Women’s Land Ownership and Gender Equality in Nepal

Abstract

The study is an endeavor to contribute to the impact developing social circumstances regarding land ownership among women and its relation to gender equality. The purpose of this research debunks the factors effecting women land ownership and their impact on socio-economic equality. A survey was done among 100 women of a remote village, in southern Lalitpur regarding land ownership, with relation to variables such as level of education of women, ethnicity, age, presence of legal documents, knowledge of government policies, and family structure. Factors such as occupation of women, role in household decision making, and involvement in social and political spheres were also studied in relation to their land ownership. The survey was done with purposive and proportional stratified sampling among ethnic communities of Brahmin/Chhetri and Janajati. A questionnaire survey, key informant survey, focus group discussion and in-depth case study were done. Twenty-one percent of the females interviewed had land on their own and this data also had a variation with ethnic communities. It was found that women with land feel confident in the social and economic sphere of society. Brahmin community was found to be more aware of the government policies encouraging female land ownership than the Janajati community. This study aims to add knowledge on the conversation in gender equality and its relation to land and property ownership.

Keywords

gender equality land ownership women empowerment ethnicity

Introduction

Gender inequality pervades the world (Wani and Dastidar 2018) but nature differs according to the local context. Ownership inequality can be taken as a visible form of gender inequality (Wani and Dastidar 2018) and is regarded as the fundamental basis of which women feel empowered in the social and economic sphere of society. Property ownership and rights frame individuals’ economic behaviors related to investment and household purchase, which, in turn, affect broader economic development (Kotikula and Raza 2020). Females in the world own less than 20 percent of the total land. A survey of 34 developing nations by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization puts that percentage as low as 10. More than 400 million of them farm and produce the majority of the world’s food supply. Yet female farmers lack equal rights to own land in more than 90 countries (World Economic Forum 2017). According to the most important economic factor affecting women in South Asia is the gender gap in command over property as cited in (Kotikula and Raza 2020). Land and agrarian reform, allocation, and registration programs often target the household or assign ownership to the “head of household” most frequently defined as a man (UN Women 2000). Land can be categorized into different types such as agricultural farmland, land for housing, land for commercial purposes, business and factories, land for transportation networks and recreational lands, based on functional use of land (LaGro 2005). Land as a factor of production is of immense importance (Marshall 1890), a critical determinant of economic well-being, social status, and political power in Nepalese society (College of Development Studies 2013). In a patriarchal society, girls are taken as a guest in the family as they are to get married and go to others’ home and are given less priority than boys right from childhood. A woman must wait until the age of 35 and should remain unmarried to receive an equal share of her father’s property. In practice, daughters do not get a share of their parental properties nor over the property of the house where they are married to. More often, women’s access to property depends on marriage. Divorce, legal separation, infidelity, or widowhood results in the loss of a husband’s property to one of his male relatives. Landless women in particular have no social status at all, with a consequential lack of decision-making power and access to important services such as credit. Thus, this process continues with women being in the disadvantaged group from the very beginning of their life. Ultimately, landlessness is one of the root causes of poverty among women in Nepal (International Land Coliation Asia 2006).

The impact of land ownership on empowerment and gender equality is researchable for several reasons. First, Nepal has adopted progressive laws of land rights equality with the latest passed in 2007, which states that sons and daughters have equal inheritance rights regardless of their age and marital status, while the real impact is yet to be studied. Second, land ownership is vital in Nepal given the preponderant role of agriculture in Nepal’s economy, as it is for many developing countries (Mishra and Sam 2016). Government data show that 11 million rural women work more than 12 hours a day to ensure the subsistence of their families. Most of them work on farms and play a decisive role in agricultural production and ensuring food security. Notwithstanding the important role played by women, actual changes that improve women’s access to resources and production-related services in Nepal are limited, constrained by various legal, social, and cultural practices. Of these women, only 11 percent have control over their land and only 19.71 percent of the household had female land ownership, accounting for only 5 percent of total land (Central Bureau of Statistics 2011; Mishra and Sam 2016).

