See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/378343287

Assessment of Good Governance Principles Implementation in Urban Land

Administration: The Case of Bishoftu Town

Article · May 2022

DOI: 10.7176/JRDM/85-01

CITATIONS READS

2 357

1 author:

Ashenafi Bekele Mulatu

University of Gondar
6 PUBLICATIONS 8 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ashenafi Bekele Mulatu on 30 April 2024.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Journal of Resources Development and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2422-8397 An International Peer-reviewed Journal
Vol.85, 2022

Assessment of Good Governance Principles Implementation in

Urban Land Administration: The Case of Bishoftu Town
Ashenafi Bekele Mulatu
College of Social Sciences and Humanities, Department of Development and Environmental Management
Studies, University of Gondar, Ethiopia

Abstract
The main objective of the study is to assess implementation of good governance principles in Urban land
administration of bishoftu town, to select sample respondents from the total population researcher was use both
probability and non probability sampling techniques. The instruments used to collect data from participants for
this study were; Questionnaire, Interview and Focused group discussion. Five selected principles of good
governance were taken as variables of good governance. Cross sectional research design is applied in this study.
To achieve the study objectives, Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were also carried out. The
findings of the study revealed that the existing land administration practice in Bishoftu town can be characterized
as it is not participatory as it is expected to be by its citizens. It shows a tendency of biasedness by sex, social
group, and land ownership status differences of the general public, in none of all the five indicator parameters of
good governance was the existing land administration practice perceived as good or very good by any of the
social, economic, demographic groups considered in the study. Even the town’s Land development and
management office employees characterized it as “satisfactory”. “Participation” and “Fairness and Equity” are
the most problematic points on which the land administration practice of Bishoftu town is found to be ineffective
and inadequately implementing good governance principles to the expectation level of the citizens.
Keywords: Good governance, urban land administration
DOI: 10.7176/JRDM/85-01
Publication date:May 31st 2022

1.1. Back ground of the study

Governance refers to the approach in which power is implemented by governments in managing a country’s
social, economic, and environmental recourses, in other words it is the process of decision making and the
process by which decisions are implemented (Stig, 2009) Good governance in land administration is not a new
idea, and essential for both developed and developing countries in many nations, land is a reason for social,
ethnic, cultural and religious conflict for many years significant numbers of wars and revolutions have been
occurred rights to land, throughout history, virtually all human developments have committed considerable
efforts to defining rights to land and in establishing organizations to administer these rights, land administration
strategy (Keith , 2007).
Good governance within land administration and land management institutions is necessary for sustainable
development both in terms of operational durability, equitable stakeholder involvement and benefits, and
consistency in law and policy implementation (Tony and Kate, 2008). land in towns is a major element in urban
development, especially while going with land use ,urban planning, taxation and protection basic rights while;
insecurity of land tenure is a main bottleneck for urban growth and strictly harsh the source of revenue of poor
urban residents (Tukstra , 2012).
United Nations (UN) Feb 2008 defines land administration as “The process of determining, recording and
disseminating information about ownership, value and use of land, when implementing land policies.” In history,
land issues have been an essential factor in Ethiopia’s political and economic improvement for example the pre
1974 imperial regime supported a feudal agrarian organization, with major inequities based on ethnic identity
and social class exploitation of the landless peasant tenants supported the nobility, government bureaucracy,
military, and church (Ayeno, 2009). However, there were regional differences in the level of inequality in
general; the population in Amhara and Tigray with their communal or kinship land regimes had comparatively
more egalitarian access to land in, than the population in the South; even within these systems, there were
significant inequities (Asmelash, 2006)
Land is a very essential resource and a driver of economic growth in Ethiopia but the way it managed and
administrated has its own implication on a countries economy ,experts have belief that land is not set to good use
in Ethiopia in addition; the country is plagued with corruption that torrent all sectors, including land
administration and it is familiar with corruption as well as state detain; there are a number of factors in
Ethiopia’s present land administration system that can generate possible entry points for corrupt activities
occurrence, from this some reasons are: lack of clear policies, weak institutions, lack of transparency, and
limited society involvement, and lack of capacity building (Linder, 2014).
The government of Ethiopia designed national programs, policies, and strategies to strengthen and sustain

1
Journal of Resources Development and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2422-8397 An International Peer-reviewed Journal
Vol.85, 2022

the country's implementation capacity, which is a key to build on the continuous democratization process;
however, the economy has been faced with implementation capacity challenges, in line with the development
strategies therefore, the implementation of public Service improvement plan and good governance packages
were further enhanced ensuring efficiency, effectiveness, transparency and accountability at all level (MoFED,
2014)

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Good governance at stage of public level depends on state organs and public service organizations to enhance
stakeholder’s participatin, it also depends on a consistent, transparent, and accountable public administration that
guarantees the fairness and effectiveness of decisions and their implementation, the treat to almost all problems
that we face in the society such as corruption, inefficiency, and carelessness is to fully adopt and implement the
principles of good governance (Fikret, 2015). According to Diana and valukoyte ( 2012) good governance
principle implementation faces lack of a clear strategic visualization, prevailing manifestation of governance
conservatism that do not motivate initiatives and challenges in local self government.
In Ethiopia, urban areas are characterize by a variety of land related qualifications with indistinguishable
legal standing and high levels of lack of formality with little prospect for formalization unlike the large scale
rural program because of the accelerating rapidity of urban migration and population growth, the government
takes corrective action through cadastral mapping and regularization ;the regularization process include an
assessment of the potential to incorporated different land related documents to set up land use records ( World
Bank, 2010)
According to Takele (2014) land administration in the Ethiopia city lacks transparency, accountability,
equity, efficiency and effectiveness, governance in the city is weak which leads to an abuse land delivery system.
According to Ashenafi (2015), urban land administrators and municipality’s lacked skilled human resources to
attend to land administration, and irregularity on interpreting enacted legislations due to the absence of definite
work procedure, capacity building training and proper planning. The previous studies mainly focused on practice,
customer’s satisfaction and prevalence of good governance. Therefore; to fill the gaps of previous study this
research intends to assess the implementation of good governance principle in urban land administration of
bishoftu town.

1.3. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

1.3.1. GENERAL OBJECTIVE
The general objective of the study is to assess the implementation of good governance principles in urban land
administration of Bishoftu Town.
1.3.2. SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The specific objectives of the study include to
1. Examine the activities of residents in implementation of good governace principles of the town land
administration
2. Assess the perception of both service users and service providers on the implementation of good
governance principles in land administration of bishoftu town.
3. Identify challenges on the implementation of good governance principles in land administration of
bishoftu town.
4. Assess overall service delivery in bishoftu town land administration on the implementation of good
governance principles.

