    7. Nienaber, Birte, 2018. "Partizipation in Großschutzgebieten: Untersucht am Beispiel der Beteiligung an den Workshops zur Erstellung des Rahmenkonzeptes des Biosphärenreservates Bliesgau 2014," Arbeitsberichte der ARL: Aufsätze, in: Weber, Florian & Weber, Friedericke & Jenal, Corinna (ed.), Wohin des Weges? Regionalentwicklung in Grossschutzgebieten, volume 21, pages 192-205, ARL – Akademie für Raumentwicklung in der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft.
    8. Mercer, Nicholas & Sabau, Gabriela & Klinke, Andreas, 2017. "“Wind energy is not an issue for government”: Barriers to wind energy development in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C), pages 673-683.
    9. Christian Albert & Christina Von Haaren & Juan Carlos Vargas-Moreno & Carl Steinitz, 2015. "Teaching Scenario-Based Planning for Sustainable Landscape Development: An Evaluation of Learning Effects in the Cagliari Studio Workshop," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-21, May.
    10. Haiyun Xu & Tobias Plieninger & Guohan Zhao & Jørgen Primdahl, 2019. "What Difference Does Public Participation Make? An Alternative Futures Assessment Based on the Development Preferences for Cultural Landscape Corridor Planning in the Silk Roads Area, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(22), pages 1-24, November.
    11. Hiroaki Saito, 2017. "The Role of Intermediaries in Community Capacity Building: Pro-Poor Tourism Perspective," Academica Turistica - Tourism and Innovation Journal, University of Primorska Press, vol. 10(1), pages 1-3.17.
    12. Jiazhen Zhang & Jeremy Cenci & Vincent Becue & Sesil Koutra & Chenyang Liao, 2022. "Stewardship of Industrial Heritage Protection in Typical Western European and Chinese Regions: Values and Dilemmas," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-16, May.
    13. Morgan, Edward A. & Osborne, Natalie & Mackey, Brendan, 2022. "Evaluating planning without plans: Principles, criteria and indicators for effective forest landscape approaches," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    14. Peter J. Ellery & Jane Ellery, 2019. "Strengthening Community Sense of Place through Placemaking," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(2), pages 237-248.
    15. Frantál, Bohumil & Van der Horst, Dan & Martinát, Stanislav & Schmitz, Serge & Teschner, Na´ama & Silva, Luis & Golobic, Mojca & Roth, Michael, 2018. "Spatial targeting, synergies and scale: Exploring the criteria of smart practices for siting renewable energy projects," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C), pages 85-93.
    16. Yirga Ayele, Bosena & Megento, Tebarek Lika & Habetemariam, Kumelachew Yeshitela, 2021. "‘‘Governance of green infrastructure planning in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia’’," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    17. Maria Rosa Trovato & Salvatore Giuffrida & Giuseppe Collesano & Ludovica Nasca & Filippo Gagliano, 2023. "People, Property and Territory: Valuation Perspectives and Economic Prospects for the Trazzera Regional Property Reuse in Sicily," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-38, March.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:14:p:7730-:d:592208. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.