Policymakers and researchers agree that strengthening women’s property rights is essential for poverty reduction and equitable growth (Kieran et al. 2015). According to the research, as women’s land rights are increasingly on the policy agenda, we must begin to collect data on women’s land ownership in a systematic way. This research is important as it provides a real case scenario of land ownership among women in rural areas, which can provide an overview of the impact of progressive laws on the ground. This research is unique as it is conducted in a rural municipality inside Kathmandu Valley and has an approach of studying between two major ethnic groups; Brahmin/Chhetri (historically privileged) and Janajati (marginalized ethnic community) as caste and ethnicity also are seen to have some bearing on women’s empowerment. There is also some support for the effect of land rights on empowerment from ethnographic evidence (Allendorf 2007). The rural context of the place is relevant to many rural communities in the country. In general, gender norms are more egalitarian among most ethnic groups and Dalit castes than among higher Hindu castes in social domains (Pradhan, Meinzen-Dick, and Theis 2019), but this has not been seen in a significant manner among ethnic groups in the sector of land ownership in this research. The research is conducted in a pragmatic paradigm with dependent variables that have not been considered before.

Objective of the Study

The key issue the research has covered is the role of land ownership in gender equality. It aims to study the social and ethnic background of each woman, their participation in the community, financial activities, economic freedom, political and social involvement and relates it with having or not having land named on their own.

To examine the current women’s ownership of land in the study area

To evaluate the women empowerment and land ownership pattern

Policy Review

Constitutional and legal provisions of Nepal have guaranteed the right to equality as a fundamental right, which strengthened the concept of equal protection under the law. Article 43 under Rights of Women states that “Women shall have equal ancestral rights without any gender-based discrimination.” There is a 40 percent discount on the land registration fee granted to village women. There is a 25 percent tax exemption in land registration over the age of 70. A single woman (deceased husband) receives a 35 percent tax exemption in land registration and while transferring the land within three generations of daughter or granddaughter, 50 percent tax is exempted in land registration. Presently, there is a 25- to 50-percent discount on the registration fee when the land is registered to women’s name. Small price incentives also contribute toward increasing women’s land ownership (Ali et al. 2016) After the new civil code in 2018, daughters are entitled to keep their share of their parents’ property after getting married. After a divorce, the woman is also entitled to their husband’s share of the property, if the divorce is the husband’s fault.

Sustainable Development Goals targets according to the National Planning Commission of Nepal regarding gender equality include eliminating gender disparities at all levels of education by 2030 particularly in tertiary-level education (which currently stands at 0.71) and in the literacy rates of women and men aged 15 to 24 years (which currently stands at 0.85) (National Planning Commission, 2016). It also highlights the elimination of wage discrimination for similar work, prohibits physical and sexual violence, increases the proportion of seats held by women in the national parliament to 40 percent and 28 percent share in public service decision making.

Fifteenth five-year plan (2019–2024) has also included gender equality and property ownership in its main agendas. The main reasons identified responsible for gender inequality are social structures, conservative thoughts, sexual violence among women and girl child, and lack of effective policy and program for capacity strengthening confidence-building among women of our society. The plan also mentions the inclusive development of every social, political, and economic sector, in the newly structured federal, provincial, and local level government. The plan further emphasizes leadership building and equal access to resources and opportunities for women and focuses on providing financial literacy and empowerment to women especially in marginalized communities. For instance, the registration fee of land purchased by women is now discounted 25 percent in urban areas, 30 percent in hilly areas, and 40 percent in Himalayan area (Community Self-Reliance Centre [CSRC] 2012) in order to encourage women land ownership in less developed regions as well. This will be more effective as Nepal has been restructured into federal system of governance, providing land registration service in more decentralized way. Owning personal assets is taken as the premise of promoting women’s empowerment (Han, Zhang, and Zhang 2019). The necessity of policy to ensure women’s empowerment and ownership of land is underscored by findings of the Women’s Summit. It has suggested that without specific attention to gender inclusiveness, important segments of society may be excluded from the benefits of land administration, management, and development schemes.