1.4. Significance of the Study

This study has a vital importance by provide valuable information on the implementation of good governance in
land administration system of bishoftu town municipality it is paper based relevance to policy makers, and to
concerned bodies, it will be suggesting recommendations to the improvement of land administration.

3. Methods
3.1 Research Design
In this study, the researcher used cross sectional research design based on the ground that helps to explain the
current status of good governance implementation in land administration of the study area. In addition, cross
sectional research design method has an advantageous to collect details of data from many respondents in a short
period of time, it helps to investigate what the reality or what actually exist within a situation such as current
practices, progresses and situations of different aspects.

3.2 Research Approach

The study employed mixed research approach which aimed to produce both qualitative and quantitative data.

2
Journal of Resources Development and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2422-8397 An International Peer-reviewed Journal
Vol.85, 2022

The quantitative approach like mean standard deviation and percentage were employed to get relevant data from
selected respondents regarding the implementation, and challenges of good governance implementation in the
study area by using questionnaires. The qualitative approach is useful to understand the perception of
respondents about good governance implementation in land administration by using Interview, and Focus Group
Discussion (FGD).

3.3 Sampling Techniques and Sampling Size

In this study; to select sample respondents from the total households, the researcher used both probability and
non probability sampling techniques. According to 2015/16 plan and Information Office of Bishoftu Town
municipality, the total households of a town are 33,568. Bishoftu has fourteen kebeles from this Five kebeles are
rural urban kebele of the town. Whereas only 9 kebeles are urban kebeles in a new reform of the town. The
researcher selected kebele 2, 5 and 9 by Simple random selection. Totally, there are 3742 households are there in
this three selected kebeles. The simple random sampling technique was employed to select the representative of
the target population, with 95% confidence level and 5% precision level was used to determine sampling size.
It is calculated by using Yamane formula (1967) sited in masuku (2014)
n=N/1+N (e) 2
Where: n- is desired sample size
N- Target population of the study
e- Margin of error.
n=3742/1+3742 (0.05)2 = 361 of the sample size.
Out of 33,568 total households, the researcher selected 3742 households for this study as a sample frame.
The proportional of the total sample households were selected randomly on the basis of their number of
household within each kebeles. So, total samples as household were 361. Bishoftu town municipality has 147
employees however, department of land administration has 60 employees. From those, the researcher selected 3
higher officials for interview as key informant purposively based on assuming that they know well about the
problem. In addition to this, 29 employees were selected by simple Random selection and given questionnaire
for them. Totally, 32 simple sizes were selected from land administration institution based on the objectives that
are selected to be considered however only 25 questionare returned and analysed.
Table 3.1: Summarize of samples distribution of household of the study area.
Name of kebele Total household Sample size Percentage (%) Sampling techniques
number
kebele 02 1247 120 33 Simple random
kebele 05 1059 102 28 Simple random
kebele 09 1436 139 39 Simple random
Total 3742 361 100 Simple random
Source: the researcher exploitation from city administration (2017)

3.4 Methods of data Collection

Both primary and secondary sources of data were used in this study. Primary data were gathered through,
household questionnaire survey, (which were includes close and same open ended questions), focused group
discussion and key informant interview. Interviews were conducted with higher land administration officials.
Moreover, for issues that require more clarification and exploration of the group, experiences and debates on the
topic under the study one Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) which consist 9 members 3 people from each kebele
was conducted in this study. Each of them was selected purposively from each kebeles.
Secondary data were obtained from text books, press release, periodicals, journals, newsletters, annual
reports, and seminar papers, unpublished materials of relevance to the study, report documents, internet sources,
and documents of the municipalities.

3.5 Data Collection Instrument

In conducting this study, the researcher used three data gathering tools. These are questionnaires for beneficiaries
and the staff of land development and management and interview guides for leaders of the institution, interviews
and FGD for the data collection method of this study consist of two parts. Part one is concerned with the
demographic information of respondents including gender, age, educational background, marital status and land
occupation. The second part contains questions related with good governance which contains principles or
dimensions with their indicators that extracted and adopted from Land Governance Assessment Frameworks.
Likert scale was employed for this study in the data collection instrument. Therefore, in this study respondents
have been asked to rate each item on a Likert five point scales by assigning a value: 1 = strongly disagree, 2 =
disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree and 5= strongly agree. In addition to this, there were some close ended
questionnaires that interpreted by narration in qualitative parts. Data were collected for about 5 weeks in

3
Journal of Resources Development and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2422-8397 An International Peer-reviewed Journal
Vol.85, 2022

February and March of 2017.

3.7. Methods 0f Data Analysis and Presentation

In order to meet the general and specific objectives of the study, both qualitative and quantitative methods of
data analysis were employed. The data collected from primary sources using a variety of methods and techniques
were used to be organized, coded, condensed, and analyzed into sub sections based on their similarities.
Information that collected through interviews, questionnaire and FGDs were checked and edited to detect errors
and omissions.

4. Result and Discussion

4.1. Description on Groups of Participants of the Sociodemographic Characterstics of Respondents
In this study, there are two groups of Participants, namely, residents of Bishoftu town and employees of the
town’s Land Development and Management Office. They were involved in the study as depicted on table 4.1
below based on the sampling procedure described in the previous chapters. The 390 mixed-type of
questionnaires were distributed to selected residents and employees of professional experts of Bishoftu land
development and management office. However, only 97% questionnaires were returned and analyzed.
Accordingly, based on the descriptive statistical analysis that was made on the response and collected from
groups, a total of 378 (97%) respondents, 353 (93.4%) from the residents, and 25 (6.6%) from the employees
groups were practically participated in the study from each group respectively.
Table 4.1: Frequency and Percentage of the Two Groups of the Participants Involved in the Study
(1=Resident, 2= Employee)
Group Frequency %
Valid Residents 353 93.4
Employees 25 6.6
Total 378 100.0
Source: Own Survey Result (March, 2017)

Table 4.2: Discussion and presentation on demographic data nalysis on the residents group of participants
Number and percentage of residents participants by various demographic variables
Demographic Variable Value Label N %
Sex of respondents Male 308 87
Female 45 13
Age of respondents 20-30 47 13
31-40 120 34
41-50 87 25
51-60 63 18
>60 36 10
Marutal status Married 302 86
Divorced 15 4
Windowed 36 10
Educationalstatus Illitrate 9 3
Grade1-8 140 40
Grade9-12 84 24
Dipiloma 62 17
Frist dgree 54 15
Mastarate dgree 4 1
Land Owener ship Private 287 81
Rented (kebele house) 63 18
Have no land 3 1
Source: Own survey result (March, 2017)
As it is depicted on the above table 4.2, the resident participants of the study were characterized by five
types of demographic variables, namely: sex, educational level, marital status, age, and land ownership status.
Therefore, out of the overall 353 resident-participants involved in the study, 45 (13%) of them were female, and
the remaining 308 (87%) were male. In terms of age, 36 (10%) were with more than 60 years of age, 63 (18%)
within the range of 51-60 years of age, 87 (25%) within 41-50, 120 (34%) within 31-40, and 47 (13%)
individuals within a range of 20-30 years of age had been involved in the study. Regarding to marital status
variable 15 (4%) divorces, 36 (10%) widowed, and 302 (86%) were married participants. In terms of Educational
Status, out of 353 total numbers of participants, 9 (3%) were illiterate, 140 (40%) completed 1-8 grade levels, 84

