Journal Research in Peace, Gender and Development (JRPGD) Vol. 3(4) pp. 58-67, June, 2013
Available online http://www.interesjournals.org/ JRPGD
Copyright © 2013 International Research Journals
Full Length Research Paper
Determinants of land use conflicts among
farmers in southwestern Nigeria
Alawode OO
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Ibadan, Nigeria
E-mail: busolaferanmi@gmail.com
Abstract
This study assessed the frequency and the levels of land use conflicts experienced by households on
different plots owned. It also examined the determinants of land use conflicts levels in Southwestern
Nigeria where agricultural land use conflicts have been reported in the past. A multi-stage sampling
procedure was used to select 300 farm households. The first stage was the selection of three states in
Southwestern Nigeria; Oyo, Osun and Ondo where land use conflicts had been reported. The second
stage was the selection of ten villages from two local governments in each state using purposive
sampling (based on experience of land use conflicts). The third stage was the purposive selection of
ten households who have experienced land use conflicts in each of the ten villages. Both primary and
secondary data were used. Primary data were collected using a pre-tested structured questionnaire and
key informant interview. Data collected were analyzed using descriptive statistics and Multinomial Logit
Model. The results show that households experienced conflict at one time or the other on 80.6% of the
total population of plots and there were more conflicts on plots during the period of years 2000 – 2010
(72.9%) than 1990 – 1999 (27.1%) showing an increase in the frequency of conflicts in recent years. The
higher incidence of conflicts during the year 2000 – 2010 was attributed to the emergence of democratic
governance that encouraged farmers to openly express their grievances. Three levels of land use
conflicts were identified in the study area; farmers had plots on which there had been no experience of
conflict (19.4%), past resolved conflict (61.8%), or worried about future conflict (18.8%). Land use
conflict in the area is determined by the age of farmer, income from other sources, number of plots
owned by farmer, size of plots owned by farmer and plot size, distance of each plot to farmer’s home
stead, value of food output on each plot, and length of years of acquisition of plots. Knowing that land
use conflicts disrupt agricultural production, elderly farmers with many years of experience in
resolution of land use conflicts should be brought together to enhance their capacity in resolving land
use conflicts among farmers in their villages. Also, farmers should be educated on the need to prevent
land use conflicts, to enhance production capabilities of the households.
Keywords: Land use, conflicts, determinants, southwestern Nigeria.
INTRODUCTION
Land resources are very important to man as they
provide people with living space, raw materials for
obtaining satisfaction for material needs and constitute
man’s physical environment. Man depends on land for
sustenance; food, clothing and shelter; housing, and
manufactured goods, building sites, and recreation
opportunities. Land is not only crucial for rural people
who have their livelihood based in agriculture, but also a
basis of wealth and power. Thus there is potential conflict
where people do not have adequate access to productive
land resources.
Income accrues from the use of land. Land use refers
to both the use to which the land can be put depending
on the purpose and nature of the land; classification
methodology and land cover according to defined
classification systems (Daudeline, 2002).
Decisions
about land use involve a mix of natural resources, land
ownership,
political,
economic,
and
cultural
considerations. However, the use to which land is put
depends on who owns or controls the land and on the
pressures and incentives shaping the behavior of the
owner.
Land use can be classified into: urban land, agricultural
land, engineering uses, recreational uses, industrial uses
Alawode 59
and transportation uses (Leif, 2007). The presence of
infrastructural facilities and accessible routes play a great
role in influencing land use. However, Land in rural areas
of Nigeria is mainly for agricultural production as the rural
people depend mainly on agriculture as the source of
their needs. According to USDA (2007), agricultural land
use for food production is influenced by other land uses,
including forest, residential, commercial, industrial,
recreational, and open space. The interaction among
these sometimes incompatible uses can lead to social
conflict. Also, land use conflict can occur when the same
land can support different uses and those with interest in
the land disagree as to which use is the best.
Land use conflict can occur when there is
disagreement or dispute as to the use of land and/or
feelings that a person’s rights or well-being or the rights
of the environment are being threatened by an action or
undertaking of another or the inaction of another
(Quadros, 1991). Land use conflict can also result when
a land use is incompatible with the views, expectations
and values of the people living and working in an area.
These values include: the intrinsic value of the
environment; maintenance of water quality; protection of
wildlife and native vegetation; the right to use and enjoy
land; personal and community health; recognition and
protection of indigenous and non-indigenous cultural
heritage.
Land is increasingly becoming a major source of
conflicts in Sub-Saharan Africa, where land access had
traditionally been characterized as relatively egalitarian
(Yamano and Deininger, 2005). It has been shown that
local land conflicts can erupt into large-scale civil strife
and political movements (Fred-mensah, 1991; Andre and
Platteau, 1998; Idowu, 2001; Daudelin, 2002). Some
underlying factors, such as population pressure,
agricultural commercialization, and urbanization, have
contributed to the increasing number of land conflicts
(Van Donge, 1991; Cotula et al., 2004). Due to increases
in population, the scrambling for land resources to meet
human needs creates conflicts among competing user
groups, and often results in adverse impacts both to the
land and to its living and non-living resources.
Further, land degradation due to desertification, soil
erosion and deforestation is accelerating at an
unprecedented rate, leading to loss of productivity,
increased poverty, and subsequently, conflicts on
available land (USAID, 2007). In Nigeria, desert
encroachment on land mass in the north may produce
large-scale migration, which could create ethnic conflicts
as migratory group clashes with the indigenous (settled)
population over land use. For example, Idowu (2001)
noted land use conflicts between crop and livestock
producers in the Guinea Savannah Zone of Nigeria. The
pastoralists, in an attempt to find green pasture for their
livestock, pass through crop farms and their animals
graze on the crops.
Statement of the Research Problem
Three-quarters of the world’s poor and hungry are
located in rural areas (USAID, 2005). These people
depend directly and indirectly on agriculture and
agriculture-related activities for their food and income. As
population increases, access to land resources dwindles
for these rural dwellers. However, with rapid population
increase and a finite land area, available land per
individual shrinks continuously.
Resource based
conflicts, especially over rights of access to land and land
use, are therefore increasing in frequency and intensity
(Yamano and Deininger, 2005).
Land conflicts cause serious dislocations; suspend or
destroy income opportunities; create food insecurity;
damage the environment, and frequently result in the loss
of lives and properties. Poor households bear the
heaviest burdens of land-related conflicts for the simple
reason that their daily needs and livelihoods are directly
tied to their property rights, that is, the use of land
(Kelsey and Abdalla, 1997).
The escalating resource needs in terms of land due to
increases in population has become a threat to food
availability as the scrambling for use of land resources
generates conflicts. Although conflicts are inherent to
relations within and between societies (Baranyi and
Weitzner, 2006), there is increasing concern about the
escalation of conflict over access, use, security, and
control of land resources into violent disputes, especially
armed violence that may lead to open warfare. Baranyi
and Weitzner (2006) explained further that multiple and
extremely
complex
land-related
conflicts
affect
indigenous peoples, particularly when their identity and
survival is inextricably related to their relationship with
their ancestral territories.
Land use conflicts can result in a variety of undesirable
social, economic, environmental and cultural impacts
ranging from minor to significant, short term to long term,
and micro to macro in scale (Leif, 2007). These impacts
can include negative effects on individuals as a
consequence of stress and anxiety; breakdown in
communities; additional demands on government
services; increased and costly demands on rural
industries, degradation of the local environment, which
can have flow-on effects for communities and
businesses; and loss of culture and identity within
communities.
In situations where there is protracted land use conflict,
access to land for agricultural production is reduced
thereby leading to shortage in production and availability
of food. Also, where there is escalation of land use
conflicts into armed conflicts or open warfare, women
become widowed and children become orphaned, and
many others displaced. People no longer have tenure
security and this badly affects production and availability
of food.
60 J. Res. Peace Gend. Dev.
It has been expressed in the literature by Yamano and
Deininger (2005) that farm households experience
conflicts at different levels on different plots of land;
households are either concerned about future conflicts,
have pending or currently undergoing land use conflicts,
have experienced conflicts in the past but resolved, or
have experienced no conflict at all. According to Yamano
and Deininger (2005), the level of conflict experienced by
farm households on a plot of land determines the level of
food production on that plot. The frequency and the level
of conflict will determine the level of food production of a
household and the community at large.
In the light of the foregoing, the emanating research
questions are:
i.
What is the frequency of land use conflicts in the
study area?
ii.
What are the levels of land use conflicts
experienced by households on different plots owned?
iii.
What factors affect land use conflict levels?
Objectives of the Study
The main objective of this study is to examine the
determinants of land use conflicts in the study area. The
specific objectives are to
i. assess the frequency of land use conflicts;
ii. analyze the levels of land use conflicts experienced by
households on different plots owned; and
iii. Examine the determinants of land use conflicts in the
study area.
The results of this study will enhance the understanding
of the frequency of land use conflicts and the factors that
determine the level of land use conflicts on plots owned
by households at the rural level.
Literature Review
Land is a fundamental factor of production in the
agricultural sector. It plays an essential role in increasing
as well as sustaining agricultural production. The extent
to which this role is performed is determined in part by
methods of land acquisition and arrangements for the
ownership and use of land. Rights in rural land can be
acquired or transferred through inheritance, gift,
purchase, loan, pledge and allocation (by family head,
local chief or any land custodian).