Selection of Research Area

The study was conducted in ward no. 2 of Bagmati Rural Municipality of Lalitpur district. It is situated at the border of Lalitpur and Makwanpur and lies in the southern part of the Kathmandu valley. The village is rural, with vehicular access only during some season of the year, with a frequent landslide in access road. People migrate toward city areas of Lalitpur like Chapagaun and Lagankhel for higher education, job opportunities, administrative works, and health facilities. The area lies in Lalitpur district, close to the capital city, but is still lagging. Gender inequality could be seen as a principal character of society.

Research Design

As the reality of women’s land ownership and gender equality is constantly renegotiated, debated, and interpreted, research is approached through the pragmatic paradigm (Kaushik and Walsh 2019), with both qualitative and quantitative data collection. Furthermore, deductive logic, following theory-observation-confirmation (Naumov 2006), is used. The research questions were prepared based on the use of characteristics and structure to frame a model or theory, observations such as grounded theory, participant observation, learning from inside out (Liu and Tseng 2021), open questions, and exploring attitudes of the respondents. Meanwhile, quantitative research was used in observing through the eyes of the researcher using a closed research question. In quantitative research, the use of theory was done to frame and understand a problem, with measuring variables and closed questions applied for research. Cross-sectional and descriptive approaches (Kurzman et al. 2019) were made as to the major part of the research design. The data were gathered from the cross-section of the population.

Conceptual Framework

While there are increasingly policies and programs designed to strengthen women’s land tenure security, some of which have been rigorously evaluated using qualitative and quantitative methods, it is often difficult to draw broader lessons from these analyses because they use different definitions, indicators, and data. In addition, they are implemented in very different contexts, and often the defining features of the context are not identified (Doss and Meinzen 2018). According to the literature reviews and research questions, a conceptual framework is developed for further deepening the research process. Komjathy and Nichols (2014) have identified formal legal system (property rights, ownership, divorce, and marital status), custom and tradition (division of labor, extended family support/responsibilities, inheritance, traditional right of use), status within the domestic unit (decision-making power, community support system), and economy and education (access to credit and other inputs, access to wages, access to legal enforcement, education). Knowledge and information gap and involvement in village-level networks and user groups are also major factors contributing to women’s land ownership status (International Organization for Migration 2016). Bayisenge (2015) suggests that bargaining power strengthened through the social, economic, and political status also determines the land ownership among women. Regarding literature and study of local context, the dependent variables of women’s land ownership have been identified as in Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Dependent variables.

Exploring the level of knowledge and information among women concerning land policies, laws, and procedural structure is also central to this study. By exploring and assessing the legal, social, cultural, and administrative barriers to women’s access to land in their respective social environments, the study comes up with a set of recommendations for removing those barriers and ensuring equal access to land for both men and women.

Methodology

A stratified random sampling method was used to ensure the representative voices of the targeted population. According to the Village Development Committee profile of 2015, the total number of households was 500. A total of 100 households were drawn out of 500 households of the entire village with a confidence level of 93 percent, as given in Figure 2. Only women were included in the questionnaire survey of the place. All the selected households were grouped into two clusters according to ethnicity and caste: (a) Brahmin/Chhetri and (b) Janajati (the ethnic group).

Figure 2.

Sampling procedure.

About 80 percent of the total population was Janajati, comprising Tamang, Ghale, Jimba, and Magar. Rest 20 percent included Brahmin and Chhetri. The sample explained in Table 1, was selected based on proportional representation of these two castes and ethnic clusters which fell under the purposive sampling technique. The individuals within the determined clusters were selected through a stratified random convenience sampling technique.

Table 1.

Sample.

Caste/ethnicity	Total no. of households	Total sample taken	Percentage of sample taken (%)
Brahmin/Chhetri	100	20	20
Janajati	400	80	20
Total	500	100	20

Techniques and Tools of Data Collection

A questionnaire survey was done covering 100 households and 100 individuals, all of them female, interviewed using a semi-structured questionnaire, including both closed-ended and open-ended questions. The oldest married female members present during the time of the survey were taken from each household. There were nine households with no married female members. In this case, the eldest female members among them, present during the time of the survey, were taken. A mobile application called “KoBo Collect” was used to collect the primary data in the field. The Key Informants comprised elected officials, Land Revenue Officials, legal experts, local political leaders, teachers from local schools, a representative from Women groups, local female health assistants, and members of costumers committee and user groups, social mobilizers, and community members. Also, two numbers of focus group discussions were conducted discussing the critical issues of land ownership, and their positive impact on how it has led to empowering women. These were conducted with Women Cooperative groups (members and staff), Community Development Forums, and user groups. The researcher visited the study areas, interacted with the community people, and conducted interviews.

Data and Discussion

The primary data are collected from the research area, with tools of data collection described above. The collected data were imported into IBM statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS), version 25 software. Analysis of quantitative data was carried out through SPSS, and interpretations were made based on the pattern followed.

Women Ownership on Land

Ethnicity and Land Ownership

It was found that out of 100 women; only 21 of them had land ownership, as explained through Table 2. The study area falls in Province 3, in which previous study done by Rijal (2017) found out that 20.6 percent of women in the region had land on their name.

Table 2.

Land Ownership among Females with Ethnicity.

	Land ownership status		Total
	No	Yes	Total
Ethnicity
Brahmin	15	5	20
Janajati	64	16	80
Total	79	21	100

Sixteen out of 80 Janajati women had land ownership and 5 out of 20 Brahmin/Chettri women had land ownership. The data imply that 25 percent of the Brahmin women and 20 percent of the Janajati women possessed land in their name.

Citizenship among Female and Implication on Land Ownership

Citizenship is the prerequisite for land ownership.

Among the respondents, about 27 percent of the women did not have citizenship or legal document. The implication of the above result shows that awareness among women has also been dependent on the ethnic background and age of the individual women interviewed. Out of 100 women, 27 of them did not have citizenship documents, 24 of them belonging to the Janajati community. These data is represented through Table 3 above. There may be various reasons for ignorance of the importance of citizenship, among which illiteracy and lack of empowerment.

Table 3.

Land Ownership and Relation with Having Citizenship and Ethnic Background.

Do you have citizenship?	Land ownership status		Total
Do you have citizenship?	No	Yes	Total
No
Ethnicity
Brahmin	3	0	3
Janajati	8	16	24
Total	11	16	27
Yes
Ethnicity
Brahmin	12	5	17
Janajati	56	0	56
Total	68	5	73
Total
Ethnicity
Brahmin	15	5	20
Janajati	64	16	80
Total	79	21	100

Age of Women, Citizenship, and Land Ownership Status

Women aged above 50 were found more likely unaware of the importance of legal documents as citizenship. The women were divided into three age groups, 15–30, 30–50, and above 50 years. Twenty-three women were of age group 15–30 years, 39 women belonged to age group 30–50 years, and 38 women belonged to age group above 50 years. As presented in Table 4, Out of 20 women belonging to Brahmin community, only three of them did not have citizenship documents. Out of 80 women surveyed who were belonging to Janajati Community, 27 women did not have citizenship documents, 17 belonging to the age group above 50 years. Age factor was also seen to be determining the status of land ownership among females in Bagmati Rural Municipality-2. It was found that females of age between 15 and 30 years did not have land in their name. According to CSRC (2012), women’s access to land depends on marriage. The unmarried female did not have land in their name, as there were elder members in their family who acquired the land. Newly married did not own land because it was owned by their father-in-law, mother-in-law, and other elder members of the family. So, social factors were also seen to be playing a role in determining the status of female land ownership.

Table 4.

Land Ownership with Age and Citizenship.

Do you have citizenship?	Land ownership status		Total
Do you have citizenship?	No	Yes	Total
No
Age
31–50	1	6	7
Above 50	10	10	20
Total	11	16	27
Yes
Age
15–30	23	0	23
31–50	30	2	32
Above 50	15	3	18
Total	68	5	73
Total
Age
15–30	23	0	23
31–50	31	8	39
Above 50	25	13	38
Total	79	21	100

Literacy and Land Ownership

Literacy helps women to empower themselves, increase self-confidence, and make them able to stand for themselves. The research area was very remote, with a facility of only school education, and people used to go to urban areas of Lalitpur and Kathmandu for higher education. In this scenario, only the ability to read or write was taken as the criteria for the questionnaire survey and the results are represented through Table 5. Among the respondents, 47 women did not know how to read or write and did not own land. Similarly, five of them who knew how to read and write had land on their name. Sixteen of them who did not know how to read and write had land on their name. Among them, 10 of the women were more than 50 years old. This shows that even though literacy is seen to be an important factor for land ownership in rural areas, social structures and family hierarchy also play a significant role in determining ownership.