4
Journal of Resources Development and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2422-8397 An International Peer-reviewed Journal
Vol.85, 2022

(24%) completed 9-12 grades, 62 (17%) diploma holders, 54 (15%) first degree holders, and the remaining 4
(1%) second degree holders. In terms of land/House Owners ship, 187 (81%) have private land and 63 (18%) are
living in kebele house, the rest 3 (1%) have neither their own land nor kebele house they lived in house rent from
private owners.
Table 4.3: Discussion and presentation on demographic data analysis on the employee group of
participants
Number and percentage of employee participants by various demographic variables
Demographic Variable Value Label N %
20-25 5 20
26-30 8 32
Age categories of Employee 31-35 4 16
respondents 36-40 4 16
>41 4 16

Educational qualification of Employee 1-12 1 4

catagories Diploma 5 20
Degree 16 64
Masters 3 12

Marital Status of employee Married 19 76

Unmarried 6 24

<1 Year 6 24
Work Experience of Employee 1-5 Year 13 52
6-10 Year 4 16
>10 Year 2 8

Sex of Employee respondents Male 19 76

Female 6 24

Land (House) Ownership status of the Have Private Land (House) 16 64

Participants Rented from Kebele/Government) 6 24
Rented from Private House Owners 3 12
Source: Own Survey Result (March, 2017)
Table 4.3 shows that, the total number of employees represented in the study from the Land Development
and Management office of Bishoftu town were 25. The number and percentage of this group of participants that
grouped in terms of six types of demographic variables, namely: sex, educational level, work experience, marital
status, land Ownership and age. Accordingly, out of the total employee-participants that involved in the study, 6
(24%) of them were females, and the remaining 19 (76%) were males. In terms of age, 5 (20%) were with 20-25
years of age, 8 (32%) with 26-30 years of age, and the remaining 12 employees, 4(16%) in each of the age rages:
31-35, 36-40, and >41. The other grouping variable applied was marital status. Based on this variable, 19 (76%)
were married and the remaining 6 (24%) were unmarried. Academically, out of the 25 total number of
participants 1 individual (4%) was below 12 grade, 5 (20%) with diploma, 16 (64%) with first degree, and 3
(12%) of them were with second degree. Other variable was the employee work experience. Accordingly, 6
(24%) employees have <1 year work expriace, 13 (52%) were 1-5 year, 4 (16%) were 6-10 year, and 2 (8%)
employee were >10 year work experience. In terms of land Owner status, 16 (64%) have private land, 6 (24%)
lived in kebele house and the rest 3 (12%) were living in private rent house.

5
Journal of Resources Development and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2422-8397 An International Peer-reviewed Journal
Vol.85, 2022

4.2: Separate Analysis and Interpretation on the Response of the Resident Groups Only.
Table 4.4: Frequency Percentage Mean and Standard deviation of responses of residents on the five
indicator variables of good governance
Response Participation Transparency Accountability Equity and Efficiency and
and Fairness Effectiveness
Responsibility
Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D S.D
Men
2.35 .734 2.35 .744 2.63 .686 2.36 .810 2.42 .719
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq %
Strongly disagree 30 8.5 28 7.9 5 1.4 33 9.3 20 5.7
Disagree 195 55.2 199 56.4 154 43.6 200 56.7 191 54.1
Neutral 105 29.7 101 28.6 161 45.6 84 23.8 120 34.0
Agree 22 6.2 23 6.5 31 8.8 33 9.3 19 5.4
Strongly 1 .3 2 .6 2 .6 3 .8 3 .8
Agree
Total 353 100.0 353 100.0 353 100.0 353 100.0 353 100.0
Source: Own Survey Result (March, 2017)
The above table 4.4 summarizes frequency, percentage, mean and standard deviation of the overall
perceived responses of the resident groups of participants in the study, on the five indicators of good governance,
namely: participation, transparency, accountability and responsibility, equity and fairness, and effectiveness and
efficiency. Accordingly, as compared to the total number of this group of participants (353), the majority (more
than half) of the participants responded on four of good governance principles, except the “accountability and
responsibility” parameter, that they strongly disagree and disagree on the positively written statements under
these five major indicator independent variables of good governance mentioned above. In specific terms, a total
of 225 (63.7%) respondents strongly disagree and disagree on that the existing land administration scheme in
Bishoftu is generally participatory.
On the other hand, 30 (8.5%) strongly disagree, and 195 (55.2%) disagree.
Similarly, 227 (64.3%) strongly disagree and disagree on that the existing land administration scheme of
Bishoftu town is generally transparent. From those 28 (7.9%) Strongly disagree and 199 (56.4) disagree. The
finding obtained from open ended questionnaires for residents implies that; the ways of service provision of
Bishoftu town land administration is very complicated and have no transparency and fairness.
Besides, the mean and standard deviation results displayed in the above table 4.4 prove the interpretation
made above. The mean and standard deviation figures representing the response of the resident group of
participants on each indicator variables of good governance, namely: participation (M=2.35, S.D=0.734),
transparency (M= 2.35, S.D=0.744), equity and fairness (M= 2.36, S.D=0.810) and effectiveness and efficiency
(M= 2.42, S.D=0.719), generally mean can taken as in which existed between “disagree” and “neutral”. Except
the accountability and responsibility variable with (M= 2.63, S.D=0.686) in which is nearer to “Neutral” in
which is different fro other variables. However, to check what causes these lower levels of mean responses on
the five indicators of good governance and assurance whether, these responses are true to the overall population
or not, inferential statistical analysis procedures were followed using five grouping independent variables,
namely: sex, age, educational status, marital status and land ownership status.
With this premise, multivariate and correlation statistical analyses were made within and between the
above two groups of variables: five demographic independent and five good governance indicator dependent
variables using SPSS (version 20 ) statistical software as shown on the following consecutive tables.

