Effects of Land Certification for Rural Farm Households in Ethiopia: Evidence from Gozamin District, Ethiopia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript examines the effect of land certification on tenure security, land investment, crop productivity, and land dispute in Gozamin District, Ethiopia. It also investigate the impact of land certification on farm households’ perceptions and confidence in land tenure and land use rights. The main contribution of the manuscript is to provide evidence how and what extent land certification processes increase land tenure security of farm households by synthesizing both quantitative and qualitative analysis.

This work has an appropriate scientific level and I would judge its study objective to be appropriate and in line with the title and subject of the publication. Therefore, I recommend that this paper be accepted after major revision.

• Introduction

I am not entirely clear from a problem definition and research objective that authors have argued and described (line 102-105):

“In general, there is a lack of knowledge about the effects of land certification on tenure security, on land investment, and on land disputes in the Gozamin district. The key objective of this study is to fill this knowledge gap by investigating the effects of rural land certification on farm households in the Ethiopian Gozamin district.”

Authors have argued significance of land reform, land tenure, tenure security, land titling, land administration, land distribution, and land certification in a very general manner. The problem with these arguments is that there is not enough evidence to actually prove and logically support author’s problem definition and the research objective as well as in the context of Ethiopian experiences. A current form of Introduction does not seem to be structurally logical to deliver a clear introduction for the readers. Therefore, I recommend authors to be more focusing on the effects of land certification on tenure security, land investment and land disputes in a given context and make rigorous and supportive arguments.

• Materials and Methods

Authors have purposively selected the case study area here with some reasons on four bullet points (line 114-118). However, it should be clearly explained the reasons in a readable text that legitimize your selection of the study area for the readers. For example, a question has been raised with ‘local knowledge of authors (line 118)’ that likely to be potentially biased for me. For example, how did you deal with the personal bias? How can you still argue that the results are ‘objective’? Therefore, your selection criteria should be supported by enough and detailed discussions.

• Data collection (from line 156)

In Table 2 (line 171), the participants were asked whether they agree (yes) or disagree (no) using binary scales that assume only one of two possible values. However, for the attitude questions in measuring people’s perceptions, a Likert scale also can be used whether respondents are agree or disagree and include more nuanced views. In this regard, I may assume that authors purposefully restricted or imposed respondents’ answers and expression in the questionnaire. If possible, I thus recommend authors to clarify why authors have chosen different scales to measure different variables.    

• Results (from line 224)

Essentially you present an empirical results based on responses to a survey and you evaluate the responses with inferential statistics. In my opinion, this should be much more straightforward in the sense that the paper should state which variables are tested and how since there is no null hypothesis defined in the previous section. After that the test results should be explained in a discussion section.

• Discussion (from line 382 to 666)

The purpose of the discussion section is to explain the results and show how they help to answer your research questions posed in the introduction. However, the discussion section is too lengthy (approximately 4,400 words) and due to a lack of organization, I couldn’t grasp what authors have found, demonstrated and argued in the manuscript. Should significantly shorten the number of words in the discussion section and make sound logical arguments to back the results up.

 

Thanks for your bold attempt and look forward to reading your publication soon.

Best regards,

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

We would like to express our sincere thanks to the editor and reviewers for the valuable comments/suggestions. Our point-by-point responses are given below in red colour.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript examines the effect of land certification on tenure security, land investment, crop productivity, and land dispute in Gozamin District, Ethiopia. It also investigates the impact of land certification on farm households’ perceptions and confidence in land tenure and land use rights. The main contribution of the manuscript is to provide evidence how and what extent land certification processes increase land tenure security of farm households by synthesizing both quantitative and qualitative analysis.

This work has an appropriate scientific level and I would judge its study objective to be appropriate and in line with the title and subject of the publication.

Thank you for your comments.

Point 1: Introduction

I am not entirely clear from a problem definition and research objective that authors have argued and described (line 102-105):

“In general, there is a lack of knowledge about the effects of land certification on tenure security, on land investment, and on land disputes in the Gozamin district. The key objective of this study is to fill this knowledge gap by investigating the effects of rural land certification on farm households in the Ethiopian Gozamin district.”

