Land fragmentation and land consolidation are two interrelated concepts of land management. The dominant discourse is that fragmented land ownership and land use tend to be ineffective and unwanted, and land consolidation is then a solution to this quandary. Not surprisingly, in countries such as Rwanda, the majority of the governmental strategies highlight the negative effects of fragmentation. However, the effects of land fragmentation have been dual. Its positive side has often been overlooked by policy makers and the research community. Therefore, this study investigates to which degree one can benefit from farmland fragmentation, especially in the context of food security at the household level and of climate change vulnerability. The goal of this article is to expand the current land fragmentation discourse and describe in which context specific types of land fragmentation may be just as sustainable as opting for land consolidation. The guiding hypothesis hereby is that there is a high level of fragmented land ownership yet, that physical (location, use, internal, shape and value) fragmentation acts as a risk management strategy which positively impacts the nutritional balance for food quality and food sustainability as components of food security.Conceptually, land fragmentation can be seen from multiple lenses. It can be seen as a land use concept (emphasizing variation in manner of agricultural production, variety of crops, frequency of harvesting, etc.). It can also be seen as a geodetic concept (emphasizing variation in shape and size of parcels on the one hand, and variation in land ownership on the other hand). Additionally, it can be seen as a spatial planning and intervention concept (emphasizing the urgency and need for order, structure and alignment of space). In our article we look at fragmentation (and the variation thereof) in all three ways. If within an area, the utilization, ownership, leasehold, shape, size and location of parcels and spatial policies vary more than average (as compared to a similar area), then we consider it a fragmented landscape. Once we find a case of such a landscape, then we are able to investigate why and/or under which conditions (and by which drivers) this ‘fragmented’ landscape has emerged and what are the implications. This is the main question under investigation in this research.The research relies on a mixed methods research approach via household surveys with 98 random respondents in Gashora sector, Bugesera District, Eastern province of Rwanda. The data collection included further 7 key informants’ interviews, a focus group discussion, field observations of current plot sizes and land uses, and the review of the existing literature on the topic.The findings indicate that a high level of fragmentation exists, both in terms of land ownership (visible and hidden) and physical landscape. The dominant reasons are that land users perceive this as an effective risks management strategy which would positively affect food quality, food sustainability and food security. Multiple land holdings with different shapes in different locations allow farmers to grow multiple crops with different adaptation capacities in different growing conditions (soil type, slope, microclimate variations, etc.). Furthermore, fragmentation seems to help reduce land ownership and use related conflicts despite its negative impacts on agriculture production efficiency, especially the loss of land through boundaries and the increase in boundaries related conflicts.Unlike previous studies on land fragmentation, we posit that environmental and agricultural policies should take both negative and positive impacts of land fragmentation into account equally as sustainable and resilient solutions, given the right circumstances and contexts, especially for vulnerable and food insecure areas in Rwanda.
Search from 250 M+ research papersSearch from 250 M+ research papers
Open Access
Mar 27, 2020
Gbenga Ibikunle + 2