6
Journal of Resources Development and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2422-8397 An International Peer-reviewed Journal
Vol.85, 2022

4.3. Comparisons among Responses on the Five Indicators of Good Governance Based On Grouping
Demographic Variables.
Table 4.5: Comparisons among responses on the five indicators of good governance based on grouping
demographic variables of residents groups
Grouping Sub Measure Indicator

the Implementation of
on
Variable group

Equity and Fairness

Accountability and

Effective-ness and

Good Governance
OverallPerception
Responsibility
Transparency
Participation

Efficiency
male Mean 2.40 2.35 2.64 2.40 2.42 2.4422
N 308 308 308 308 308 308
Std. .722 .749 .697 .827 .715 .54160
Sex Deviation

female Mean 1.98 2.38 2.62 2.04 2.38 2.2800

N 45 45 45 45 45 45
Std. .723 .716 .614 .601 .747 .42082
Deviation
Total Mean 2.35 2.35 2.63 2.36 2.42 2.4215
N 353 353 353 353 353 353
Std. .734 .744 .686 .810 .719 .53000
Deviation
Land private Mean 2.44 2.38 2.63 2.39 2.44 2.4556
(House) N 284 284 284 284 284 284
Ownership
Status Std. .747 .754 .683 .814 .703 .53737
Deviation
Rent Mean 1.95 2.28 2.66 2.26 2.34 2.2985
from
kebele N 65 65 65 65 65 65
Std. .543 .673 .691 .776 .776 .47713
Deviation
Rent Mean 2.00 2.00 2.25 1.50 2.25 2.0000
from
N 4 4 4 4 4 4
Private
Owners Std. .000 1.155 .957 .577 .957 .43205
Deviation
Total Mean 2.35 2.35 2.63 2.36 2.42 2.4215
N 353 353 353 353 353 353
Std. .734 .744 .686 .810 .719 .53000
Deviation
Source: Own Survey Result (March, 2017)
Comparisons among Responses on the Five Indicators of Good Governance based on Grouping
Demographic Variables Showing Significant Differences (Sex and Land (House) Ownership Status of the
Participants)
Based on the mean and standard deviation comparisons made between sex groups (male, and female), and
among participants with varying land (house) ownership status (1. participants having private house, 2.
participants renting from kebele, and 3. Those renting from private owners), close examination on the above
response analysis result on table 4.5, tells two important trends that are worth analyzing further:
1. In relative terms, female resident participants exhibited lower mean response than males on the overall
land administration practice as well as on each of the five measuring indicator variables used to check their
perception on the level of various aspects signaling the prevalence of good governance characterizing the land

7
Journal of Resources Development and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2422-8397 An International Peer-reviewed Journal
Vol.85, 2022

administration practice in Bishoftu town. This implies that females are less satisfied with the existing land
management practice in Bishoftu than men as it is observed from their responses on almost all indicator variables
except the “Transparency” variable.
2.The mean response of resident participants having no private house (rented from kebele or rented in
private owners) based on almost all parameters except on the “Efficiency and Effectiveness” variable reported
to have lower satisfaction with the existing land management practice in Bishoftu than private house (land)
owners in terms of both the overall land administration practice, as well as on each of the five measuring
indicator variables used to check their perceived opinion characterizing the land administration practice in
Bishoftu town in terms of good governance measuring indicators.
However, to check whether or not these perception differences exhibited due to “sex” and “land ownership
status” demographic variables are true to the general population of the study, significance test had to be carried
out.
Hence, the next multivariate inferential statistical analysis was made to check the significance and
practicality (effect size) levels of the preceding descriptive analysis result displayed between these two
demographic variables and the independent good governance indicator variables.

4.4: Multivariate Analysis Result of Overall Perception of the Respondents on the Prevalence of Good
Governance
Table 4.6: Multivariate analysis result of overall Perception of the respondents on the Impelementation of
good governance in the land administration system of Bishoftu town
Source Type III df Mean F Sig. Partial
Sum of Square Eta
Squares Squared
Sex Participation 2.355 1 2.355 4.747 .030 .014
Transparency .084 1 .084 .151 .698 .000
Effectiveness and Efficiency .193 1 .193 .371 .543 .001
Equity and Fairness 6.331 1 6.331 9.913 .002 .028
Accountability and Responsibility .403 1 .403 .851 .357 .002
Land Participation 4.992 2 2.496 5.031 .007 .028
Ownership Transparency .851 2 .425 .762 .467 .004
status Effectiveness and Efficiency .871 2 .435 .835 .435 .005
Equity and Fairness 4.278 2 2.139 3.349 .036 .019
Accountability and Responsibility .795 2 .398 .839 .433 .005

Sex 1.106 1 1.106 4.012 .046 .011

Overall Perception on the
Land Imlementation of Good 1.490 2 .745 2.701 .069
Ownership Governance .015
status
Source: Own Survey (March, 20170)
From the above presentation of multivariate statistical analysis result on table 4.6,one can see that “sex” as a
source (independent) variable showed significant, P< 0.05 value on : “ participation” (F=4.747 , P= .030),
“Equity and Fairness” (F=9.913 , P=.002 ), and “ Overall Perception on the Prevalence of Good Governance”
(F=4.012, P=0.046) independent variables. Moreover, the effect size (Eta Squared) level of “sex” on these
dependent variables, as shown on the table, is computed as: 0.014 (for participation), 0.028 (for Equity and
Fairness), and 0.011(for Overall Perception on the Prevalence of Good Governance). Hence, from these
significance test results, it can be concluded that the response of differences exhibited between the two sex
groups in the resident group of participants is true, the general population only on these specific dependent
variables.
However, based on the corresponding effect size (d- values) for each dependent variable computed from sex
as a source, the practicality level of the difference on all the three dependent variables can be interpreted as with
low effect based on the following Cohen’s effect size interpretation rule of thumb. On the other hand, it should
be noted that among the total of 353 resident participants involved in the study, the number of females (N=45 or
13%) respondents as compared to the number of males (N=308 or 87%) does not represent the real female to
male ratio as indicated in the current population census results both at the national and global levels, which is
estimated to be nearly 51% female and 49% male composition. Hence, the effect size score should not be taken
for granted to consider the response difference as a source of sex to be practically insignificant.
According to Cohen (1988) the most widely accepted rule of thumb for interpreting effect size: Effect
sizes of d < 0.20 are interpreted as insignificant; values of d between 0.20 and 0.50 are interpreted as small

8
Journal of Resources Development and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2422-8397 An International Peer-reviewed Journal
Vol.85, 2022

effects; values of d between 0.50 and 0.80 are interpreted as medium effects; and values of d larger than 0.80 are
interpreted as large effects.
Similarly, the difference on land (house) ownership status amongst the resident participants as an
independent source variable showed significant level of response difference: on the participation” with (F= 5.031,
P=.007), and “Equity and Fairness” (F= 3.349, P= .036) good governance indicator independent variables. Thus,
the status of residents in terms of land (house) ownership as an independent grouping variable for the whole
population of Bishoftu can be taken as true segment of the population on which the land management practice of
the town has to give due emphasis to insure fair, equitable and participatory manifestations of good governance
on its land management system.