Authors have argued significance of land reform, land tenure, tenure security, land titling, land administration, land distribution, and land certification in a very general manner. The problem with these arguments is that there is not enough evidence to actually prove and logically support author’s problem definition and the research objective as well as in the context of Ethiopian experiences. A current form of Introduction does not seem to be structurally logical to deliver a clear introduction for the readers. Therefore, I recommend authors to be more focusing on the effects of land certification on tenure security, land investment and land disputes in a given context and make rigorous and supportive arguments.

Response 1: Thank you for your comments. We are aware that the introduction of this paper has to consider effects of land certification for the readers. We tried to highlight this issue by referencing to literature on the effect of land certification on tenure security, land investment and land dispute. From Lines 44-46: Various studies have shown that land certification improves sense of tenure security, land right, reduce land disputes and enhances land investment [see citations 10, 11, 20-23, 12-19]. Moreover, others indicated that land registration is believed to improve agricultural production efficiency, on farm investment, land conservation [see citations 31,32]. In addition to, see lines 59-63; lines 67-69; lines 89-91. All of these have shown that the impact of land certification on tenure security, crop productivity, land dispute and land management in a given context are evidences supported by the arguments. We believe that the introduction in the current version is structured and reviewed in accordance with the definition and objectives of the problem. We hope for your understanding.

Point 2: Materials and Methods

Authors have purposively selected the case study area here with some reasons on four bullet points (line 114-118). However, it should be clearly explained the reasons in a readable text that legitimize your selection of the study area for the readers. For example, a question has been raised with ‘local knowledge of authors (line 118)’ that likely to be potentially biased for me. For example, how did you deal with the personal bias? How can you still argue that the results are ‘objective’? Therefore, your selection criteria should be supported by enough and detailed discussions.

Response 2: Thanks for your suggestion. We discussed the selection criteria to be brief for readers. (see lines 114-120). Reasons for the purposeful selection of the study area on the basis of the following criteria: Because the study is focuses on land certification;

 

1. The existence of second level land certification documents for farm households (in Gozamin district, all farm households received the document of completion of second level land certification).
2. The first pilot for second level land certification.
3. A variety of agro-climatic zones.
4. Local knowledge of authors for the study site. It is very important to know the study sites area, culture, language etc. because it is easy to communicate with the respondents.

We have ensured for your question that there is no bias. In order to administer the questionnaire, we hired data collectors (as documented in the publication) and collected quality data with careful investigation. Therefore, the results are completely objective and free of any bias.

Point 3: Data collection (from line 156)

In Table 2 (line 171), the participants were asked whether they agree (yes) or disagree (no) using binary scales that assume only one of two possible values. However, for the attitude questions in measuring people’s perceptions, a Likert scale also can be used whether respondents are agree or disagree and include more nuanced views. In this regard, I may assume that authors purposefully restricted or imposed respondents’ answers and expression in the questionnaire. If possible, I thus recommend authors to clarify why authors have chosen different scales to measure different variables.    

Response 3: Thank you for your feedback. We also discussed the variables of the potential values of variables when preparing the questionnaire. Finally, we decided the use of binary values as we applied the logit model for our analysis. This model requires only binary values. However, for explanatory variables we used also continuous and other discrete values.

Point 4: Results (from line 224)

Essentially you present an empirical result based on responses to a survey and you evaluate the responses with inferential statistics. In my opinion, this should be much more straightforward in the sense that the paper should state which variables are tested and how since there is no null hypothesis defined in the previous section. After that the test results should be explained in a discussion section.

Response 4: Thank you for your suggestion. When preparing the article we discussed this issue, but we decided not to formulate hypothesis for each variable because already accepted alternative hypothesis.

Point 5: Discussion (from line 382 to 666)

The purpose of the discussion section is to explain the results and show how they help to answer your research questions posed in the introduction. However, the discussion section is too lengthy (approximately 4,400 words) and due to a lack of organization, I couldn’t grasp what authors have found, demonstrated and argued in the manuscript. Should significantly shorten the number of words in the discussion section and make sound logical arguments to back the results up.

Response 5: Thanks for your comment. Why the discussion section is too long because many variables have been identified as influencing factors for tenure security and land investment (terracing and manure use). It is therefore important to discuss each explanatory influenced by illustrating with different studies carried out in Ethiopia and beyond. Being aware about the length of the discussion part, we structured for better understanding the chapters “results” and “discussion” in a similar way.

 

Once again thank you for your comments. We hope that with our argumentations we were able to allay your concerns.  

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

It is a very interesting manuscript, demonstrating the effects of land certification on the development potential of  a rural area.