Table 5.

Literacy and Land Ownership.

	Land ownership status		Total
	No	Yes	Total
Do you know how to read and write?
No	47	16	63
Yes	32	5	37
Total	79	21	100

Knowledge of Government Subsidies on Female Land Ownership

Results are represented through Table 6 which that most of the women are unaware of the government policies supporting land ownership for females. Out of 100 females surveyed, 85 people were unaware of the government policies and subsidies that have been given to the female, in case of land ownership. Among them, most of the Janajati community is unaware of the policies. It was also found that women from Brahmin and Chhetri communities had regular visits to the urban areas, and male members of the community were active in social and political dimensions, which can also be the reason why the women in those families are aware of the government policies supporting female land ownership.

Table 6.

Age, Land Ownership, and Knowledge about Government Policies.

Knowledge about government policies on female land ownership	Land ownership status		Total
	No	Yes	Total
No
Age
15–30	18	0	18
31–50	28	1	29
Above 50	25	13	38
Total	71	14	85
Yes
Age
15–30	5	0	5
31–50	3	7	10
Total	8	7	15
Total
Age
15–30	23	0	23
31–50	31	8	39
Above 50	25	13	38
Total	79	21	100

Empowerment of Women and Land Ownership Status

Occupation and Land Ownership Status

Studying the engagement of women in different sectors for livelihood, 100 women were asked about the areas they have been working on sustaining their livelihood. It has been found that most of the women were engaged in agriculture, producing food crops, seasonal cash crops, and dairy products.

Land ownership and it’s relation with engagement for livelihood is represented in Table 7. Ninety-two out of 100 women were involved in agriculture, five women were involved in government services such as teaching and ward office, and three women were engaged in business (local shopkeepers). Although 92 percent of the women were working in the agricultural sector, only 21 percent of the women had ownership over the land. This data shows the limited access of land among females, even though they are working on a sector associated with the land.

Table 7.

Engagement for Livelihood and Land Ownership.

	Land ownership status		Total
	No	Yes	Total
Engagement for livelihood
Agriculture	74	18	92
Business	1	2	3
Service	4	1	5
Total	79	21	100

Participation of Women in Social and Political Activities

Most of the women are involved in social interest through Aama Samuha (women’s group) and Mahila Sahakari (women’s cooperatives) in ward no. 2 of Bagmati Rural Municipality. The Aama Samuha and Mahila Sahakari bring all women together and solve social as well as financial problems. The family disputes and wrongdoing in the society such as domestic violence and discrimination of women are solved through negotiation with the affected women and their families in the village. Similarly, Mahila Sahakri was initiated by Solve Nepal (a local nongovernmental organization) and managed by the group of women who deposit money as a shareholder and use money by providing money to the needy women in the society.

It was found that 44 women were involved in social activities out of which 15 of them had land in their name, represented through Table 8. Also through Table 9, it can be seen that 15 women were politically active among 100 interviewed women, out of which 7 of them had land in their name. Also, 5 women with land and 14 women with land were not involved in any kind of social and political activity, respectively.

Table 8.

Ethnicity, Land Ownership, and Social Involvement.

Involvement in women’s group	Land ownership status		Total
Involvement in women’s group	No	Yes	Total
No
Ethnicity
Brahmin	8	0	8
Janajati	43	5	48
Total	51	5	56
Yes
Ethnicity
Brahmin	7	5	12
Janajati	21	11	32
Total	28	16	44
Total
Ethnicity
Brahmin	15	5	20
Janajati	64	16	80
Total	79	21	100

Table 9.

Ethnicity, Land Ownership, and Political Involvement.

