Cited by 7African studies and sociopolitical issuesLand Rights and ReformsAgriculture, Land Use, Rural Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Ecological and Poverty Impacts of Zimbabwe’s Land Struggles: 1980 to Present

Kwashirai, Vimbai C.·2009·Global Environment

Abstract

Abstract Literature on Zimbabwe’s land struggles is dominated by a particular perspective emphasizing the historical rooting of inequitable land distribution and ownership in British colonial rule from 1890 onward. This view is informed by the imperative of redressing a historical injustice wherever British people alienated prime land from, among others, the indigenous Shona, Ndebele and Tonga. The key element in this perspective has been the science of land management, and particularly the protection of wooded areas, the soil and wildlife. The discourse on ecological calamity stresses the harmful consequences of unregulated agriculture, mining and hunting, the threats posed by degradation, and the need to control methods of resource exploitation. This study examines the debates on, and processes of, land reform in Zimbabwe in the independence era (1980-present), exploring the social, economic and political contexts of perceptions of land redistribution and management. Zimbabwe’s major land reform programme was carried out between 2000 and 2002. An estimated 300,000 small-holder farmers were provided with land holdings ranging between 5 and 10 hectares. In addition, land was set aside for 54,000 black commercial farmers. Of the original 5,000 white farmers in 2000, only 600 were estimated to have remained in full production on their farms. Much of this period has been characterised by both local and global debates about land reform and environmental problems, generating in their wake politically charged and emotive argumentations about issues such as poverty, deforestation, soil erosion and threats to wildlife.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3197/ge.2009.020309

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The commercial farms on private land were highly productive, enhancing food security and providing employment for approximately a third of the Zimbabwean workforce.

    “partly because the commercial farms on private land were highly productive, enhancing food security and providing employment for approximately a third of the Zimbabwean workforce (Kwashirai, 2009; Magaramombe, 2010).”

    From The impact of land reform on the status of large carnivores in Zimbabwe (2016) · cites this paper as Kwashirai, 2009

Citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Kwashirai, V. C.
Corresponding author
Kwashirai, Vimbai C.
Venue
Global Environment
Published
2009-01
Volume
2
Issue
3
Pages
222-253
ISSN
  • 1973-3739 (ISSN-L)
  • 2053-7352
OpenAlex
W2460610228
Cited by
7
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2019: 1 · 2016: 5
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Global Environment (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › African studies and sociopolitical issues
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Soil Science › Land Rights and Reforms
  • Social Sciences › Development › Agriculture, Land Use, Rural Development
Keywords
land reform, land redistribution, land struggle, poverty, ecological impacts, deforestation, soil erosion, wildlife conservation, smallholder farmers, commercial farmers, environmental degradation, Zimbabwe

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review