Elsevier

Land Use Policy

Volume 91, February 2020, 104325
Land Use Policy

Land use decisions: By whom and to whose benefit? A serious game to uncover dynamics in farm land allocation at household level in Northern Ghana

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.104325Get rights and content

Highlights

  • The household head functioned as the ‘strategic gatekeeper’ in land use decisions.

  • Processes and conditions inside and outside the household influence ‘his decision’.

  • The wife’s and the son’s influence made the decision-outcome more sustainable.

  • In the negotiation, power was observed to be deployed, withheld or overruled.

  • Training and education empower women and the youth; men need to be sensitized.

Abstract

Globally, 38% of the land area is agricultural land, of which 45% are located on drylands, mainly in Africa and Asia, constituting the basis for about 60% of the world’s food production. Of all farms worldwide, 83% are smallholder farm systems, whose livelihoods depend on effective land management and allocation. While land is often cultivated by the various members of a farm household, land allocation decisions depend on the approval, the ambition and the abilities of influential household members, likely affecting all other household members, too. While intra-household decision-making processes have been described to depend on the interplay of prevailing interests and power positions, so far knowledge on interests and power positions is based on individual reports rather than actual observations. With the aim to explore the process of land allocation in a socially complex smallholder farm system, we invited members of a smallholder community in Northern Ghana to join a closed, experimental serious game, simulating a negotiation process between a male household head (HHH), a wife and the eldest son of a hypothetical local farm household. We observed an integrative negotiation style, resulting into high levels of satisfaction with the negotiation process and outcome by all parties, who reported a high level of similarity between simulated and real-life negotiations. Power was observed to be actively deployed, withheld or passively overruled depending on decision domains and process dynamics. While the HHH was the key decision maker acting as a strategic gatekeeper in a funnel-like process, the wife and the son had a significant influence on ‘his decision’ i.e. the household-level negotiation outcome. Model-based analysis also showed that the household-level outcome was more profitable as well as agro-biologically and nutritionally more diverse and productive as compared to the HHHs’ suggestion. The proposed game proved to be a culturally adequate, simple, cost and time effective tool to capture how household-level land use decisions may come about and whose interests they represent. Our study provides a powerful framework for further research and for policies to foster more equitable land use decisions and therewith more sustainable socio-ecological systems.

Introduction

Globally, 38% of the land area is agricultural land (FAO, 2003), of which 45% are located on drylands, mainly in Africa and Asia, providing about 60% of the world’s food production (UNDCC, 2017). Climate change (IPCC, 2019), population growth and the increasing land pressure call for more productive yet more sustainable farm systems (Bren d’Amour et al., 2017; Rasmussen et al., 2018; Tilman et al., 2011). Worldwide, 83% of all farms are smallholder farm systems (Herrero et al., 2017), whose livelihoods strongly depend on effective land management and allocation (Bren d’Amour et al., 2017; Rasul and Thapa, 2004; Tittonell et al., 2015). But how do land-use decisions in smallholder farm households come about? And whose interests within the household do they actually represent?

In smallholder farm households, functioning much like multi-stakeholder institutions (Haddad et al., 1997; Kabeer, 1994), land allocation decisions often depend on the approval, the ambition and the abilities of influential household members, likely affecting all other household members, too (Agarwal, 1997; Doss, 2001; Michalscheck et al., 2018a). While intra-household decision-making processes have been described to depend on the interplay of prevailing interests and power positions (Haddad et al., 1997; Kusago and Barham, 2001; Michalscheck et al., 2018a; Padmanabhan, 2011; Purnomo et al., 2005; Schwilch et al., 2012), so far knowledge on interests and power positions is based on individual or joint reports by husband and wife (Becker et al., 2006; Browning et al., 2013; Doss, 2013; Elias, 2015a; Mwungu et al., 2017; Ngigi et al., 2017; Prabhu, 2010; Thomas, 1990) rather than observations on the actual interplay.

The actual interplay of interests and power positions on complex decisions in multi-stakeholder settings may be observed by means of serious gaming: in the natural resource management (NRM) context, serious games have mostly been used as an educational tool (Ansoms et al., 2015; Crovato et al., 2016; Gugerell and Zuidema, 2017; Hartig et al., 2010; Heinonen et al., 2017; Mayer et al., 2004; Merlet et al., 2018; Morganti et al., 2017; Onencan et al., 2016; Orland et al., 2014; Ouariachi et al., 2017; Salvini et al., 2016; Schulze et al., 2015; Tanwattana and Toyoda, 2018; Wang and Davies, 2015) or to facilitate consensus among stakeholders with conflicting or ill-defined interests (Craven et al., 2017; Hertzog et al., 2014; Magombeyi et al., 2008; Meinzen-Dick et al., 2018; Pacilly et al., 2019; Speelman et al., 2014). In agricultural systems research, serious games have been employed for education and co-design (Ditzler et al., 2018), but, to our knowledge, only two studies explored intra-household decision-making (Ashraf, 2009; Iversen et al., 2006) using experimental economic games to test investment decisions of spouses in Uganda and the Philippines, respectively.