Political involvement	Land ownership status		Total
Political involvement	No	Yes	Total
No
Ethnicity
Brahmin	14	2	16
Janajati	57	12	69
Total	71	14	85
Yes
Ethnicity
Brahmin	1	3	4
Janajati	7	4	11
Total	8	7	15
Total
Ethnicity
Brahmin	15	5	20
Janajati	64	16	80
Total	79	21	100

The political and social involvement in the society is related to the degree of inclusive social mobility the society offers to a certain community and class. Social involvement is seen more rather than political involvement. All the women of Brahmin community owning land were involved in social activities such as cooperatives and women’s groups. Similarly, 11 out of 16 women from the Janjati community owning land were involved in social activities in the village. This refers to the extent of social credit and cooperative activities along with the land ownership status of women. The historical marginalization of Janajati community and domination of Brahmin Chhetri community (Shneiderman 2013) has also been reflected in the access to the political and social activities as well as awareness of government policies among women of these communities.

Women Headed Household

Heading of household refers to involvement in the decision-making process about major events and expenses. Women were interviewed on whether they are taking part in the decision-making process in the different aspects of their families. Only some whose sons and husbands were out from the country, in labor migration, were taking lead in the decision making of the family. However, they also mentioned that their son and husband are also consulted while making any major decisions and expenses in the family. All the women, whose husband, father-in-law, and son were staying with them in the house, told that major decisions are taken by the male members and even if women had some say on it, final decisions were taken by male members. A study published by Khanal (2019) also support the fact that husbands are in charge of the decision making even though women own land due to social cultural norms. According to (Kang et al., 2019), managerial decisions are fully determined within the households. Only 13 women out of 100 interviewed said that major decisions were taken by them, as shown in Table 10. As the labor migration to the gulf and foreign countries was high in the village, women with land, whose husbands were out of the country, were making major household decisions on their own.

Table 10.

Ethnicity, Land Ownership, and Household Decision.

Who makes the household decision	Land ownership status		Total
Who makes the household decision	No	Yes	Total
Jointly
Ethnicity
Brahmin	7	2	9
Janajati	40	1	41
Total	47	3	50
Other female members
Ethnicity
Brahmin	2	1	3
Janajati	12	6	18
Total	14	7	21
Other male members
Ethnicity
Brahmin	6		6
Janajati	10		10
Total	16		16
Own
Ethnicity
Brahmin	0	2	2
Janajati	2	9	11
Total	2	11	13
Total
Ethnicity
Brahmin	15	5	20
Janajati	64	16	80
Total	79	21	100

There is a clear relationship between the variables taken and the state of land ownership among women in the research area. Ethnicity did not have any significant role in women’s land ownership, but other social factors are seen to be detrimental in women’s land ownership. Women land ownership has a direct relation in participation in decision making spaces, building capacity and empowerment among women community. Awareness of government policies, the importance of citizenships, involvement in social and political activities, all are directly related to education, empowerment, and thus increasing the likeliness of ownership of land. In addition, (Khalid et al., 2015) suggested that the access, own and control of land plays a great role in gender equality in the family. According to Komjathy, Nichols, and Ericsson (2001) Women needs to be informed of their rights to help them defend those right. Kumar and Quisumbing (2012) found that awareness about the land registration process is positively correlated with the shift in perceptions toward an equal division of land. Similarly, owning land makes woman empowered, increase social and political activities, and thus increase awareness, social, and economic status. Mishra and Sam (2016) found that women’s land ownership significantly increases their empowerment and increased engagement. According to Mengesha et al. (2021), land ownership strengthens women’s self-confidence with respect to their land rights. According to study done by Rijal (2017), land ownership decides the economic dependence or independence of a person and also restricted in pursuit of self-employment activity of choice. Even though most Nepalese women work on agricultural land, they don’t have ownership on them due to the societal and cultural norms. Change in household labor division also plays a role in decision-making power (Han et al. 2019). Allendorf (2007) found that women in Nepal who own land are significantly more likely to have the final say in household decisions (Meinzen-Dick et al. 2017). Although women are not used to being household heads, factors such as the out-migration of male members had given the responsibility to women.

