What can respondents answer for question does the formal and customary land governance coexist or contradict in Hadiya zone, Ethiopia?

Respondents can provide their opinions and observations on whether they believe formal and customary land governance coexist or contradict in Hadiya zone, Ethiopia. They can share examples of how the two systems interact or conflict with each other in practice. Additionally, respondents can provide insights on any challenges or benefits that arise from the coexistence or contradiction of formal and customary land governance in the region.

Coexistence

- Both formal and customary land governance systems exist and operate alongside each other.
- They may overlap or complement each other in certain areas.
- Customary practices and norms are respected and integrated into formal land administration.
- Formal land rights, such as titles, are recognized and enforced within customary contexts.

Contradiction

- Formal and customary land governance systems may conflict with each other.
- Formal laws and regulations may undermine customary practices and traditions.
- Customary land rights may not be fully recognized or protected under the formal system.
- Disputes may arise over land ownership, control, and access due to competing claims based on different systems.

Other Possible Answers

- Ambiguous relationship: There is limited interaction or overlap between formal and customary land governance systems.
- Limited coexistence: Formal land governance is dominant, while customary practices have a diminished role.
- Hierarchical coexistence: Formal land governance has authority over customary systems, but customary practices may continue to operate at the local level.