However, inheritance is the most important and
common way of acquiring interest in land in Nigeria. It
has been found in Ondo State of Southwestern Nigeria
that farmland is acquired mainly by inheritance among
the native farmers while acquisition is mainly by lease
among migrant farmers (Idowu and Alawode, 2007).
Despite the fact that inalienability of land through sales
and allocation to strangers is an important feature of the
customary tenure system, Idowu et al. (2007) found that
land transactions and markets have developed within the
customary tenure system which led to transfer of use
rights in long term leases (about 40 years), and
permanent transfer of use rights as in land sales.
In agrarian societies in general, and in African rural
communities in particular, sustainable use rights can be
held by farmer (Quadros, 1991). What appear to the
external observer as precarious rights may actually be
long-term entitlements in the specific context of these
societies (De Zeeuw, 1997). In customary land areas,
basic use rights seem to be sufficient to induce
landholders to invest. Based on these, transfer of land
rights both on permanent and temporary bases can
increase investment. The temporary rights transfers
provide a mechanism for landholders to dispose
(temporarily) of land they cannot utilize, and for
immigrants, the displaced or dispossessed to take up
farm production (Quan, 2000).
According to Upreti (2001), conflict is a state of
clashing or opposing interests. It occurs when two or
more people oppose one another because of differences
in their needs, wants, goals or values. Conflict is an
indicator of a changing society. Rapid changes due to
new technologies, commercialization of common property
resources, privatization of public services, growing
consumerism, and government policies, are all
contributing to emergence of conflict (Upreti, 2002).
Platteau (2000) explained that when land acquires a
scarcity value, landholders begin to feel uncertain about
the strength of their customary rights, and disputes over
ownership of land, inheritance and land boundaries tend
to multiply. Landholders tend to assert increasingly
individualized use rights to given plots as population
continues to rise, such as the right to resume cultivation
of a specific plot after a period of fallow; the right to
assign the plot to an heir or to a tenant; the right to
prevent secondary claimants (for example, the right of
pastoral herders to graze their animals on crop stubbles)
from exercising their traditional prerogatives; and the right
to dispose freely of the land. This increasing assertion of
individualized rights gives rise to numerous conflicts
which become more difficult to resolve and entail rising
costs.
Deininger and Castagini (2005) explained that conflicts
in many parts of the developing world can be traced to
disputes over land ownership and land use. Idowu (2002)
explained that conflicts arise among land resources users
due to lack of standards, inadequate legislation, and nonenforcement of legal (and customary) provisions where
they exist as well as ignorance and/or disregard for other
land users. Similarly, myopic planning of development
projects that utilize agricultural and grazing lands may
lead to conflicts among the major players in land
resources use. Also, in a survey carried out by Idowu
(2001), it was found that the root cause of all communal
conflicts surveyed can be traced to the problem of types
of access gained to productive opportunities in land and
Alawode 61
the control of such resources.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The study was carried out in Southwestern Nigeria which
is made up of six states: Oyo, Osun, Ondo, Ogun, Ekiti
and Lagos states. Southwestern Nigeria falls to the rain
forest region with high relative humidity and rainfall. The
study area covered three states; Osun, Oyo and Ondo
States where the majority of the inhabitants are
predominantly small holder farmers. Also, agricultural
land use conflicts have been reported in these areas.
Both primary and secondary data were collected for
this study. Primary data was generated from a cross
sectional data of three hundred farm households from
Oyo, Osun and Ondo States of Nigeria. The field survey
was carried out with a pre-tested structured questionnaire
of close and open-ended questions, and key informant
interview was conducted using open-ended questions
based on the objectives of the study. Information sought
included farmers’/land owners’ characteristics, and plot
characteristics, and conflict information on the plots
covered by the study.
The farmers’ characteristics obtained from the collected
data included age, income from other sources (non-farm
income), number of plots owned by the farmers, and size
of plots owned by the farmer. The plot characteristics
included plot sizes in hectares, trekking distance to the
plot from the homestead in km, output of food crops on
the plots, type of ownership of the plots, and year of
acquisition of plots in years. The population of all the
plots cultivated by the farm households was used for
analysis at plot level. From the pre-test, it was found that
farm households in the study area mostly cultivated two
or three plots. This suggested a population of plots
between six hundred and nine hundred.
Data was also collected on land use conflicts. Such
data included years of conflicts and levels of conflict. The
plot characteristics with their conflict information were
analyzed to assess the frequency and the levels of land
use conflicts; past resolved conflict, current conflict,
concerned about future conflicts or no conflict at all. In
addition to the three hundred households that were
covered by the survey, information was sought from key
informants such as town/village heads, farmers’ groups’
heads, and few highly respected individuals on frequency
of agricultural land use conflicts. This was done using
interview guide with open-ended questions. Secondary
information was sought from the Local Governments
concerned with the study which helped to locate the
villages.
