Logo image
Back
The Effects of Land Management Policies on the Environment and People in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review
Journal article   Open access   Peer reviewed

The Effects of Land Management Policies on the Environment and People in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

Pierre Marion, Ingunn Storhaug, Sanghwa Lee, Lucas Sempe, Claudia Romero, Constanza Gonzalez Parrao and Birte Snilstveit
Campbell Systematic Review, Vol.22(2), pp.1-57
2026
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/18911803261435887
PMCID: PMC13251849
PMID: 42282079
pdf
marion-et-al-2026-the-effects-of-land-management-policies-on-the-environment-and-people-in-low-and-middle-income5.13 MBDownloadView
Published Version Open Access CC BY-NC V4.0

Is new version of

Abstract

Climate change Biodiversity Community-based management Decentralised land management Land rights Protected areas
Background: Widespread land degradation is driven by unsustainable land use and human pressures, and is accelerating climate change and biodiversity loss. Access to land is also essential for livelihoods and well-being, particularly in low- and middle-income countries (L&MICs). Urgent and inclusive land management interventions are needed to mitigate climate impacts, preserve biodiversity, and support vulnerable communities. Governments and international organisations are increasingly promoting land management interventions, such as establishing protected areas, granting land rights and decentralising land management and monitoring. These efforts aim to enable the realisation of several of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF). The environmental and human development impacts of these interventions, and especially their potential interactions, remain under-researched. This synthesis of the literature can help to inform policy and research decisions in these contexts. Objectives: The purpose of this systematic review was to appraise and synthesise evidence of the effects of three types of land management interventions (community-based or decentralised land management and monitoring, land rights, and protected areas) on environmental and human well-being outcomes in L&MICs. We examined how these effects vary across geographical and social contexts. We also discussed the barriers, enablers, and trade-offs between environmental and human well-being outcomes that impact the effectiveness of the specified interventions. Lastly, we aimed to synthesise cost evidence of included projects. Search methods: The search of included studies was based on the evidence gathered in the Climate Change and Biodiversity Evidence Gap Map (CCB EGM, Marion et al., 2024). The CCB EGM displayed the available rigorous evidence on the effects of climate change and biodiversity interventions on environmental and human well-being outcomes in L&MICs. The systematic search of studies was conducted in March 2024. Selection criteria: From the CCB EGM, we focused on impact evaluations of projects which covered three types of land management interventions in L&MICs: (1) community-based or decentralised land management and monitoring; (2) land rights; and (3) protected areas. In this review, we considered studies published after 2000 that reported intervention effects on both environmental and human well-being outcome groups, aiming to identify possible trade-offs, synergies, and unintended consequences of these land management interventions. Data collection, and analysis: We identified 64 papers representing 58 unique studies. These impact evaluations assessed 60 projects across 26 L&MICs, reporting effects on both environmental and human well-being outcomes. Two independent reviewers conducted the data extraction and risk of bias assessments of projects’ effects. With the available evidence, we conducted meta-analyses to synthesise effectiveness findings for comparable outcomes. For the set of included projects, we searched for additional qualitative information to identify barriers, enablers, unintended consequences and trade-offs that can affect project effectiveness, and for cost-related evidence that can inform the cost-effectiveness of these projects. Limitations of this review include: 1) the CCB EGM’s search only covered studies published up to March 2024; (2) the CCB EGM’s search only used terms in English; (3) the meta-analyses conducted in this review were most often based on a small number of estimates; and 4) half of the included quantitative evidence was judged to have a high risk of bias. Main results: The available evidence looking at the environmental and human well-being effects of these three land management interventions is sparse. Quantitative and qualitative evidence suggests that these interventions represent potentially effective strategies to promote shifts towards sustainable use of land resources and improvements in human livelihoods. These interventions can, however, result in significant trade-offs between environmental health and human welfare. The three interventions reviewed present dissimilar levels of evidence, mostly focused on community-based or decentralised land management and monitoring. Nearly all these projects took place in Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, and East Asia and the Pacific. Available evidence on final environmental outcomes, such as biodiversity, climate adaptation and mitigation measures, is limited. Decentralised land management and monitoring increased income, possibly driven by improvements in the governance of natural resources and greater adoption of improved practices and technology. There is evidence that these interventions initiated a shift away from agricultural and forestry harvesting, as they promote forest preservation and development. Land rights led to a small increase in agricultural and livestock productivity, greater diversification of income sources and investments in natural resources or conservation. In turn, protected areas slightly reduced deforestation and improved agricultural and livestock productivity, as well as income and assets. Aligning interventions with existing communities’ economic activities and values can create virtuous cycles for the sustainability of land and people’s livelihoods. Knowledge-sharing and collaboration opportunities often enabled intervention success, whereas a lack of clarity, governance and funding structures were identified as barriers to intervention success. Conservation interventions can potentially and inadvertently lead to deforestation, land degradation, and biodiversity loss if the local population lacks the incentive to adopt these new practices. Increased wildlife from conservation efforts can also come at the cost of decreased food security and damaged properties, potentially affecting people’s livelihoods. The extent and quality of cost evidence were generally insufficient to enable a comprehensive analysis of cost-effectiveness across included land management interventions. The review, however, identified useful insights from four well-documented cases. Authors’ conclusions: Environmental and human well-being outcomes are closely linked, and evaluating them in isolation risks overlooking their interacting mechanisms. Interventions should be grounded in local socio-economic and ecological contexts, allow for continuous learning and adjustment, and prioritise inclusive, fair and equitable approaches. More rigorous, theory-informed evaluations that report on both environmental and human well-being are needed. Future research should also better integrate cost-effectiveness analyses from the outset and track long-term and equity-related outcomes. Using agile evaluation methods and remote-sensing data can help close evidence gaps and improve decision-making in complex and dynamic environments.

Details

Metrics

1 Record Views

InCites Highlights

These are selected metrics from InCites Benchmarking & Analytics tool, related to this output

Collaboration types
Domestic collaboration
International collaboration
Web Of Science research areas
Social Sciences, Interdisciplinary

UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This output has contributed to the advancement of the following goals:

#1 No Poverty
#2 Zero Hunger
#13 Climate Action
#15 Life on Land

Source: SDGs from InCites

Logo image