Bridging Policy and Practice ; Advancing Justice in Community Land Use Planning in Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Context and background Community land rights in Kenya have endured historical and contemporary pressures since the colonial period. The imposition of English statutory tenure systems alongside African customary tenure established a dualistic framework that entrenched inequities and weakened indigenous land governance structures. The marginalization of customary law and practices has resulted in tenure insecurity, fragmented governance, and inadequate community participation in land use planning. This scenario presents both a governance challenge and a manifestation of historical injustice. Goal and Objectives: This paper critically examines the implementation of land use planning frameworks in Kenya, focusing specifically on community land. The objectives are to assess the impact of fragmented statutory planning authority on the autonomy of community institutions, and to explore avenues through which robust, community-led land use planning can advance equity, sustainability, and reparative justice. Methodology: A qualitative approach is adopted, utilizing legal and policy analysis of Kenya’s Constitution, the Community Land Act (2016), the Physical and Land Use Planning Act (2019), and related institutional frameworks. The analytical framework is guided by the principles of equity, sustainability, and tenure security.
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 | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.041 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".