4.5. Separate Analysis and Interpretation on the Response of the Employee Group of Participants Only
Table 4.7: Frequency, percentage, Mean and Standard Deviation of responses of employee on the five
indicator variables of good governance discussed as following.
Response Participation Transparency Accountability Equity and Efficiency and
and Fairness Effectivness
Responsibility
Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D Mean S.D
2.92 .812 2.68 1.069 2.80 .707 2.64 .810 2.68 .802
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
Strongly - - 2 8 - - 1 4 1 4
disagree
Disagree 9 36 11 44 9 36 11 44 10 40
Neutral 9 36 7 28 12 48 9 36 10 40
Agree 7 28 3 12 4 16 4 16 4 16
Strongly - - 2 8 - - - - - -
Disagree
Total 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100 25 100
Source: Own Survey Result (March, 2017)
The above table 4.7 summarizes frequency, percentage, mean, and standard deviation of the overall
perceived responses of the Employee groups of participants in the study, on the five indicators of good
governance, namely: participation, transparency, accountability and responsibility, equity and fairness, and
effectiveness and efficiency. Accordingly, as compared to the total number of this group of participants (25),
(Less than half) of the participants responded on four of the variables, except the “Transparency” parameter, that
13 (52%) the strongly disagree and disagree on the positively written statements under these five major indicator
dependent variables of good governance mentioned above. In specific terms, a total of 9 (36%) respondents
“disagree” and” Neutral” that on the existing land administration scheme in Bishoftu is participatory.
The result from the interview with land higher officials also indicates that, there is less Residents
“participation” on the updating plans and policies formulation of land administration.Similarly 9 (36%) of the
respondents disagree and 12 (48) are “Neutral” on positively written statenmet that there is accountablty and
responsibility in bishoftu town land administration system.According to the interview with land administration,
key informant they were believed that there was not well organized super-vision in their institution. Moreover,
less than half 12 (48%) of them strongly disagree and disagree that the existing land administration scheme in
the town is characterized by equity and fairness. Generally, still less than half of the resident group of
participants- 11 (44%) responded that they strongly disagree and disagree that the existing land administration
system is efficient and effective.
The result obtained from open ended questionnaire from employee side participants; In this view,
limitations are mainly associated to land related policy, decision making, problem of recognize key roles, rule,
regulation and procedure are lacked public participation. In a general, the key informant of land officials blame
society for their unwilling to actively participated in their institutions rule, regulation and procedure progress.
They agreed on that society come to their institution only to take service.
The mean and standard deviation figures representing the response of the employee group of participants on
each indicator variables of good governance, namely: participation (m=2.92, s.d=0.812), more and more nearer
tp “neutral” response while accountability and responsibility variable with (m= 2.63, s.d=0.686).Equity and
fairness (m= 2.64, SD=0.810), almost the same response wich lays between disagree and neutral response but
more nearer to “neutral” and effectiveness and efficiency (m=2.86, s.d= 0.802), again transparency (m= 2.68,
SD=0.810) are also lays between disagree and neutral wich is nearer to neutral again. a response of employees
are generally taken as ranging between disagree and Neutral but nearer to “Neutral” when compared to residents
response. Employee mean result is greater than mean of residents.
According to interview with land official key informant the office has formerly put a clear and open service

9
Journal of Resources Development and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2422-8397 An International Peer-reviewed Journal
Vol.85, 2022

delivery standard concerning each activity for each responsibility. However; most of the key informant believed
that there is still a problem on implementation the rule and regulation of land administration. The major
challenges raised by most of the key respondents during interview were; include: illegal construction, low
commitment of investors in construction at a given time or using the land taken for other purpose, lack of
employee’s commitment in their job are among the major challenges faced in their institution.
Table 4.8: Presentation on the significance level of responses on the five indicators of good governance
based on grouping demographic variables of responses by Employees
Variables Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Efficiency and Effectiveness Between Groups (Combined) 3.690 2 1.845 3.454 .050
* Land (House) Ownership Within Groups 11.750 22 .534
of the Participant Total 15.440 24

Trancparency * Land Between (Combined) .048 2 .024 .038 .864

(House) Ownership of the Groups
Participant Within Groups 11.464 22 .486
Total 11.944 24
Accountability and Between Groups (Combined) .063 2 .031 .058 .944
Responsibility* Land Within Groups 11.938 22 .543
(House) Ownership of the Total 12.000 24
Participant

Equity and Fairness * Between Groups (Combined) 4.823 2 2.411 4.850 .018
Land (House) Ownership of Within Groups 10.938 22 .497
the Participant Total 15.760 24
Participation * Land
(House) Ownership of the Between Groups (Combined) .236 2 .118 .166 .848
Participant Within Groups 15.604 22 .709
Total 15.840 24
overall good governance
characteristics * Land Between Groups (Combined) .623 2 .311 .574 .572
(House) Ownership of the Within Groups 11.937 22 .543
Participant Total 12.560 24
Source: Own Survey Result (March, 2017)
Besides, even though six demographic variables, namely: sex, work experience, age, marital status land
ownership status and educational status, as indicated on table 4.8, were considered to analyze differences of
responses by employees on the five indicator variables of good governance and the overall practice land
management in Bishoftu town, only the difference in terms of land ownership status of the employee respondents
is found to exhibit significant difference on two of the five good governance indicator variables as indicated on
table 4.8
These indicator variables include: “Efficiency and Effectiveness” with (F=3.454, P=0.050), and “Equity and
Fairness” with (F= 4.850, P= 0.018).

4.6. Combined (Both Residents and Employees) Response Analysis Result Presentation and Interpretation
Here analysis focused on both residents and employee response is analysis and interpreted as follows.
Table 4.9: Mean and Standard Deviation of responses by both residents and employees on the five
indicator variables of good governance
Variable Mean S.D N
Participation 2.38 .752 378
Transparency 2.38 .772 378
Accountability and Responsibility 2.65 .688 378
Equity and Fairness 2.38 .812 378
Effectiveness and Efficiency 2.43 .726 378
Overall Implementation of Good Governance 2.44 .550 378
Source: Own Survey Result (March, 2017)
The mean and standard deviation of responses by the overall group of participants (both residents and
employees) on the majority of good governance indicator variables, can be traced from the above table 4.9, can
be interpreted as ranging from between “disagree” and “Neutraal” except the “accountability and responsibility”