Conclusion

Among 100 women surveyed, 21 percent of the women had land in their name, which is close to the national data of Central Bureau of Statstics 2011 that showed only 19 percent of the women in Nepal had land ownership and 20.6 percent according to the study by Rijal (2017). In places where agriculture is the main source of economy for women, policies enhancing land rights equity have the potential to ensure women’s empowerment and associated beneficial welfare effects. Land rights bring security, independence, and confidence, which together enable women to be active in all social and political arenas. Women’s ownership of land encourages men to view women as equals, which is shown to give women more decision-making power in their households and decrease domestic violence (USAID 2018). In a patriarchal society, ethnicity does not have a significant effect on the land ownership of females. The variables such as literacy and age of women, participation in political and social activities, and awareness of government policies are closely related to ownership of land among women. Female land ownership has provided a strong basis to take forward the movement and assist in mainstreaming gender equality in Nepal. The patriarchal culture is not automatically transformed even if laws favoring land ownership are passed (CSRC 2012). Policy formulation is not sufficient; sustained engagement for full implementation for the actualization of policy regarding female land ownership must be prioritized in the society.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biography

Srijana Koirala is an urban planner and architect. She did her MSc Urban Planning, MA Rural Development and Bachelors in Architecture from Tribhuvan University. Her research interests include gender studies, urban and regional planning, governance, public policy and sustainable development.

References

Ali

D. A.

Collin

Deininger

Dercon

Sandefur

Zeitlin

2016. “Small Price Incentives Increase Women’s Access to Land Titles in Tanzania.” Journal of Development Economics 123:107–22.

Allendorf

2007. “Do Women’s Land Rights Promote Empowerment and Child Health in Nepal?” World Development 35:1975–88.

Bayisenge

2015. “Changing Gender Relations? Women’s Experiences of Land Rights in the Case of the Land Tenure Reform Program in Rwanda”. Journal of Eastern African Studies 9(1): 74–90.

Central Bureau of Statistics. 2011. “National Population and Housing Census 2011 (National Report).”

Chigbu

U. E.

2019. “Masculinity, Men and Patriarchal Issues Aside: How Do Women’s Actions Impede Women’s Access to Land? Matters Arising from a Peri-rural Community in Nigeria.” Land Use Policy 81:39–48.

College of Development Studies. 2013. “Impact of Land ownership and land entitlement to women in Nepal.” Retrieved from http://ilcasia.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/impact-study-of-jlo-and-wle-cds-2.pdf.

Community Self-Reliance Centre. (2012). Case Study: Greater Empowerment and Security of Women through the Joint Land Ownership Certificate. Kathmandu, Nepal: Community Self-Reliance Centre, Abhiyan Nepal, National Land Rights Forum.

Deere

C. D.

2003. “The Gender Asset Gap: Land in Latin America.” World Development 31:925–47.

Doss

Meinzen

2018. “Women’s Land Tenure Security: A Conceptual Framework.” Research Consortium. Retrieved January 29, 2022 (https://www.ifpri.org/publication/womens-land-tenure-security-conceptual-framework).

10.

Han

Zhang

2019. “The Role of Land Tenure Security in Promoting Rural Women’s Empowerment: Empirical Evidence from Rural China. Land Use Policy 86:280–89.

11.

International Land Coliation Asia. 2006. “Greater Empowerment and Security of Women through the Joint Land Ownership Certificate.” International Land Coliation. Retrieved January 29, 2022 (https://data.landportal.info/library/resources/landwiserecord2731item2922/greater-empowerment-and-security-women-through-joint).

12.

International Organization for Migration. 2016. “Barriers to Women’s Land and Property Access and Ownership in Nepal.” Kathmandu, Nepal: International Organization for Migration.

13.

Kang

Schwab

2019. “Gender Differences in the Relationship between Land Ownership and Managerial Rights: Implications for Intrahousehold Farm Labor Allocation.” World Development 125:104669.

14.

Kaushik

Walsh

C. A.

2019. Pragmatism as a Research Paradigm and Its Implications for Social Work Research. Social Sciences 8:255.

15.

Khalid

Nyborg

Khattak

B. N.

2015. “Whose Property Whose Authority? Gendering the Legal and Customary Practices in Ownership and Access to Land: A Case of Swat, Pakistan.” Journal of Rural Studies 41:47–58.

16.

Khanal

2019. Global Press Journal, January 2. Retrieved January 29, 2022 (https://globalpressjournal.com/asia/nepal/women-land-nepal-husbands-still-charge/).