Data Sources and Sampling Procedure
A multi-stage sampling technique was used. From the
three states, the areas where conflicts had been reported
were identified. On this basis, two local governments
were identified in each state making a total of six local
governments. From each local government, five villages
with high population of farm households and where
conflicts had been reported were purposively chosen.
From each village, ten farm households were also
selected based on their involvement in land use conflicts.
The lists of farmers that were interviewed were obtained
from key informant farmers to make a hundred farm
households in each state. A total of three hundred farm
households that had experienced land use conflict on at
least one plot were interviewed altogether. From the
three hundred households, the population of plots used
for the analysis was obtained. The population of plots
equaled the total number of plots owned by the three
hundred households.
Also, two key informants from each village, making a
total of sixty respondents were interviewed using an
interview guide with open-ended questions to obtain
information about agricultural land use conflicts among
the people.
Analytical Techniques
The methods of analysis that were used included
descriptive statistics and Multinomial Logit Model. The
descriptive statistics used included grouped and
ungrouped frequency distribution tables and percentages,
the measures of central tendency; mean median and
mode, to describe the distribution of variables.
The assessment of the frequency of land use conflicts
in the study area was achieved through the use of
descriptive statistics.
The total population of plots
covered by the study equaled the addition of all the plots
owned by the three hundred households that were
interviewed. Data was taken on the starting years of land
use conflicts and the plots were grouped into four; 1990 –
1995, 1996 to 1999, 2000 – 2005, 2006 – 2010. The
number of plots in each group and their various
percentages was used in assessing the frequency of land
use conflicts in recent times.
Plots were divided into four groups for the purpose of
identifying the levels of conflict; past resolved conflict,
current conflict, concerned/worried about future conflict or
no conflict at all. To analyze the levels of land use
conflicts experienced by households on different plots
cultivated, descriptive statistics was used to process and
62 J. Res. Peace Gend. Dev.
analyze the information obtained from the key informants
and the responses of the other three hundred
respondents that were covered by the survey. The
multinomial logit model was used to estimate the factors
that determine levels of land use conflict.
Length of years of acquisition of plots.
The variables that were found to be significant in the
analysis determined the levels of land use conflict in the
study area.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Determinants of Agricultural Land Use Conflicts
The normal regression models that can be used in the
case of analysis of variables such as production or
consumption which is an interval variable, in which each
unit of measurement carries equal weight, are
inappropriate when modeling involves the use of
qualitative response for the dependent variable. When
there is a single decision among more than two
alternatives; the multinomial logit model is used. The
multinomial logit model is appropriate in this analysis
because of the multiple qualitative responses of the
dependent variable. The dependent variable is the level
of conflict on the plots covered by the study; whether the
plot owner never experienced conflict on that plot,
experienced conflicts that have been resolved,
anticipating conflict in the future or experiencing conflict
that have not been resolved at the time of this study.
The Multinomial Logit Model
Following the analysis of Yamano and Deininger (2005),
the experience of conflicts by the households on their
plots was categorized into four; concerned about future
conflicts, current conflicts, and resolved past conflicts or
no conflict at all.
The following was estimated using the Multinomial
Logit (MNL) model at the plot level. The model is
specified as:
Prob (ci) = f (Ti, Pi,),
Where Ci = 0 if there has been no conflict on the plot i
Ci = 1 if plot i had a conflict that has been resolved,
Ci = 2 if the household is worried about the future
conflicts over plots i,
Ci = 3 if the household i has current (on-going) conflicts
over plots i, and
Ti is a set of land Owner’s variables of plot i
Pi is a set of plot characteristics
Farmers’/Landowners’ characteristics include:
Age of farmer measured in years
Income of farmer from other sources in N
Number of plots owned by farmer
Plot characteristics include:
Plot size in hectares
Distance of each plot to farmer’s homestead in km
Food output on each plot (calculated in N); and
Assessment of the Frequency of Land Use Conflict in
Southwestern Nigeria
From the responses of the farmers on the starting years
of conflicts on their plots, it was found that the report of
conflicts on plots was between 1990 and 2010. The plots
were then grouped into four to determine the frequency of
land use conflicts in more recent years.
The starting years of conflicts on plots were obtained
from the respondents and presented in Table 1. From the
results, all the plots on which conflicts were recorded in
the area, started in recent years; 1990 to 2010 with more
conflicts on plots in 2000 – 2010 (72.9%) than 1991 –
2000 (27.1%). It could therefore be stated that there were
more land use conflicts in recent years.