10
Journal of Resources Development and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2422-8397 An International Peer-reviewed Journal
Vol.85, 2022

variable which can be interpreted with higher mean when compared to other variables with (Mean 2.65 and SD
0.688).
The rest” participation”,”taransparency”,and ”equity and fairness” have the same mean value with (Mean
2.38 and SD 0.752) in wich is nearer to disagree response . However, to check whether or not these low levels
of mean and standard deviation results are true to the overall population that this study is representing and
measuring the strength of association multivariate and correlation analyses procedure had to be followed as
indicated on tables 4.10 and 4.11 of the below.
Table 4.10: Multivariate analysis on Significance Levels Group, Sex, and Land Ownership Status
Variation of the General Group versus Response Variations on Indicator Variables of Good Governance
Source Variable Type df Mean F Sig. Partial
III Sum Square Eta
of Squared
Squares
Group of Participation 11.454 1 11.454 22.569 .000 .057
Participant Transparency 2.688 1 2.688 4.550 .034 .012
Accountability and .660 1 .660 1.389 .239 .004
Responsibility
Equity and Fairness 3.326 1 3.326 5.225 .023 .014
Effectiveness and Efficiency 2.155 1 2.155 4.128 .043 .011
Overall Implementation of Good 3.551 1 3.551 12.23 .001 .032
Governance
Sex Participation 4.914 1 4.914 9.683 .002 .025
Transparency .439 1 .439 .743 .389 .002
Accountability and .013 1 .013 .026 .871 .000
Responsibility
Equity and Fairness 3.240 1 3.240 5.090 .025 .013
Effectiveness and Efficiency .001 1 .001 .002 .966 .000
Overall Implementation of Good .418 1 .418 1.438 .231 .004
Governance
Land Participation 9.983 1 9.983 19.671 .000 .050
(house) Transparency .897 1 .897 1.519 .218 .004
Ownership Accountability and .050 1 .050 .106 .745 .000
Status Responsibility
Equity and Fairness 4.944 1 4.944 7.768 .006 .020
Effectiveness and Efficiency 2.004 1 2.004 3.840 .051 .010
Overall Implementation of Good 2.193 1 2.193 7.56 .006 .020
Governance
Source: Own Survey Result (March, 2017)
Based on the above overall combined multivariate statistical analysis computed amongst the three
demographic characteristics of the participants, namely, group, Sex, and land ownership status as an independent
grouping variables versus five indicator variables of good governance, group difference (1=resident, 2=
Employee) showed significant difference in all perceived responses on good governance indicator variables
except “Accountability and Responsibility variable”
Similarly, the mean response difference on “participation” and “ Equity and Fairness” good governance
indicator variables as a result of the sex variation exhibited significant level of difference on the response of
the respondents on these two indicator dependent variables with P-value < 0.05, with (F=9.683, P=.002)
(d=0.025), and (F=5.090, P=..025) (d=0.013) values respectively. However, the significant difference exhibited
by the sex variable on the separate resident group’s only analysis on the overall implementation of good
governance principles is not proved to be significant at this combined group analysis level.
Moreover, the difference on the land ownership status of the respondents also showed significant difference
on “participation”, “equity and fairness”, and “overall implementation of good governance principles” that were
taken as dependent indicator variables as depicted on table 4.10 of the above.
Taking the corresponding significance and correlation coefficient figures that the “overall manifestation of
good governance” and the five specific indicator variables in to consideration in the next table 4.11, they all can
be interpreted as with high level of correlation and highest level of significance based on the following Evans’s
criteria of interpreting correlation that can even be true at 99% confidence level. This proves that the instrument
used to evaluate the implementation of good governance principles in the land administration system of Bishoftu
town can be taken as a good measuring framework.(Evans , 1996) criteria for interpreting correlation
coefficients:

11
Journal of Resources Development and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2422-8397 An International Peer-reviewed Journal
Vol.85, 2022

1.00- perfect correlation

0.80 to 0.99-very high correlation
0.60 to 0.79-high correlation
0.40 to 0.59- moderate correlation
0.20 to 0.39- low correlation
0.001 to 0.19- very low correlation.
Table 4.11: Correlation between differences on demographic characteristics on both groups and their
response on indicator variables of good governance
Group of the Pearson
1 .148** .082 .190** .105* .060 .087 .090 .153**
Participant Correlation
1=Resident,
2= Employee Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .112 .000 .041 .246 .092 .079 .003
Status of Land Pearson - - -
.148** 1 .076 -.044 -.007 -.086
Tenure Owner ship: Correlation .196** .134** .119*
1=Having Private
land(house)
2=Rented from
Sig. (2-tailed) .004 .139 .000 .391 .888 .009 .094 .021
Kebele House
3=Rented from
Private Owners
Pearson - -
Sex .082 .076 1 .049 .012 -.001 -.057
Correlation .150** .116*
1= male, 2= female
Sig. (2-tailed) .112 .139 .003 .346 .814 .024 .979 .270
Pearson ** ** -
.190 -.196 1 .482** .274** .311** .267** .639**
Participation Correlation .150**
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .003 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Pearson * **
.105 -.044 .049 .482 1 .491** .422** .442** .779**
Transparency Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .041 .391 .346 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Pearson ** **
Accountability and .060 -.007 .012 .274 .491 1 .419** .394** .703**
Correlation
Responsibility
Sig. (2-tailed) .246 .888 .814 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Pearson -
Equity and .087 -.134** .311** .422** .419** 1 .519** .748**
Correlation .116*
Fairness
Sig. (2-tailed) .092 .009 .024 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Pearson
Effectiveness and .090 -.086 -.001 .267** .442** .394** .519** 1 .709**
Correlation
Efficiency
Sig. (2-tailed) .079 .094 .979 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
Pearson
.153** -.119* -.057 .639** .779** .703** .748** .709** 1
Overall Implementation Correlation
of Good Governance Sig. (2-tailed) .003 .021 .270 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000
N 378 378 378 378 378 378 378 378 378
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
Source: Own Survey Result (March, 2017)
A correlation coefficient is supportive means to review the relationship between two variables with a single
number that falls between -1 and +1 (Kothari, 1990) A correlation analysis with Pearson´s correlation
coefficient (r) was performed on all variables in this study to look at the relationship between good governance
variables as indipendet variables and overall good governance manifestation as depenedt variables.
Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for each relationship between; Groups of the Participant,
Status of Land Tenure Owner ship, Sex of participants and variables with the overall good governance
implementation.The Pearson correlation coefficient show that all the five good governance dimensions and
significant demographic variables are significantly, Negetivily and positively correlate with overall good
governance implementation, Transparency, equity and fearness , Efficiency and Effectiviness,(r=.779), (r=.748),
and (r=.709) respectively; have the highest correlation with overall Good Governance Implementation. When the
Status of land ownership (r= -.119) has the lowest correlation with overall manifestation of good governance.

