Path of Science: International Electronic Scientific Journal

The efficiency and effectiveness of land administration system had been acknowledged to be premised on so many factors, arguably the chief of which, is the degree of mutuality, frictionlessness and bi-directionality in the interrelationship that exist amongst the various factors that are discharging arrays of tasks that these formal lands regulo-administrative machineries are saddled with. Undoubtedly, this simple conduct of affairs resultantly drives the formal lands delivery, hence it increases accessibility to urban lands by several categories of users in Nigeria, as thus the case globally. However, these interrelationships are absent among land administration and regulation systems in Nigeria. Hence, this study intends to assess the direct and possible indirect impacts that these interrelationships fallouts have on the formal delivery and accessibility of urban lands in Nigeria, Firstly, this was done by articulating the issues involved and calibrating them into constructs, then measuring them via the following score-cards, thus: myopism, non-ingenuity, disservice, eco-financial loss, distrust, trauma, anti-growth, death, market distortion and thriving informalisation focussing on the South Western Nigeria. Out of the total 586 individuals considered as the total population for the sample space, 120 individual qualified for the sample frame, upon which the structured questionnaires were distributed among land regulators, land administrators, independent land consultants and ultimate land users, essentially to have a fair and broad view of the issues inherent in this lands accessibility dilemma. 93 questionnaires were retrieved, out of which 87 questionnaires were valid, thus formed the basis upon which analyses were done, with emphasis on the 5 point Likert scale measurement usage, via both inferential and descriptive statistical tools. The results showed amongst other things, that unbridled relationship frictions had led to unwarranted role jettisoning and this impacts adversely on the delivery pace which concomitantly warps formal pathway to accessing urban lands by various categories of land users. Among the recommendations are that government formal land agencies should be re-configured to build synergy that engenders positive interrelationship and role synchronisation towards improved formal land delivery and accessibility in Nigeria.

Impacts; Interrelationship; Regulo-Administrative Machineries; Formal Land Accessibility; Nigeria.

1. Abdul Karim, N. S., Maidin, A. J., Nordin, Z. A., & Ismail, M. S. (2010). Electronic land administration system in Malaysia: a proposed review from ICT and legal perspectives. doi: 10.1109/ITSIM.2010.5561355

[Google Scholar]

2. Abdullah, A. A., Harun, Z., & Abdul Rahman, H. (2011). Planning process of development project in the Malaysian context: a crucial brief overview. International Journal of Applied Science and Technology, 1(2), 74–81. Retrieved from http://www.ijastnet.com/journals/Vol._1_No._2;_April_2011/9.pdf

[Google Scholar]

3. Angerbrandt, H. (2011). Political decentralisation and conflict: the Sharia crisis in Kaduna, Nigeria. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 29(1), 15–31. doi: 10.1080/02589001.2011.533057

[Google Scholar]

4. Arko-Adjei, A., Jong, J. De, Zevenbergen, J., & Tuladhar, A. (2010, April 11–16). Customary tenure institutions and good governance. Retrieved from https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/fig2010/papers/inv04/inv04_arkoadjei_tuladhar_et_al_4279.pdf

[Google Scholar]

5. Atilola, O. (2010, April 11–16). Land administration reform Nigerian: issues and prospects. Retrieved from https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/fig2010/papers/inv04/inv04_atilola_4758.pdf

[Google Scholar]

6. Auzins, A. (2004). Institutional arrangements: a gate towards sustainable land use. Nordic Journal of Surveying and Real Estate Research, 1, 57–71. Retrieved from http://ojs.tsv.fi/index.php/njs/article/view/41506/10635

[Google Scholar]

7. Awortwi, N. (2011). An unbreakable path? A comparative study of decentralization and local government development trajectories in Ghana and Uganda. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 77(2), 347–377. doi: 10.1177/0020852311399844

[Google Scholar]

8. Bandeira, P., Sumpsi, J. M., & Falconi, C. (2010). Land use policy evaluating land administration systems: a comparative method with an application to Peru and Honduras. Land Use Policy, 27, 351–363. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.04.005

[Google Scholar]

9. Bangsal, N., & Lebrilla, M. L. (2008). Land administration system: functional and efficiency implications. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/1042675/Land_Administration_System_Functional_and_Efficiency_Implications

[Google Scholar]

10. Bennett, R., Wallace, J., & Williamson, I. (2008). Organising land information for sustainable land administration. Land Use Policy, 25(1), 126–138. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.03.006

[Google Scholar]

11. Chimhamhiwa, D. (2010). Improving end to end delivery of land administration business processes through performance measurement and comparison (Doctoral thesis). Retrieved from https://researchspace.ukzn.ac.za/handle/10413/691

[Google Scholar]

12. World Bank. (2010). Land Governance Assessment Framework Manual. World Bank Study on Governance in land administration.