Conflicts over plots were highest (40.0%) in 2000 –
2005 (40.0%). This was the period when democracy was
just beginning to thrive in Nigeria after the long years of
military rule and people, including farmers regained their
freedom of expression. Farmers, at this time could really
express their claim over their farm plots. They could also
make the Fulani herdsmen pay fines if their animals
destroy crops on the farm plots. This was followed by
32.9% in 2006 – 2010 which showed reduced percentage
of conflict on plots.
Analysis of levels of land use conflicts
From the analysis of the responses from the farmers, the
three levels of land use conflicts were identified in the
study area are presented in Table 2:
No conflict: Household has no conflict on the plot in the
past, no current conflict and not worried about future
conflicts.
Past resolved conflict: Household experienced conflict on
the plot in the past but has been resolved, whether
informally through the village elders, the farmers’ groups,
village heads, family heads or formally through the
police/courts.
Worried about future conflict: The plots of land in this
category was found to be those which had resolved
conflicts in the past but due to the condition that there
was no lasting peace on the plots after resolution,
households worried about future conflicts
Results show that households experienced conflicts on
61.8% of the plots in the past but the conflicts were
already resolved. On the other hand, 18.8% of the plots
on which resolved conflicts did not give the households
Alawode 63
Table 1.
Starting years of conflicts on plots
Starting year
1990 – 1995
1996 – 1999
2000 – 2005
2006 – 2010
Total
Osun
No
%
25
16.0
30
19.1
52
33.1
50
31.8
157 100.0
Oyo
No
20
22
102
42
186
Ondo
No
%
41
17.0
20
8.3
80
33.2
100
41.5
241 100.0
%
10.8
11.8
54.8
22.6
100.0
Overall
No
%
86
14.7
72
12.4
234
40.0
192
32.9
584 100.0
Source: Data analysis, 2011
Table 2. Levels of Land Use Conflict
Level of conflict
No conflict at all
Past resolved conflict
Worried about future conflict
Total
Osun
No
%
51
24.5
132
84.1
25
15.9
208 100.0
Oyo
No
29
145
41
215
%
13.5
78.0
22.0
100.0
Ondo
No
%
61
20.2
171
71.0
70
29.0
302 100.0
Overall
No
%
141
19.4
448
61.8
136
18.8
725
100.0
Source: Data analysis, 2011
lasting peace formed the category of plots on which
households worry about future conflicts.
There was no current conflict on plots in the area but
there were plots on which conflicts had just been settled.
This made the frequency of past resolved conflicts to be
very high, that is, 61.8% of the total plots.
Determinants of land Use Conflicts
Socio-economic factors determining levels of land
use conflict
The socio-economic factors affecting levels of land use
conflicts are presented in Table 3. The age distribution of
the farmers shows that age range of the farmers was
between 35 years and 70 years and the mean age was
55 years. The modal age group was 50 – 59 years which
made up 28.3% of the total number of respondents. This
could be so because many of the farmers on the farm
were older people who have been on the farm for many
years. This notwithstanding, the farmers who were
younger, between the ages of 35 years and 49 years
made up 34.4% of the total population of the
respondents. The farmers, who ranged between the ages
of 35 years and 59 years, 62.7%, represent the most
productive age range for farming when a lot of farming
experience would have been acquired by the farmers,
and at the same time, they are still energetic to meet the
rigours of farming as a business enterprise (Idowu,
2001).
The farmers who were 70 years could even cope with
farming due to many years of experience acquired in
farming. They made use of hired labour to complement
their own contributions to farm work. The older the
farmer, the higher the possibility of having a better control
over his plots which he has acquired for many years. This
could reduce the possibility of conflict on such plots.
Results on the distribution of income of farmers from
other sources show that it ranged from N10, 000 to N150,
000. Income accrues from other sources such as off-farm
occupation for the farmers who made farming a part time
business. The presence of part time farmers explained
the high off-farm income. Other farmers got off-farm
income from sources such as income from husbands for
female farmers, income from children for both male and
female farmers, as well as income from other relatives.
Farmers got income from these sources in addition to the
income from their farm activities.
A plot of land refers to the area of land planted to a
particular type of crop. Therefore, farmers’ plots may be
contiguous or non-contiguous. Farmers’ plots could be
located in the same place or in different locations. From
Table 3, the number of plots owned by the farmers
ranged from 1 to 4. From the results, 61% of the farmers
had 1 or 2 plots while 39% had 3 or 4 plots. Most of the
farmers, 46.3% had 2 plots. The average number of plots
per farmer was 2 and the median was also 2 plots. The
least percentage of farmers (17.3%) had 4 plots while the
highest percentage of farmers (46.3%) had 2 plots.