17.

Kieran

Sproule

Doss

Quisumbing

Kim

S. M.

2015. “Examining Gender Inequalities in Land Rights Indicators in Asia.” Agricultural Economics 46:119–38.

18.

Komjathy

Nichols

S. E.

2014. “Principles for Equitable Gender Inclusion in Land: FIG Guidelines on Women’s Access to Land.” FIG Publication. Retrieved June 27, 2021 (https://www.fig.net/resources/proceedings/fig_proceedings/korea/full-papers/pdf/session6/komjathy-nichols-ericsson.pdf).

19.

Komjathy

Nichols

S. E.

Ericsson

2001. “Principles for Equitable Gender Inclusion in Land Administration: FIG Guidelines on Women’s Access to Land.”

20.

Kotikula

Raza

W. A.

2020. “Housing Ownership Gender Differences in Dhaka, Bangladesh.” Land Use Policy. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2020.104983.

21.

Kumar

Quisumbing

2012. “Beyond Death Do Us Part”: The Long-term Implications of Divorce Perceptions on Women’s Well-being and Child Schooling in Rural Ethopia.” World Development 14(12):2478–89. doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.

22.

Kurzman

Dong

Gorman

Hwang

Ryberg

Zaidi

2019. “Women’s Assessments of Gender Equality.” Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 5:1–13.

23.

LaGro

Jr.

2005. “Land Use Classification.” Encyclopedia of Soils in Environment. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison.

24.

Liu

Tseng

M.-Y.

2021. “Paradigmatic Variation in Hedging and Boosting: A Comparative Study of Discussions in Narrative Inquiry and Grounded Theory Research.” English for Specific Purposes 61:1–16.

25.

Marshall

1890. “Principle of Economics.” p.1 The Agents of Production: Land, Labour, and Capital and Organization, edited by Marshall

Book V 8 section.

26.

Meinzen-Dick

Quisumbing

Doss

Theis

2017. “Women’s Land Rights as a Pathway to Poverty Reduction: Framework and Review of Available Evidence.” Agricultural Systems 172:72–82. doi:10.1016/j.agsy.2017.10.009.

27.

Mengesha

A. K.

Damyanovic

Mansberger

Agegnehu

S. K.

2021. “Reducing Gender Inequalities through Land Titling? The Case of Gozamin.” World Development 145. Retrieved January 29, 2022 (https://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeewdevel/v_3a145_3ay_3a2021_3ai_3ac_3as0305750x21001443.htm).

28.

Mishra

K. G.

Sam

A. G.

2016. “Does Women’s Land Ownership Promote Their Empowerment? Empirical Evidence from Nepal.” World Development 78, 360–71.

29.

National Planning Commission. 2016. “Sustainable Development Goals Preliminary Report 2016-2030.” Retrieved January 29, 2022 (https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/report/2016/the%20sustainable%20development%20goals%20report%202016.pdf).

30.

Naumov

2006. “On Modal Logic of Deductive Closure.” Annals of Pure and Applied Logic 141:218–24.

31.

Pradhan

Meinzen-Dick

Theis

2019. “Property Rights, Intersectionality, and Women’s Empowerment in Nepal.” Journal of Rural Studies 70:26–35.

32.

Rijal

S. P.

2017. “Female Ownership of Fixed Assets in Nepal: A Regional Perspective.” The Third Pole: Journal of Geography 17:73–82.

33.

Shneiderman

2013. “Developing a Culture of Marginality: Nepal’s Current Classificatory Moment.” Journal of Global and Historical Anthropology 2013(65):42–55. doi:10.3167/fcl.2013.650105.

34.

UN Women. 2000. “Facts and Figures.” Retrieved December 26, 2018 (http://www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/commission-on-the-status-of-women-2012/facts-and-figures).

35.

Wani

Z. A.

Dastidar

2018. “Gender Inequality—A Global Issue.” International Journal of Research, 5(19): 1–19.

36.

World Economic Forum. 2017. “Agenda.” Retrieved January 29, 2022 (https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/01/women-own-less-than-20-of-the-worlds-land-its-time-to-give-them-equal-property-rights/)