The escalating global urbanization presents numerous challenges to land resources, including heightened competition, conflicts, and compromises in land use decisions. Rapid urban expansion and industrialization exert substantial pressure on ecosystems, food systems, and natural resources, making land use change a primary driver of global environmental transformations. Efficient land use offers significant benefits, including energy conservation, effective waste management, and increased economic productivity. The United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) proposes key indicators like the land consumption rate (LCR), population growth rate (PGR), and their ratio (LCRPGR) to measure land use efficiency (LUE). A higher LCRPGR indicates lower LUE. LCRPGR considers both urban and rural land use. Prior research has extensively studied the impact of urbanization, industrialization, foreign direct investment (FDI), labor migration, transportation, and natural resource endowment on land use. However, the influence of land property rights (LPRs) on LUE has been relatively overlooked, despite its importance in influencing stakeholder incentives and driving changes in land use. While socio-economic literature acknowledges the role of property rights in economic growth, it often lacks integration with its implications for land use. This research bridges this gap by investigating the impact of property rights on global LUE, hypothesizing that secure and well-established property rights enhance LUE by promoting investment and safeguarding against expropriation or other threats. This study employs an interdisciplinary approach, analyzing country-level LCRPGR data (1990-2020) from the Global Human Settlement Layer (GHSL) to assess the influence of property rights security on LUE.

Existing literature explores the multifaceted impacts of various factors on Land Use Efficiency (LUE), including urbanization, industrialization, foreign direct investment (FDI), labor migration, transportation networks, and natural resource endowments. Studies illustrate the diverse consequences of these factors across different geographical contexts. For instance, urbanization in Ethiopia shows land use changes accommodating population growth, converting agricultural land into urban areas. Conversely, Eastern Europe experiences urban shrinkage due to population decline, while Southern Europe expands into croplands. Western Europe demonstrates higher LUE due to industrial clustering effects. Industrialization in East Asia reveals a shift from agrarian landscapes to industrial zones, resulting in fragmented land use. Globalization, driven by labor mobility and FDI, significantly shapes LUE. Increasing incomes in developed nations lead to suburban expansion, while FDI in developing nations drives urban growth through technology transfer and infrastructure development. In Africa, FDI facilitates land transfer from landowners to investors, potentially enhancing LUE. Transportation advancements and natural resource availability also influence land use. Cities with efficient public transport systems exhibit denser, more efficient urban layouts, while ample land resources in countries like Australia allow for extensive agricultural activities, unlike space-constrained Japan. While the literature thoroughly examines these factors, the impact of land property rights (LPRs) on LUE remains under-explored. Traditional growth theories often neglect the incentive mechanisms offered by private property rights. Although property rights’ role in economic growth is well-established, its direct implications for land use are less studied. Research has highlighted the influence of institutions on human-land relationships, emphasizing that well-defined property rights regimes can reduce transaction costs and improve land resource management. Conversely, ineffective land lease policies can lead to land vacancy or underutilization. The current study addresses this gap by examining the global impact of LPRs on LUE.

This research employs an interdisciplinary approach using a fixed-effects panel regression model as a baseline to analyze the relationship between the security of land property rights (SLPR) and the Land Consumption Rate to Population Growth Rate (LCRPGR), a key indicator of Land Use Efficiency (LUE). To address potential endogeneity issues, an instrumental variable (IV) regression model with fixed effects was also employed, using legal origins as the instrumental variable. Robustness tests were conducted by replacing the key explanatory variable (SLPR) with the Property Rights Protection (PRP) index and by replacing the dependent variable (LCRPGR) with a binary variable representing high or low LUE, using a Probit model. The dataset includes global built-up area and population data from 1990 to 2020 for 220 countries, sourced from the World Bank and the Global Human Settlement Layer (GHSL). The GHSL, a dataset created by the European Commission through satellite imagery analysis, provides detailed delineation of built-up areas. The LCRPGR was calculated using the formula: LCRPGR = LCR/PGR, where LCR = ln(Urb_t+n/Urb_t) and PGR = ln(Pop_t+n/Pop_t). Urb and Pop represent built-up area and population, respectively, for the initial year (t) and the end year (t+n). The SLPR was measured using the Fraser Institute's Security of Property Rights index. Control variables included: available land per capita; GDP per capita; industry value added (% of GDP); urbanization rate; quality of overall infrastructure; regulatory quality estimate; foreign direct investment rate; and net migration rate. The fixed-effects model accounts for unobserved country-specific effects. The IV model addresses endogeneity by using the legal origin of neighboring countries as an instrument for SLPR. The robustness tests strengthened the causal inference by examining the consistency of findings under alternative specifications.