The number of locations of farmers’ plots could have
implications on the conflict status of the plots owned by
64 J. Res. Peace Gend. Dev.
Table 3. Socio-economic factors determining levels of land use conflict
Socio-economic factor
Age
35 – 39
40 – 49
50 – 59
60-69
70
Income of farmer from other sources (x N1,000)
10 – 49
50 – 99
100 – 150
Number of plots owned by the farmer
1
2
3
4
Size of plots owned by farmer
6.00 – 9.99
10.00 – 14.99
15.00 – 19.99
20.00 – 24.99
≥ 25.00
Frequency
percentage
Mean
Median
Mode
Min.
Max.
20
83
85
77
35
6.7
27.7
28.3
25.7
11.6
55
56
70
35
70
117
122
61
39.0
40.7
20.3
68,000
52,000
55,000
10,000
150,000
44
139
65
52
14.7
46.3
21.7
17.3
2
2
2
1
4
70
100
50
60
20
23.3
33.3
16.7
20.0
6.7
15.00
13.00
14.00
6.00
36.00
Source: Data analysis, 2011
farmers. When farmer’s plots are located distant to one
another or in many places, the farmer might not be able
to monitor his plots closely, especially when not all the
plots are put under cultivation. This could lead to conflict
on the farmland when others encroach on the land. Also,
the Fulani herdsmen could get their cattle herds on the
plots under cultivation, when there is no close monitoring
due to many locations of farm plots owned by the farmer.
The range of size of plots owned by farmers was 30ha
with minimum farm size of 6ha and maximum of 36ha.
The mean plot size was 15ha and mode was 14ha. The
larger the farm size of a farmer, the higher the probability
of conflict on plots, especially when the plots of land are
scattered in different locations that are far apart. Not only
this, large farm sizes whose boundaries are not well
demarcated could be a source of conflict with other
farmers who share boundaries. The smaller farm sizes
belonged to female farmers and part time farmers while
the larger sizes belonged to full time male farmers; 56.6%
of the farmers had between 6ha and less than 15ha.
Plot characteristics determining levels
The plot characteristics determining the levels of land use
conflicts are presented in Table 4. The total number of
plots equals 725 owned by the farmers.
Results show that farmers cover distances between
1km and 8km to get their plots from the homesteads.
Most mean distance from homestead to plots is 3.65km
while the mode is 1.75km, that is, the commonest
distance to plots is less than 2km. The nearer a plot is to
the homestead; the less likely it is that the plot would be
involved in land use conflict because farmers visit and
cultivate such plots more.
Value of food crop output in naira on each plot is
determined by multiplying food output by current market
prices (for different food items). The plots on which food
output were zero are those on which food crops were not
produced at all and this constitutes 12.6% of the plots.
The results show that farmers obtain a range of N700,
000 for value of food crops on the plots. The mean value
of food crop output is N295, 150 with mode of N500, 000.
The higher the value of crop output on a plot, the more
likely the possibility of land use conflicts due to the quality
of the plots.
The plots covered by this study were acquired between
1969 and 2005. The greater the number of years of
acquisition of a plot by migrant farmers, the lower the
possibility of conflict with landowners. On the other hand,
probability of conflict could increase in the cases where
migrant farmers could take over land from the owners
Alawode 65
Table 4. Plot characteristics determining levels of land use conflict
Distance of plot to homestead (km)
1–3
4–6
7–8
Value of food crop output on each plot (x N1,000)
0
≤ 100
101 – 200
201 – 300
301 – 400
401 – 500
501 – 600
601 – 700
Length of years of acquisition of plot
< 10
10 – 19
20 – 29
30 – 39
≥ 40
358
326
41
49.4
44.9
5.7
3.68
4.00
1.75
1
8
91
54
144
130
78
116
92
20
12.6
7.4
19.9
17.9
10.8
16.0
12.7
2.7
295.15
280
500
0
700
94
365
153
65
48
13.0
50.3
21.1
9.0
6.6
17
15
20
8
43
Source: Data Analysis, 2011
because of many years of cultivating the land.
The Multinomial Logit Model (MNL) to estimate the
factors that determine levels of land use conflict
The analysis here was carried out at plot level. The
model was specified as:
Prob (ci) =f (Ti, Pi,)
Where Ci = 0 if there has been no conflict on the plot i
Ci = 1 if plot i had a conflict that has been resolved,
Ci = 2 if the household is worried about the future
conflicts over plot i, and
Ti is a set of land Owner’s variables of plot i
Pi is a set of plot characteristics
The MNL was used to estimate the factors that
determine land use conflict. The estimation was carried
out at plot level with landowner’s characteristics and plot
characteristics. From the results, the log likelihood ratio
and the chi square value of degree of freedom 24 which
equaled 849.93 and a p-value of less than 0.001 showed
that the model has a good fit for the data. Estimates were
obtained for different levels of conflict in the study (level 1
– past resolved conflict and level 2 – worried about future
conflict).
