IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i20p13049-d939863.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Rapid and Participatory Assessment of Land Suitability in Development Cooperation

Author

Listed:
  • Pietro De Marinis

    (Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Production, Landscape, Agroenergy, University of Milan, 20133 Milan, Italy)

  • Paolo Stefano Ferrario

    (Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Production, Landscape, Agroenergy, University of Milan, 20133 Milan, Italy)

  • Guido Sali

    (Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Production, Landscape, Agroenergy, University of Milan, 20133 Milan, Italy)

  • Giulio Senes

    (Department of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Production, Landscape, Agroenergy, University of Milan, 20133 Milan, Italy)

Abstract

Development cooperation in agriculture aims to contribute to the achieving of a large part of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) of the UN 2030 Agenda, especially the first three, No Poverty (1), Zero Hunger (2), and Good Health and Well-being (3). Development cooperation in agriculture tries to help local communities to increase their awareness, participation, and skills about the management of land and environmental resources, in order to realize sustainable development. In this context, methods of participatory assessment of land suitability have been widely and successfully applied. The present research took place in the framework of a real development cooperation intervention in Nord Kivu (Democratic Republic of Congo) and aimed to implement a rapid participatory assessment of land suitability. In this context, where official and detailed data are not available, the study fostered the active involvement of local experts and used geographical information systems (GIS) to identify the most suitable crops to be supported in different zones of the study area. Toward this aim, the authors used a procedure based on the following steps: the identification of relevant land use types (LUTs), mapping capability factors, describing the responses of each LUT to the different capability factors, mapping potential land suitability for the LUTs, mapping accessibility, mapping land suitability for the LUTs. Resulting maps and tables were used to identify the most suitable areas for the different uses. Globally, forestry was the most suited use (99.6% of the study area is potentially highly suitable), followed by the cropping of manioc, sorghum, banana, oil palm, bean and cattle grazing in decreasing order (62.6% of the study area is potentially highly suitable for grazing). When accessibility is considered, forestry presents the largest decrease in the class of high potential suitability (−34.9% equal to a loss of 24,945.5 ha), while less adaptable uses, such as cattle grazing showed lower decreases in highly suitable class (−11.2%) and larger increases in scarcely suitable class (+9.5%). At a later stage, the comparison between computed suitability and actual land use helped with identifying the areas where forestry should be the only (or most) supported activity and the areas where to push integrated land uses. Our interpretation of the results allows us to recommend the adoption of agroforestry and intercropping as the main methodologies to integrate multiple aims such as the environmental conservation and the improvement of livelihoods.

Suggested Citation

  • Pietro De Marinis & Paolo Stefano Ferrario & Guido Sali & Giulio Senes, 2022. "The Rapid and Participatory Assessment of Land Suitability in Development Cooperation," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(20), pages 1-24, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:20:p:13049-:d:939863
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/20/13049/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/20/13049/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mayne, John, 2008. "Building an evaluative culture for effective evaluation and results management," ILAC Working Papers 52535, Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
    2. Vasu, Duraisamy & Srivastava, Rajeev & Patil, Nitin G. & Tiwary, Pramod & Chandran, Padikkal & Kumar Singh, Surendra, 2018. "A comparative assessment of land suitability evaluation methods for agricultural land use planning at village level," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 146-163.
    3. Mayne, John, 2008. "Building an evaluative culture for effective evaluation and results management," ILAC Briefs 52530, Institutional Learning and Change (ILAC) Initiative.
    4. Chambers, Robert, 1994. "Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Challenges, potentials and paradigm," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 22(10), pages 1437-1454, October.
    5. Keshav Bhattarai & Mahmoud Yousef & Alice Greife & S. C. Sravanthi Naraharisetti, 2020. "Influence of Topography on Sustainable Land Management: An Analysis of Socioeconomic and Ecodemographic Conditions of Nepal," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-37, June.
    6. Dunnett, A. & Shirsath, P.B. & Aggarwal, P.K. & Thornton, P. & Joshi, P.K. & Pal, B.D. & Khatri-Chhetri, A. & Ghosh, J., 2018. "Multi-objective land use allocation modelling for prioritizing climate-smart agricultural interventions," Ecological Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 381(C), pages 23-35.
    7. Giulio Senes & Paolo Stefano Ferrario & Gianpaolo Cirone & Natalia Fumagalli & Paolo Frattini & Giovanna Sacchi & Giorgio Valè, 2021. "Nature-Based Solutions for Storm Water Management—Creation of a Green Infrastructure Suitability Map as a Tool for Land-Use Planning at the Municipal Level in the Province of Monza-Brianza (Italy)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-18, May.
    8. Marschall, Paul, 2018. "Evidence-oriented approaches in development cooperation: experiences, potential and key issues," IDOS Discussion Papers 8/2018, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    9. Arnout R.H. Fischer & Meike T. A. Wentholt & Gene Rowe & Lynn J. Frewer, 2014. "Expert involvement in policy development: A systematic review of current practice," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 332-343.
    10. Pietro De Marinis & Samuele De Petris & Filippo Sarvia & Giacinto Manfron & Evelyn Joan Momo & Tommaso Orusa & Gianmarco Corvino & Guido Sali & Enrico Mondino Borgogno, 2021. "Supporting Pro-Poor Reforms of Agricultural Systems in Eastern DRC (Africa) with Remotely Sensed Data: A Possible Contribution of Spatial Entropy to Interpret Land Management Practices," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-22, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. De Marinis, Pietro & Sali, Guido, 2020. "Participatory analytic hierarchy process for resource allocation in agricultural development projects," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    2. Mayne, John, 2020. "Building evaluative culture in community services: Caring for evidence," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    3. Helen M. Haugh & Alka Talwar, 2016. "Linking Social Entrepreneurship and Social Change: The Mediating Role of Empowerment," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 133(4), pages 643-658, February.
    4. Shannon Sutton, 2012. "Add Producers and Stir? (Re) politicizing Fairtrade participation," Working Papers 38, Queen Mary, University of London, School of Business and Management, Centre for Globalisation Research.
    5. Wainwright, Carla & Wehrmeyer, Walter, 1998. "Success in integrating conservation and development? A study from Zambia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 933-944, June.
    6. Dean Karlan & Bram Thuysbaert, 2019. "Targeting Ultra-Poor Households in Honduras and Peru," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 33(1), pages 63-94.
    7. Iyappan, Karunya & Babu, Suresh Chandra, 2018. "Building resilient food systems: An analytical review," IFPRI discussion papers 1758, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    8. Maraseni, Tek & Poudyal, Bishnu Hari & Aryal, Kishor & Laudari, Hari Krishna, 2022. "Impact of COVID-19 in the forestry sector: A case of lowland region of Nepal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    9. Walter Odhiambo Ojwang & Henry M. Bwisa, 2014. "Role of Participatory Management in the Sustainability of Constituency Development Fund Projects: A Case Study of Maragua Constituency," International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, Human Resource Management Academic Research Society, International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, vol. 4(10), pages 108-127, October.
    10. Dick, Eva & Schraven, Benjamin, 2018. "Regional migration governance in Africa and beyond: a framework of analysis," IDOS Discussion Papers 9/2018, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS).
    11. Ross, Heather M. & Pine, Kathleen H. & Curran, Sarah & Augusta, Dawn, 2022. "Pathway mapping as a tool to address police use of force in behavioral health crisis," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 306(C).
    12. Frame, Bob & Brown, Judy, 2008. "Developing post-normal technologies for sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(2), pages 225-241, April.
    13. Chatterjee, Ira & Cornelissen, Joep & Wincent, Joakim, 2021. "Social entrepreneurship and values work: The role of practices in shaping values and negotiating change," Journal of Business Venturing, Elsevier, vol. 36(1).
    14. Chilombo, Andrew & Van Der Horst, Dan, 2021. "Livelihoods and coping strategies of local communities on previous customary land in limbo of commercial agricultural development: Lessons from the farm block program in Zambia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 104(C).
    15. Zulu, Leo Charles & Adams, Ellis Adjei & Chikowo, Regis & Snapp, Sieglinde, 2018. "The role of community-based livestock management institutions in the adoption and scaling up of pigeon peas in Malawi," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 141-155.
    16. Kwayu, Emmanuel J. & Sallu, Susannah M. & Paavola, Jouni, 2014. "Farmer participation in the equitable payments for watershed services in Morogoro, Tanzania," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 1-9.
    17. Claire Jack & Austen Ashfield & Adewale Henry Adenuga & Conall Mullan, 2021. "Farm Diversification: Drivers, Barriers and Future Growth Potential," EuroChoices, The Agricultural Economics Society, vol. 20(2), pages 70-75, August.
    18. Thompson, John, 1995. "Participatory approaches in government bureaucracies: Facilitating the process of institutional change," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 23(9), pages 1521-1554, September.
    19. Gerard Olivar-Tost & Johnny Valencia-Calvo & Julián Andrés Castrillón-Gómez, 2020. "Towards Decision-Making for the Assessment and Prioritization of Green Projects: An Integration between System Dynamics and Participatory Modeling," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(24), pages 1-23, December.
    20. Jean-Baptiste, Nathalie & Kuhlicke, Christian & Kunath, Anna & Kabisch, Sigrun, 2011. "Review and evaluation of existing vulnerability indicators for assessing climate related vulnerability in Africa," UFZ Reports 07/2011, Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:20:p:13049-:d:939863. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.