13. Enemark, S. (2008). Land management in support of the millennium development goals. Property Management, 26(4). doi: 10.1108/pm.2008.11326daa.001

[Google Scholar]

14. Fitzpatrick, D. (2008). Managing conflict and sustaining recovery: land administration reform in Tsunami - affected Aceh. Singapore: Asia Research Institute & Oxfam Internationa.

[Google Scholar]

15. Grover, R. (2009, March 9–10). Measures to enhance trust in land administration systems and engender their proper use. Retrieved from https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/2009/fig_wb_2009/papers/mkt/mkt_2_grover.pdf

[Google Scholar]

16. Hallebro, J. (2006, October 8–13). Stakeholder co-operation in Swedish Land Administration and Land Information. Retrieved from https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/fig2006/papers/ts89/ts89_01_hallebro_0294.pdf

17. Herath, G. (2005). Analysis of potential and problems of new institutional economics for third world development. International Journal of Social Economics, 32(10), 877-892. doi: 10.1108/03068290510618515

[Google Scholar]

18. Mansberger, R., Navratil, G., Muggenhuber, G., & Twaroch, C. (2012). Is good governance in land administration measurable and comparable? Journal of Land Management, Food and Environment, 63(1), 27–34. Retrieved from https://diebodenkultur.boku.ac.at/volltexte/band-63/heft-1/mansberger.pdf

[Google Scholar]

19. Mason, J., & Dale, A. (2011). Creative tensions in social research: questions of method. In J. Mason, and A. Dale, Understanding social research - thinking creatively about method (pp. 1–26). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

[Google Scholar]

20. Molen, P., & Enemark, S. (2008). Capacity assessment in land administration. Denmark: International Federation of Surveyors.

[Google Scholar]

21. Oladapo, R. A., & Olotuah, A. O. (2007). Appropriate real estate laws and policies for sustainable development in Nigeria. Structural Survey, 25(3/4), 330–338. doi: 10.1108/02630800710772890

[Google Scholar]

22. Olowu, D. (2003). Challenge of multi-level governance in developing countries and possible GIS applications. Habitat International, 27, 501–522. doi: 10.1016/S0197-3975(03)00003-1

[Google Scholar]

23. Prasad, B. (2003). Institutional economics and economic development: the theory of property rights, economic development, good governance and the environment. International Journal of Social Economics, 30(6), 741-762. doi: 10.1108/03068290310474120

[Google Scholar]

24. Rees, C. J., & Hossain, F. (2010). Perspectives on decentralization and local governance in developing and transitional countries. International Journal of Public Administration, 33(12-13), 581–587. doi: 10.1080/01900692.2010.514459

[Google Scholar]

25. Samsudin, S., Lim, L. C., & McCluskey, W. (2011, May 18–22). A review of organizational arrangements in Malaysia land administration system towards good governance: issues and challenges. Retrieved from https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/fig2011/papers/ts07b/ts07b_salfarina_laycheng_et_al_4853.pdf

[Google Scholar]

26. Samsudin, S., Lim, L. C., & McCluskey, W. (2012, June 9–11). An analytical framework for assessing decentralized land administration governance performance. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/7964787/An_analytical_framework_for_assessing_decentralised_land_administration_governance_performance

27. Samsudin, S., Lim, L. C., & McCluskey, W. (2013). Developing decentralised land administration governance assessment framework. In Management of Land and Sea Resources - What’s New? Glasgow: Commonwealth Association of Surveying and Land Economy (CASLE).

[Google Scholar]

28. Toulmin, C. (2008). Land use policy securing land and property rights in sub-Saharan Africa: the role of local institutions. Land Use Policy, 26, 10–19. doi: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.07.006

[Google Scholar]

29. Ukaejiofo, A. N. (2009, April 11–16). Identifying appropriate tools for land governance in Nigeria. Retrieved from https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/fig2010/papers/ts05i/ts05i_ukaejiofo_4612.pdf

[Google Scholar]