The results in Table 4 showed the estimated
coefficients of the variables for different levels of conflict.
When level of conflict = 0, this was the base outcome
where the farmer never had any conflict experience on
plots and was not expecting any conflict on the plot.
When Level of conflict = 1 (past resolved conflict) and
Level of conflict = 2 (worried about future conflict), the
variables that were found to be significant (considering
the t-values) include:
•
Age of farmer in years: for every unit increase in
age, the log odds of conflict being resolved in the past
increases by 0.72 while the log odds of being worried
about future conflict increases by 0.49. The older the
farmer is, the greater the likelihood of having resolved
conflicts on plot and the greater the likelihood of being
worried about future conflicts on plots
•
Income of farmer from other sources in N: for
every unit increase in the income of farmer from other
sources, the log odds of having resolved conflict on plots
decreases by 0.000016 while the log odds of being
worried about future conflict increases by 0.000047.
Increase of N1 in income of farmer from other sources
will decrease the likelihood of having resolved conflict but
increases the likelihood being worried about future
conflicts on plots.
•
Number of plots owned by farmer: for every unit
increase in the number of plots owned by farmers, the log
odds of having resolved conflict decreases by 3.06 while
the log odds of being worried about future conflict
increases by 3.35
•
Size of plots of farmer in ha: for every unit
increase in the size of plot of the farmer, the log odds of
having resolved conflict increases by 0.57 while the log
odds of being worried about future conflict decreases by
0.58
66 J. Res. Peace Gend. Dev.
Table 5.
Results of Multinomial logistic regression to estimate the factors that determine land use conflict
Log likelihood
Land use conflict
0
1
Age
Income from other sources
No of plots owned
Size of plot
Distance to home
Food output
Plot acquisition year
ConsІ
2
Age
Income from other sources
No of plot owned
Size of plot
Distance to home
Food output
Plot acquisition
Cons
Level of land use conflict = 0
Level of land use conflict = 1
Level of land use conflict = 2
Coef.
l (base outcome)
l
.7173643
.0000159
-3.060482
.5689811
.2840783
-6.95e-06
.1620979
-20.59184
Number of obs=725
LR chi2 (24)=849.93
Prob> chi2=0.0000
Pseudo R2=0.6304
Std. Err.
.0895871
3.89e-06
.7134862
.1209556
.156562
1.11e-06
.0428926
2.814649
Z
8.01
-4.08
-4.29
4.70
1.81
-6.28
3.78
-7.32
.4919363
.0916634
5.37
.0000465
7.83e-06
5.94
3.348831
.6336276
5.29
-.5777607
.6336276
-6.47
1.082308
.3054014
3.54
-.0000166
2.61e-06
-6.38
-.0616433
.0542056
-1.14
-33.07188
5.3213
-6.22
No conflict experience and not worried about future conflict on plot
Past resolved conflict on plot
Owner worried about future conflict on plot.
Source: Data Analysis, 2011
•
Distance of each plot to homestead in km: the
distance of each plot to homestead was found not to be
significant on conflict being resolved while the log odds of
being worried about future conflict increases by 1.08. The
farther the plot from the homestead, the higher the
likelihood of being worried about future conflicts.
•
Value of food output on each plot: for every unit
increase in the food output of each plot, the log odds of
conflict being resolved decreases by 0.0000070 and the
log odds of being worried about future conflict decreases
by 0.000017.
•
Year of acquisition of plot: for every unit increase
in the year of acquisition of plot, the log odds of conflict
being resolved increases by 0.16 while it was not
significant on being worried about future conflict. The
longer the time of acquisition of plots, the greater the
likelihood that the plot has experienced conflict that has
been resolved in the past (Table 5).
CONCLUSION
Households experienced conflict at one time or the other
on 80.6% of the total population of plots and there were
more conflicts on plots during the period of years 2000 –
2010 (72.9%) than 1990 – 1999 (27.1%) showing an
increase in the frequency of conflicts in recent years.
The higher incidence of conflicts during the year 2000 –
2010 was attributed to the emergence of democratic
governance that encouraged farmers to openly express
their grievances.
Three levels of land use conflicts were identified in the
study area; farmers had plots on which there had been
no experience of conflict (19.4%), past resolved conflict
(61.8%), or worried about future conflict (18.8%).
Land use conflict in the area is determined by the age
of farmer measured in years, income of farmer from other
sources in N, number of plots owned by farmer, size of
plots owned by farmer and plot size in hectares, distance
of each plot to farmer’s homestead in km, value of food
output on each plot in N; and length of years of
acquisition of plots.