12
Journal of Resources Development and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2422-8397 An International Peer-reviewed Journal
Vol.85, 2022

5. Conclusion and Recomendation

This research tried to assess urban land administration system of bishoftu town from the perspective of good
governance principles implementation. The existing land administration practice in Bishoftu town can be
characterized as it is not participatory as it is expected to be by its citizens. It shows a tendency of biasedness by
sex, social group, and land ownership status differences of the general public. In none of all the five indicator
parameters of good governance, the existing land administration Implementation in Bishoftu town not perceived
as good by any of the social, economic, demographic groups considered in the study. Even the town’s Land
Development and Management Office employees characterized it as “satisfactory.”
“Participation” and “Fairness and Equity” are the most problematic points on which the land administration
practice of Bishoftu town is found to be ineffective and insufficiently implementing good governance principles
to the expectation level of the citizens. The instrument used to evaluate the implementation of good governance
principles in the land administration system of Bishoftu town can be taken as a good measuring framework.

5.1 Recommendations
Based on the findings of the study, the researcher found it vital to put ways forward. Accordingly, the study has
the following policy recommendations for interventions based on the findings.
In order to bring good governance and better land administration system in Bishoftu, the town’s
administration should focus on making its overall practices more participatory as it expected to be by its citizens
without discriminating any of the social, economic and demographic group in it. Fair and equitable resource
distribution has to be practiced in Bishoftu town’s land administration system, so that good governance can be
achieved.

REFERENCE
Abdellatif, A. M. (2003). 3 . Good Governance and Its Relationship to Democracy and Economic Development,
(May), 1–27.
Abrham Daniel. (2014). The Challenges and Opportunities of Goood Govrnance in Ghana,Addis Ababa
University. Addis Ababa Univeristy.
Adane Bekele. (2013). The Chaleenges of good governance in africa :the case of Keniya. Addis Ababa
University.
AGGN, Re. and P. C. of the. (2010). Addressing Good Governance In Africa A Discussion Paper. A Discussions
paper. AGGN Research and Puplication committee. Retrieved from WWW.aggn.org
Alemie, B. K., Zevenbergen, J., & Bennett, R. (2011). Assessing Land Governance in Ethiopian Cities ( 2002-
2011 ): Lessons for the Implementation of the 2011 Urban Land Management Policy Assessing Land
Governance in Ethiopian Cities ( 2002-2011 ): Lessons for the Implementation of the 2011 Urban Land
Management Policy, (May 2015), 17–21.
Ambaye, D. W. (2012). Land Rights in Ethiopia : Ownership , equity , and liberty in land use rights Land Rights
in Ethiopia : ownership , equity , and liberty in land use rights, (May), 6–10.
Aneley, A. (2006). Land adminstrationt decision Makers meetings (Windhoek,7-8 December 2006).
Anjum, R. S. C. and A. (2008). Final Draft - Demand for Good Governance Stocktaking Report, (August).
Retrieved from [email protected].
Arora, D. (2013). Good Governance : A Study of the Concept in Indian Context Origin of the Concept of Good
Governance Meaning of Good Governance, 37(1), 1–16.
Ashenafi Aimro. (2015). The assessment on urban governance practice in land administration of Addis
Ababa:the case of yeka sub-city. Addis Ababa University.
Asmelash, W. (2006). The effect of land reform on peasant social organization :the studay of villaage level
dyanmics of centeral tigray,1974-1994-Antropology. Addis ababa Unversity.
Ayeno, M. (2009). Agrerian law and development in Ethiopia Submitted for LL.m dgree. Harvard
university,Cambridge,ma.
Bang, H., & Esmark, A. (2013). A systems theory of Good Governance, (Deleuze 1995), 1–35.
Blatter, J. (2012). Department of Political Science Forms of Political Governance : Theoretical Foundations and
Ideal Types Forms of Political Governance : Theoretical Foundations and Ideal Types, 94.
Bosselmann, Klaus, R. E. and P. T. (2008). Governance for sustainability issues, challenges,successes.
IUCN,Gland,Switzerland.xvi+260pp. medienHaus Plump,53619 Rheinbreitbach,Germany. Retrieved from
www.iucn.org/publications
Burlington. (2004). Ethiopia Land Policy and Administration Assessment.
C.R.Kothari. (1990). Research Methodology. new delli: New age international(P)limited publishers. Retrieved
from www.newagepublishers.com
CarlosJuiz, Carlos Guerrero, I. L. (2014). Implementing good governance Principles for the Public Sector in
information technology governance frame work, 2014(January), 9–27.

13
Journal of Resources Development and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2422-8397 An International Peer-reviewed Journal
Vol.85, 2022

Carothers, T., & Gramont, D. De. (2011). Aiding Governance in Progress Amid Uncertainties Aiding
Governance in Developing Countries Progress Amid Uncertainties, (November), 1–35.
Chowdhury, N. C. E. S. (2005). Draft working paper The Principle of Good Governance.
CIPFA. (2007). Delivering good governance in local government, 48(Framework), 2.
Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2000). Research Methods in Education. (S. published in U. and Canada,
Ed.) (2007th ed.). London and New york.
Consultancy, M. (2010). Guidelines for support to land policy design and land policy reform, (November).
Devas, N. (2004). Urban Governance , Voice and Poverty in the Developing World. London.sterling, VA:
Earthscn Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/22882
Diana saparniene, I. V. (2012). Implementation of Good Governance principle in local self- government : Case
of siauliai city. siauliai university.
Downer, A. (2000). Governance Guiding principles Good governance : guiding principles for implimentation.
Dr.Wael Zakout, Dr.Babette Wehrmann, D. mika-P. (2006). Good Governance in Land Administration
Principles and Good Practices.
Dubois, H. F. W., Lapenta, A., Mucciarone, M. A., Neilson, J., Abu Bakar, N. B., Saleh, Z., … Mi. (2013). What
is the Policy Pr. Evaluation. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399713513140
Economic Comission for Africa. (2005). Striving for good governance in Africa:Synopsisof the 205 african
governance report prepared for the African Development ForumIV.
Esayas, E. (2013). Urban Planning and land mangement challenges in Emerging towns of Ethiopia:The Case of
Arba Minch, 340–348. https://doi.org/10.4090/juee.2013.v7n2.340348
Evans J.D.(1996). (1996). Straightforward stastics for the behavioral sciences. pacific Grove,CA:books/cole
publishing.
FAO. (2007). Good governance in land tenure and adminstration (2008 and 2). rome,Italy.
Fikret Toksoz. (2015). Good governance Improving quality of Life. Retrieved from
http://br.correct.go.th/eduweb/index.php/eduessay/50-general-essay/118-good-governance.html
Gebreal, W. (1997). Urban land information system the benfits and the strategies, 1–3.
George, M. (2007). The Challenges and Constraints of Introducing Participatory Budgeting as a Tool for
Resource Mobilization and Allocation and Realizing Good Governance in Africa.
J., C. (1988). Stastical power analysis for the behavioral Sciences. (L. E. Associates., Ed.) (2nd editio).
hillsadale: NJ.
J.M.Lusugga kironde. (2009). Improving Land Sector Governance in Africa : The Case of Tanzania, papare for
the workshops land Governance of the MDGs: Responding to New challenges washington march 9-10
2009. washingtojn DC. https://doi.org/k
John Graham, Bruce Amos, T. P. (2003). Principles for Good Governance in the 21st Century policy Brief No.15.
Retrieved from www.iog.ca/policy briefs.
Katsamunska, P. (2000). The Concept of Governance and Public Governance Theories, 133–141.
Kaufmann, D. (2006). Governance Indicators : Where Are We , Where Should We Be Going ?
Kaufmann, D., Recanatini, F., & Biletsky, S. (2002). Assessing Governance The world Bank. Retrieved from
http//www.worldbank.org/wbi/governance
Keith Clifford .BELL, U. (2007). Good Governance in Land Administration. worldbank,East pacificregion 1818
h street. Retrieved from Good governance in Land Administration
King, M. (2014). International frame work:good governance in the public Sector.
Klaus. (2012). The Land Governance Assessment Framework Identifiying and Monitoring Good practice in the
land sector. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from www.World Bank .0rg
Klaus Deininger, Harries Selod, A. B. (2012). Identifiying and Monitoring Good Governance pratice in the Land
Sector.
Lantmateriverket(swedish national land servey). (2008). Lantmateriverket(sweedish national land servey Land
administration – why, (February). Retrieved from [email protected],ww.sida.se
Linder, S. (2014). Ethiopia : Overview of corruption in land administration, (June).
Mabesa, M. J., & Whittal, J. (2013). Governance in Land Administration Systems : a comparative analysis of the
former ( LSPP ) and current ( LAA ) land administration systems of Lesotho, 1–12. Retrieved from
[email protected], [email protected]
Mackey, A., Gass, S. M., & Erlbaum, N. J. L. (2005). Second Language Research, Methodology and Design,
9(3), 3–4.
Mansberger, R., Navratil, G., Muggenhuber, G., Twaroch, C., Good, I., & Landadministration, D. (2012). Is
Good Governance in Land Administration Measurable and Comparable ?, 63(1).
Mardiasmo, Diaswati and barnes, paul, H.and sakuri, Y. (2008). Implementation of Good Governance by
Regional Governments in Indonesia : The Challenges in Brown,Kerry A and Mandell, Myrna and furneaux.
Retrieved from [email protected]