With the aim to explore the process of land allocation in a socially complex smallholder farm system (Doss, 2001), we invited members of a smallholder community in Northern Ghana to join a serious game, simulating a negotiation process between a male household head, a wife and the eldest son of a hypothetical local farm household. To better understand decision-making dynamics and to compare individual visions for land allocation with the household-level decision-outcome, we addressed the following five research questions (RQs):

RQ1: How do (a) interests and (b) power positions differ among household members?

RQ2: How do individual interests and power positions shape household-level land allocation decisions?

RQ3: Can we observe trades (since person A gets a land area for crop X, person B gets a land area for crop Y) or power modes i.e. power being deployed, withheld or overruled?

RQ4: How does the simulated process compare with real-life negotiations on land allocation?

RQ5: How do the individual preferences on land allocation and the household-level decision-outcome compare in terms of the nutritional yield (food production), their economic (profitability), environmental (soil organic matter) and social (labour input) performance?

After introducing the case-study community and game methodology, we present and discuss the game process and results as well as the implications of our findings for ongoing research projects and land use policies that aim to bring about positive change in smallholder farmers lives.

Section snippets

Case-study site description

Most smallholder farm systems in Ghana are located on communally owned land, governed by customary laws (Aryeetey et al., 2007; Lambrecht and Asare, 2016). Customary laws in Ghana determine that land decisions are typically ‘taken by chiefs or male household-heads on behalf of the community, clan or family ‘(Apusigah, 2009; FAO, 2019, 2006). In Northern Ghana, the Dagombas are the dominant ethnic group, who perceive land as being spiritually connected to their ancestors (Apusigah, 2009) and who

Participant demographics

The game was played with six HHHs, five wives and five eldest sons. Fig. 2 illustrates the participants’ age structure and household resource endowments. Seven of the sixteen participants were associated with MRE households, being the game’s target farm type. The HHH opened the game by introducing himself as the landlord, alluding to his customary bundle of land rights.

Individual interests (RQ1a)

Individual interests are embedded in overall production objectives, translating into crop choices and associated crop areas.

Discussion

The serious game provided novel insights into land allocation processes within smallholder farm households in Northern Ghana: wives and sons envisioned a more diverse cropping pattern than the HHHs, significantly influencing the household-level decision-outcome despite their power shares being evaluated as relatively small (12–14%). The wives’ suggestion was substantially more ambitious in terms of ‘own profits’ and female labour contributions than the vision of the HHHs and the sons, possibly

Conclusion

Our serious game provided valuable new insights into negotiation processes around land allocation: the encountered integrative negotiation style led to the coalescence of the different intra-household perspectives into a household-level compromise rather than a unilateral decision-outcome. We observed a funnel-like process, where the HHH was the key decision maker acting as a strategic gatekeeper at the funnel stem but with the wife and the son having a significant influence on ‘his decision’.

Acknowledgements

The research was funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)(AID-BFS-G-11-00002) as part of the US Government's ‘Feed the Future’ Initiative. The contents are the responsibility of the producing organizations and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of USAID or the U.S. Government. We thank Baba Iddrissu Mohammed, Alhassan Sulemana and Ruhia Iddrisu Adam for facilitating the game, Rashida Abdulai for co-analyzing the video-material and Carl Timler for supporting

References (126)

  • C. Doss et al.

    How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural innovations? The case of improved maize technology in Ghana?

    Agric. Econ.

    (2001)
  • S. El Tayeb Muneer et al.

    Adoption of biomass improved cookstoves in a patriarchal society: An example from Sudan

    Sci. Total Environ.

    (2003)
  • M. Elias

    Gender, knowledge-sharing and management of shea (Vitellaria paradoxa) parklands in central-west Burkina Faso

    J. Rural Stud.

    (2015)
  • L. Falzon et al.

    Embedding time in positions: temporal measures of centrality for social network analysis

    Soc. Networks

    (2018)
  • J.C.J. Groot et al.

    Multi-objective optimization and design of farming systems

    Agric. Syst.

    (2012)
  • K. Gugerell et al.

    Gaming for the energy transition. Experimenting and learning in co-designing a serious game prototype

    J. Clean. Prod.

    (2017)
  • H. Haider et al.

    Intensification and intrahousehold decisions: Fertilizer adoption in Burkina Faso

    World Dev.

    (2018)
  • F. Hartig et al.

    EcoTRADE – A multi-player network game of a tradable permit market for biodiversity credits

    Environ. Model. Softw.

    (2010)
  • S. Heinonen et al.

    Testing transformative energy scenarios through causal layered analysis gaming

    Technol. Forecast. Soc. Change

    (2017)
  • M. Herrero et al.

    Farming and the geography of nutrient production for human use: a transdisciplinary analysis

    Lancet Planet. Heal.

