Comparative analysis reveals factors influencing land use efficiency in developed and emerging economies, suggesting sustainable strategies for improvement.
The article provides a comparative analysis of successful land management practices in different countries, covering both developed and developing economies, as well as states with a transitional economic model. The aim of the study is to identify the key factors that determine the efficiency of land use and approaches that promote the sustainable development of territories. Particular attention will be paid to the analysis of indicators such as the level of urbanisation, the share of agricultural land in the total structure of land use, the index of transparency of land transactions and the level of land conflicts, as well as economic efficiency, which reflects the financial return from the use of land resources. Germany and the USA, representing developed economies, China as an emerging economy and Singapore as an example of a developing country with unique land use conditions, are selected for comparative analysis. Based on a detailed review of data and the application of the case-study method, the best land management practices in these countries are highlighted. The analysis covers a wide range of aspects, including the use of modern GIS technology, land tenure reforms and the use of market-based approaches. The results of the study show that successful land management requires an integrated approach that takes into account economic, social and environmental aspects. The article shows how different countries achieve high land use efficiency by adapting their strategies to specific conditions and challenges. The findings can be useful for developing and improving land management strategies in other regions and countries, as well as for further research in the field of sustainable land use and regional development.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Novikova et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: