Practitioners’ Perspectives on Land Resource Conflicts and Resolution in Tanzania
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Land resource conflicts (LRCs) have been pervasive in many communities in Tanzania due to inadequate LRCs resolution mechanisms. This study explores the nature of LRCs in Tanzania in an attempt to devise the spectrum of potential LRCs resolution mechanisms. Focus group discussions in a total of eight workshops and two public meetings and subsequent interpretative analysis provided the main tools for collecting and analyzing the data respectively. The findings suggest that since many conflicts emanate from agricultural or pastoral land intersection with either adjacent farmland or conservation areas, these spatial units need to be delineated with proper community participation. Attempts to exclude one resource user from the other have often turned futile due to corruption and detection inability within government authorities. This provides a clear indication of miss-specified government interventions that defy social adaptability and cohesion as core pillars of any conflict resolutions strategy. The fact that local communities argue for reducing conservation areas in favour of expanded agriculture and/or grazing land while authorities are unwavering, strengthen the misspecification argument. There is, however, no recipe for LRCs resolution in Tanzania; the cost and benefit of the different approaches need to be evaluated before adopting any. Keywords: Land resource conflicts, land resources, conflict resolution, land use planning, conflict theories, Tanzania ---------------------------------------------------- Points de vue des praticiens sur les conflits liés à la terre et à leur résolution en Tanzanie Résumé Les conflits relatifs aux ressources liés à la terre (CRT) ont été généralisés dans de nombreuses communautés en Tanzanie en raison de mécanismes de résolution inadéquats des CRT. Cette étude explore la nature des CRT en Tanzanie dans le but de concevoir le spectre de mécanismes potentiels de résolution des CRT. Des discussions de groupe au cours de huit ateliers et deux réunions publiques, suivies d’une analyse interprétative, ont fourni respectivement les principaux outils de collecte et d’analyse des données. Les résultats suggèrent que, puisque de nombreux conflits résultent de l'intersection de terres agricoles ou pastorales avec des terres agricoles adjacentes ou des zones de conservation, ces unités spatiales doivent être délimitées avec une participation communautaire adéquate. Les tentatives visant à exclure un utilisateur de ressource de l'autre ont souvent été futiles du fait de la corruption et de l'incapacité de détection des autorités gouvernementales. Cela fournit une indication claire des interventions gouvernementales mal spécifiées qui défient l'adaptabilité sociale et la cohésion en tant que piliers essentiels de toute stratégie de résolution de conflit. Le fait que les communautés locales plaident pour une réduction des zones de conservation au profit d'une agriculture élargie et / ou de pâturages alors que les autorités sont inébranlables renforce l'argument d'une erreur de spécification. Il n’existe cependant pas de recette pour résoudre les CRT en Tanzanie; le coût et les avantages des différentes approches doivent être évalués avant d’en adopter une. Mots-clés: conflits relatifs à la terre, ressources en terrains, résolution des conflits, planification de l'utilisation des terres, théories des conflits, Tanzanie
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.023 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".