    (2017)
  • T. Hertzog et al.

    A role playing game to address future water management issues in a large irrigated system: experience from Mali

    Agric. Water Manag.

    (2014)
  • S. Jean et al.

    Serious games as a catalyst for boundary crossing, collaboration and knowledge co-creation in a watershed governance context

    J. Environ. Manage.

    (2018)
  • A.D. Jones et al.

    Farm production diversity is associated with greater household dietary diversity in Malawi: findings from nationally representative data

    Food Policy

    (2014)
  • R.J. Klimoski et al.

    Accountability and negotiator behavior

    Organ. Behav. Hum. Perform.

    (1974)
  • K.S. Kuivanen et al.

    A comparison of statistical and participatory clustering of smallholder farming systems - A case study in Northern Ghana

    J. Rural Stud.

    (2016)
  • T. Kusago et al.

    Preference heterogeneity, power, and intrahousehold decision-making in rural Malaysia

    World Dev.

    (2001)
  • I. Lambrecht et al.

    The complexity of local tenure systems: a smallholders’ perspective on tenure in Ghana

    Land Use Policy

    (2016)
  • I.B. Lambrecht

    “As a husband I will love, lead, and provide.” gendered access to land in ghana

    World Dev.

    (2016)
  • M.S. Magombeyi et al.

    The river basin game as a tool for collective water management at community level in South Africa

    Phys. Chem. Earth, Parts A/B/C

    (2008)
  • H.J.L. Malapit et al.

    What dimensions of women’s empowerment in agriculture matter for nutrition in Ghana?

    Food Policy

    (2015)
  • I.S. Mayer et al.

    Gaming the future of an urban network

    Futures

    (2004)
  • R. Meinzen-Dick et al.

    Playing games to save water: Collective action games for groundwater management in Andhra Pradesh, India

    World Dev.

    (2018)
  • A. Metallinou et al.

    Tracking continuous emotional trends of participants during affective dyadic interactions using body language and speech information

    Image Vis. Comput.

    (2013)
  • M. Michalscheck et al.

    Model results versus farmer realities. Operationalizing diversity within and among smallholder farm systems for a nuanced impact assessment of technology packages

    Agric. Syst.

    (2018)
  • S. Moran et al.

    Experience in integrative negotiations: what needs to be learned?

    J. Exp. Soc. Psychol.

    (2007)
  • L. Morganti et al.

    Gaming for Earth: Serious games and gamification to engage consumers in pro-environmental behaviours for energy efficiency

    Energy Res. Soc. Sci.

    (2017)
  • C.M. Mwungu et al.

    Survey data of intra-household decision making and smallholder agricultural production in Northern Uganda and Southern Tanzania

    Data Br.

    (2017)
  • S.K. Ng’ang’a et al.

    Livestock wealth and social capital as insurance against climate risk: A case study of Samburu County in Kenya

    Agric. Syst.

    (2016)
  • M.W. Ngigi et al.

    Gender Differences in Climate Change Adaptation Strategies and Participation in Group-based Approaches: An Intra-household Analysis From Rural Kenya

    Ecol. Econ.

    (2017)
  • C. O’Hara et al.

    Power as agency: a critical reflection on the measurement of women’s empowerment in the development sector

    World Dev.

    (2018)
  • A. Onencan et al.

    WeShareIt Game: Strategic Foresight for Climate-change Induced Disaster Risk Reduction

    Procedia Eng.

    (2016)
  • B. Orland et al.

    Saving energy in an office environment: a serious game intervention

    Energy Build.

    (2014)
  • T. Ouariachi et al.

    Gaming climate change: assessing online climate change games targeting youth produced in spanish

    Procedia - Soc. Behav. Sci.

    (2017)
  • F.C.A. Pacilly et al.

    Moving perceptions on potato late blight control: workshops with model-based scenarios

    Crop Prot.

    (2019)
  • M. Padmanabhan

    Women and men as conservers, users and managers of agrobiodiversity: A feminist social–ecological approach

    J. Socio.

    (2011)
  • M. Porgo et al.

    Credit constraints and cropland allocation decisions in rural Burkina Faso

    Land Use Policy

    (2018)
  • V.S. Prabhu

    Tests of Intrahousehold Resource Allocation Using a CV Framework: A Comparison of Husbands’ and Wives’ Separate and Joint WTP in the Slums of Navi-Mumbai, India

    World Dev.

    (2010)
  • H. Purnomo et al.

    Developing multi-stakeholder forest management scenarios: a multi-agent system simulation approach applied in Indonesia

    For. Policy Econ.

    (2005)
  • G. Rasul et al.

    Sustainability of ecological and conventional agricultural systems in Bangladesh: an assessment based on environmental, economic and social perspectives

    Agric. Syst.

    (2004)
  • S.M. Redpath et al.

    Games as tools to address conservation conflicts

    Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.)

    (2018)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text