The methodology is very well described and the results are the expected but very well deocumented and useful for policy implementation. 

Some minor remarks

LInes 277-284. It is not clear what exactly was estimated in this case.

Lines 431-437. It would be interesting to know whether there is a tradition of communal grazing in the area. If there is, how is/was it regulated?

Lines 506 - 511 Please consider rephrasing. It seems somehow contradicting:  Size affects negatively the perception of tenure security and at the same time if size increases the fear of redistribution is reduced.

Lines 528 - 532. Why expectations for higher and sustainable income reduce the fear of redistribution?

Lines 565- 576. Maybe the role of farm size is prominent in explaining different perception. 

Lines 608-610. I fail to understand the meaning of the phrase.

LInes 614-616. Consider rephrasing. What is meant by "one unit of training"?

LInes 620-621. Consider rephrasing . Not clear to the reader

Lines 693-694. Consider rephrasing.

And a general comment.

It would be interesting to examine whether the criteria used for land allotment and land titles had any effect. If the criteria have been disputed then any land consolidation plans could be perceived negatively by farmers having secuted land. 

 Congratulations to the authors.

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Thank you, dear editor and reviewer, for your valuable comments/suggestions to enrich the paper. We tried to address all issues to improve the paper. Replies to each review comment are given below in red colour.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

It is a very interesting manuscript, demonstrating the effects of land certification on the development potential of a rural area.

Thanks for your comments.

The methodology is very well described, and the results are the expected but very well documented and useful for policy implementation. 

Thank you again for this interesting feedback.

Some minor remarks:

Point 1: Lines 277-284. It is not clear what exactly was estimated in this case.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We rephrased the description for clarification.

Point 2: Lines 431-437. It would be interesting to know whether there is a tradition of communal grazing in the area. If there is, how is/was it regulated?

Response 2: In the area, the tradition of communal grazing land is well protected by farm households that reside around the area and the kebele administrators. The communal land is not used for any purpose except for the grazing of cattle. Unfortunately, however, at this time, due to the increasing population of the area, communal land has been redistributed for farmland purposes to land less youths, women and people with disabilities. The redistribution would therefore harm the grazing land and create a problem for the cattle.

For clarification, we added the information about the regulation of communal land (see Line 440-441)

Point 3: Lines 506 - 511 Please consider rephrasing. It seems somehow contradicting:  Size affects negatively the perception of tenure security and at the same time if size increases the fear of redistribution is reduced.

Response 3: Thank you for your critical comment and your suggestion has been rephrased and corrected accordingly. (see Lines 510-516).

Point 4: Lines 528 - 532. Why expectations for higher and sustainable income reduce the fear of redistribution?

Response 4: Thanks for your valuable comment. We rephrased the sentence for clarification. (see Lines 534-535)

Point 5: Lines 565- 576. Maybe the role of farm size is prominent in explaining different perception. 

Response 5: Of course, the size of the farm area has an important factor in the difference in the perception of young and old aged farmers of land management activities. Our study highlights that elderly farmers have relatively large-sized farm and also have better experience, knowledge and attitudes towards land management than younger counterparts.

Point 6: Lines 608-610. I fail to understand the meaning of the phrase.

Response 6: Thanks for your comment and rephrased accordingly. (see Lines 610-614).

Point 7: Lines 614-616. Consider rephrasing. What is meant by "one unit of training"?

Response 7: Thanks for your comment. We rephrased correctly and deleting one unit of training and adding frequency of getting training by one day. (see Lines 617-621)

Point 8: Lines 620-621. Consider rephrasing. Not clear to the reader

Response 8: Thank you. We rephrased it accordingly. (see Lines 622-626)

Point 9: Lines 693-694. Consider rephrasing.

Response 9: Thanks for your comment. Rephrasing was done for clarification. (see Lines 699-701)

And a general comment. It would be interesting to examine whether the criteria used for land allotment and land titles had any effect. If the criteria have been disputed, then any land consolidation plans could be perceived negatively by farmers having secured land. 

Thank you for your suggestion. We previously studied the willingness of farm households towards land consolidation and the result showed that positive perception to consolidated lands (see: Gedefaw, AA; Atzberger, C; Seher, W; Mansberger, R. Farmers Willingness to Participate In Voluntary Land Consolidation in Gozamin District, Ethiopia. LAND-BASEL. 2019; 8(10), 148.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall Recommendation: Accept in present form.