The likelihood of having resolved conflicts on plots
increases with age of the farmer, total size of plots owned
by farmer, and number of years of acquisition of plots
while it decreases with income of farmer from other
sources, number of plots owned by the farmer, and the
value of output obtained from plots.
On the other hand, the likelihood of households being
worried about future conflict increases with age of farmer,
income of farmer from other sources, and the distance of
each plot to homestead while it decreases with number of
Alawode 67
plots owned by farmer, total size of plots of farmer and
value of food output from the plot, and. The distance of
the plots from homestead had no significant effect on
land use conflict being resolved.
Knowing that land is crucial in agricultural production
and that land use conflicts disrupt agricultural production,
elderly farmers that have many years of experience in
land use and resolution of land use conflicts should be
brought together to enhance their capacity in resolving
land use conflicts among younger farmers in their
villages. Also, farmers should be educated on the need to
prevent land use conflicts to enhance production abilities
of households.
REFERENCES
Andre C, Pleateau JP (1998). “Land relations under unbearable stress:
Rwanda caught in the Malthusian trap, J. Econ. Behavior and Org.34
(1): 1-47.
Cotula L, Toulmin C, Hesse C (2004). Land Tenure and Administration
in Africa: Lessons of Experience and Emerging Issues, International
Institute for Environment and Development, London.
Daudeline J (2002). “Land as a source of conflict and in post-conflict
settlement,” World Bank Regional Workshop on Land Issues in Africa
and the Middle East, April 29-May 2, 2002, Kampala, Uganda.
University of Ibadan, Nigeria
De Zeeuw F (1997). Borrowing of land, security of tenure and
sustainable land use in Burkina Faso, Development and Change
28(3):583 – 589.
FGN (2007). “Legal Notice on Publication of the Breakdown of the
National and State Provisional Totals 2006 Census”, Official Gazette
No. 24, Lagos, Nigeria
Fred-Mensah BK (1991). “Capturing ambiguities: communal conflict
Management Alternative in Ghana, “World Development, 27(6): 951965
Idowu EO (2001): ‘Land use conflict between crop and livestock
producers in the Guinea Savannah Zone of Nigeria’ Nig. J. Animal
Prod. 29(2): 234-244.
Idowu EO, Alawode OO (2007). “Developing an Agricultural Land
Market under the Customary Tenure Systems in Nigeria”, Bowen J.
Agric. 4(2): 123 – 137.
Idowu EO, Alawode OO, Alimi T, Kassali R (2007). “Analysis of
Agricultural Land Market in Ondo State of Nigeria”, Bowen J. Agric.
4(1): 76 – 93.
Leif M (2007). Land Tenure and Conflicts – Four Crucial Dimensions,
Department of Social Anthropology, University of Bergen, pp.2
Plattaeu JP (2000). ‘Does Africa Need Land Reform?’ in Toulmin, C.
and Quan, J. F. (Eds). Evolving Land Rights, Policy and Tenure in
Africa), DFID/IIED/NRI, London, Pp. 51 – 73.
Quadros MC (1991). The land policy and legislative process in
Mozambique. Paper presented at the DFID Workshop on Land
Rights and Sustainable Development in sub-Saharan Africa: Lessons
and Ways Forward in Land Tenure Policy. Sunningdale. UK. Feb. 16
– 19.
Quan JF. (2000). Land Tenure, Economic Growth and Poverty in subSaharan Africa. In Toulmin, C. and Quan, J. F. (Eds). Evolving Land
Rights, Policy and Tenure in Africa. DFID/IIED/NRI, London. Pp. 31 –
35.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Briefing Room (2007).
Land Use, Value, and Management Economic Research Service: the
Economics of Food, Farming, Natural Resources and Rural America
Upreti BR (2001). Conflict Management in Natural Resources: A study
of Land, Forest and Water Conflict in Nepal. Published PhD
Dissertation. Wageningen: Wageningen University
Upreti BR (2002). Management of Social and Natural Resources conflict
in Nepal: Realities and Alternatives. Adroit Publishers, New Delhi.
ISBN 81-87392-32-0, Hbk, pp. 371
USAID AGRICULTURE: Food Security, Last Updated May 16 (2005).
USAID AGRICULTURE: Land Management, Last updated, February
(2007).
Van Donge JK (1991). “Law and order as a development issue: land
conflicts and the creation of social order in Southern Malawi,” J. Dev.
Stud.36 (2): 373-399.
Yamano T, Deininger K (2005). “Land Conflicts in Kenya: Causes,
Impacts, And Resolutions”. National Graduate Institute for Policy
Studies