MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2949409663

Practitioners’ Perspectives on Land Resource Conflicts and Resolution in Tanzania

2019· article· en· W2949409663 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Samwel Alananga

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of rural and community development · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTanzaniaConflict resolutionGeographyGovernment (linguistics)Political scienceResource (disambiguation)Environmental planningEnvironmental resource managementEconomicsLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 lies a la terre et a leur resolution en Tanzanie Resume Les conflits relatifs aux ressources lies a la terre (CRT) ont ete generalises dans de nombreuses communautes en Tanzanie en raison de mecanismes de resolution inadequats des CRT. Cette etude explore la nature des CRT en Tanzanie dans le but de concevoir le spectre de mecanismes potentiels de resolution des CRT. Des discussions de groupe au cours de huit ateliers et deux reunions publiques, suivies d’une analyse interpretative, ont fourni respectivement les principaux outils de collecte et d’analyse des donnees. Les resultats suggerent que, puisque de nombreux conflits resultent de l'intersection de terres agricoles ou pastorales avec des terres agricoles adjacentes ou des zones de conservation, ces unites spatiales doivent etre delimitees avec une participation communautaire adequate. Les tentatives visant a exclure un utilisateur de ressource de l'autre ont souvent ete futiles du fait de la corruption et de l'incapacite de detection des autorites gouvernementales. Cela fournit une indication claire des interventions gouvernementales mal specifiees qui defient l'adaptabilite sociale et la cohesion en tant que piliers essentiels de toute strategie de resolution de conflit. Le fait que les communautes locales plaident pour une reduction des zones de conservation au profit d'une agriculture elargie et / ou de pâturages alors que les autorites sont inebranlables renforce l'argument d'une erreur de specification. Il n’existe cependant pas de recette pour resoudre les CRT en Tanzanie; le cout et les avantages des differentes approches doivent etre evalues avant d’en adopter une. Mots-cles: conflits relatifs a la terre, ressources en terrains, resolution des conflits, planification de l'utilisation des terres, theories 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.054
Threshold uncertainty score0.182

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.218
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of rural and community developmentSame topicRangeland Management and Livestock EcologyFrench-language works237,207