14
 Journal of Resources Development and Management www.iiste.org
ISSN 2422-8397 An International Peer-reviewed Journal
Vol.85, 2022

Masuku, M. B. (2014). Samling Techniques and determination of sample size in applied statistics Research: an
overview, II(11), 1–22. Retrieved from http://ijecm.co.uk/
Melese, N. (2016). Application of good governence principles for urban development and management in Addis
Ababa city ADminstration:The practices and challenges in Yeka Sub -ciy. Addis ababa university.
Meskerem Shifera. (2007). stutas of good governance at woreda/destrict level in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa.
Mhrtay Adisalem. (2015). The Performance of Good Governance on Land Administration at Local / Woreda
Level : The Case of Naeder Adet Woreda , Tigry Region, ethiopia, 3(September), 376–385.
https://doi.org/10.14662/IJPSD2015.046
MoFED. (2014). The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Growth and Transformation Plan ( GTP ) Draft
Ministry of Finance and Economic Development ( MoFED ), (September 2010).
Niclo Maldonaldo. (2010). The world Bank Evolving Good Governance and its impacton Human Rights.
O’ Leary Zina. (2004). The Essential Guide to doing research. Londan: Oliver’s Yard.
https://doi.org/ISBN0761941983
Ogundiya, llufoye S. (2010). Democracy and good governance : Nigeria ’ s dilemma, 4(June), 201–208.
Retrieved from African Journal of Political Science and International relations Vol.4(6),pp.2o1-
208,June2010 Available online at http://www.Academic Journals
Prof.Stig Enemark. (2009). Land Administration Systems-managing rights restrctions and Resposibilities in
Land adminstration. Aalborrg University,Denmark. Retrieved from [email protected]
Qian, L. (2014). Evaluating land adminstration system from the perspective of good governance: a case study of
informal settellement in Kahthmandu vally:Enschede, The Netherlands.
Raiu, V. (2013). An Ontology of Good Governance . A Political Theory Approach.
Seth asiama, S. H. (2013). Tools to support transparenccy in land adminstration.
Shimelis Kassa Kebede. (2015). Democracy and Good Governance post 1991 in Ethiopia, 3(April), 174–182.
https://doi.org/10.14662/IJPSD2015.026
Takele Necha Sungena. (2014). Strengthening Good Governance in Urban Land Management in Ethiopia A
Case-study of Hawassa, 4(15), 96–108.
Tewodros abuhay M. (2015). Assessing the prevalence of good governance in public sectors in Gedeo Zone :
Case of Yirga Cheffe town administration , Ethiopia, 3(June), 5–6.
Thomas Cosmas Munzerere. (2013). Towards good land governace in Tanzania;The Case Of Urban Mbeya.
Hague ,the Nethrlands.
Tony burns and Kate Dalrymple. (2008). Conceptual Framework for Governance in Land Administration 1.
Stockholm,Sweden.
Tukstra, Jan, R. S. (2012). Sustaining Urban Land Information : a frame work based on experiences in post
Conflict and Developing Countreis, 1-27. Retrieved from ww.gltn.net
UGGPOE. (2006). Urban Good Governance Package of Ethiopia Summary of Principles and Sub-Programs.
Urban Development Policy of the FDRE, 1–4.
UN-Habitat. (2004). Urban Governance Index Conceptual Foundation and Field Test Report. Nairobi Kenya.
Victor Endo. (2008). 13th Internetional anti corruption conference. In governance in land administration peru
case study. Greece ,Athens.
Wagener, H. (2011). How does good governance come about? on evaluation of institutions, 4(4).
Williamson, I., Enemark, S., Wallace, J., & Rajabifard, A. (2008). Understanding land administration. In Land
administration frame work (pp. 1–11). Kuala lumpur,Malaysia. Retrieved from [email protected]
www.iso.org/iso/home.html
Yirga, K. (2010). Assessment of the Prevalence of Good Governance In The Public Sector : the Case of Public
Institutions in Debre Statement of Declaration. mekele university.
Z.Dornyei. (2007). Research in applied Linguistcs. In san francisco state U. Priyanvada Abeywickerama (Ed.)
(p. 336). New York.
Zarfu Hailu. (2016). Using LGAF as an Input into ongoing and future law Revision :Lessons from Ethiopia.
Zimmermannn, W. (n.d.). Effective and Transparent Management of Public Land Experiences , Guiding
Principles and Tools for Implementation. In I. International Seminar on State and Public Land
Management in Verona (Ed.), september,2008 (pp. 1–17).

15

View publication stats