The study reveals a global pattern of declining LUE from 1990 to 2020, with land expansion outpacing population growth. However, significant regional disparities exist. Africa, Asia, and Oceania showed an upward trend in LCRPGR (declining LUE), while North and South America exhibited a downward trend (improving LUE). Europe showed relative stability, with fluctuations influenced by population dynamics. Analysis across growth intervals (high, medium, low growth, and decrease) revealed that in 1990, several European nations were in the high-growth interval, but by 2019, a shift towards lower LUE was observed in Europe. North America showed a contrasting trend, with a shift towards high-growth intervals by 2019. Asia, Africa, South America, and Oceania consistently maintained high proportions in the low-growth interval. Income level analysis demonstrated that low and lower-middle-income countries generally showed higher LUE than upper-middle and high-income countries. Legal system analysis revealed that common law countries showed higher LUE than civil law countries. Baseline regression results for countries with LCRPGR > 0 indicated a significant negative correlation between SLPR and LCRPGR (higher SLPR corresponded to lower LCRPGR and higher LUE). The IV regression model (using legal origins as an instrument) confirmed the significant positive effect of SLPR on LUE. Robustness tests, using PRP as the key explanatory variable and a Probit model with a binary LCRPGR variable, provided further support for the positive causal relationship between SLPR and LUE.

The findings strongly support the hypothesis that secure land property rights are crucial for enhancing land use efficiency. The results align with existing literature demonstrating the positive influence of secure property rights on investment and economic growth. Secure property rights incentivize long-term investments in sustainable land management practices, resulting in higher land productivity and more efficient land transactions. The government plays a crucial role, as insecure property rights can lead to underutilization of land due to fear of expropriation, while restrictive rights can hinder adaptation to changing market conditions. Unequal land distribution can lead to excessive resource exploitation and diminished LUE. The study highlights the differential effects of legal origins, with common law systems providing stronger safeguards for property rights than civil law systems, leading to differences in LUE across countries with different legal systems. Common law countries tend to have more robust investor protection and mechanisms for property rights enforcement which are conducive for long-term land use efficiency. Civil law systems, on the other hand, are sometimes characterized by greater ambiguity and weaker protection that can hinder efficient land utilization. The findings underscore the policy implications of strengthening property rights and promoting equitable land distribution for sustainable land development.

This study demonstrates the significant and positive impact of secure land property rights on global land use efficiency. The findings highlight the importance of legal frameworks in shaping land use outcomes and underscore the need for policy interventions aimed at strengthening property rights protection and ensuring equitable land distribution. Future research could explore the interplay between social attitudes and land use patterns, incorporating indigenous perspectives on collective land management, and examining the dynamics of property rights in countries experiencing significant population decline. Further research using improved measures of SLPR and incorporating a wider range of civil law countries, particularly high-income nations, would also enhance the generalizability of these findings.

While this study provides robust evidence for the relationship between secure land property rights and land use efficiency, there are some limitations. The study primarily focuses on the relationship between secure land property rights and LUE, incorporating control variables to account for other factors. However, the impact of social and political factors, including social attitudes toward land use and the nuances of state capacity in different regions, wasn’t fully explored. While economic development and state capacity were considered through proxy variables, the study acknowledges the need for further research on the role of social attitudes and cultural contexts in shaping land use patterns. Additionally, the representativeness of case studies used for illustrative purposes might not fully capture the impact across all legal types, particularly for high-income countries. Future research should include case studies from a wider range of countries and incorporate more detailed information about social and cultural aspects. Moreover, limited data prevented in-depth analysis of countries with significant population decline. Finally, the use of the Fraser Institute's Security of Property Rights index, while comprehensive, presents limitations. The study suggests that future research could explore using alternative or supplementary indices to enhance the robustness of the analysis.