Rethinking Idle Land: A Review of Strategies for Effective Land Utilisation

Rethinking Idle Land: A Review of Strategies for Effective Land Utilisation

Norhisham Rahmat

University Technology Malaysia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.90500072

Received: 17 April 2025; Accepted: 26 April 2025; Published: 30 May 2025

ABSTRACT

Idle land, often neglected in mainstream development planning, poses both a challenge and an opportunity for sustainable land management. This paper reviews global strategies adopted to transform idle land into productive use, encompassing policy interventions, community-based initiatives, private sector mechanisms, and emerging technologies. Drawing on comparative insights and case studies from both developed and developing countries, the review identifies common enabling factors and critical barriers in strategy implementation. It further proposes a holistic, multi-dimensional framework that integrates land governance, legal reform, local empowerment, and data-driven innovation to align with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The study concludes that unlocking idle land potential requires coordinated, context-sensitive interventions that reflect institutional realities and socio-economic complexities.

Keywords: idle land management, sustainable land use, land governance, spatial planning, policy innovation

INTRODUCTION

Idle land represents a paradox in today’s development landscape: while land scarcity continues to challenge urban growth and food production, vast areas remain unused or underutilised across both rural and urban regions [1]. As populations rise and land demands intensify, the existence of idle land reflects inefficiencies in planning, governance, and socio-economic policy implementation [2]. In many developing nations, these lands are not only neglected but also overlooked in national development strategies, exacerbating spatial inequalities and resource underutilisation [3]. This contradiction underscores the urgent need to reassess the role of idle land within broader development frameworks.

The significance of rethinking idle land lies in its untapped potential to contribute to sustainable development, environmental recovery, and social resilience [4]. Idle agricultural plots could support local food systems, underused urban lots could be transformed into green infrastructure, and abandoned industrial zones might offer new economic and ecological functions. Yet, without strategic interventions, these opportunities remain dormant. Optimising idle land utilisation is not simply about productivity—it is about re-integrating neglected resources into sustainable development pathways.

This review seeks to explore the wide spectrum of strategies adopted globally to bring idle land back into productive use [5]. Drawing on policy literature, institutional frameworks, grassroots initiatives, and technological innovations, the paper synthesises diverse approaches that have been trialled across different geographies and land types. The goal is to map out what has worked, what has failed, and under what conditions success can be replicated.

In doing so, the paper contributes to the growing discourse on land use efficiency and spatial justice, especially within the context of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) [4]. By aligning land utilisation strategies with global priorities—such as food security (SDG 2), sustainable cities (SDG 11), and life on land (SDG 15)—the discussion reframes idle land as not just a local problem, but a global opportunity. It also advocates for an integrated, context-sensitive strategy that leverages policy, community, market, and technological levers to unlock land’s full potential.

The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. Section 2 conceptualises idle land by defining key terms, typologies, and root causes of land underutilisation. Section 3 reviews the main strategies used globally to reactivate idle land across policy, community, market, and technology domains. Section 4 offers comparative insights and best practices, while Section 5 discusses the systemic challenges in strategy adoption. Section 6 proposes a holistic utilisation framework aligned with sustainable development goals, and Section 7 concludes with reflections and directions for future research and policymaking.

Conceptualising Idle Land

Idle land is a contested and multidimensional concept that varies across legal, institutional, and geographic contexts. Broadly, idle land refers to land that is not actively used for economic, residential, or ecological functions, despite its latent potential for such uses [1]. This includes agricultural land that has been left fallow for extended periods, urban plots that remain vacant due to speculative holding, and post-industrial sites that are structurally obsolete. In some jurisdictions, idle land is formally defined in planning laws, such as in Japan’s Act on Special Measures concerning Vacant Houses, which categorises unused land and property for redevelopment purposes [10]. The ambiguity in definition across countries complicates land audits, legal interventions, and cross-comparative research, thus highlighting the need for clearer conceptual boundaries to guide policy and scholarly discourse.

Idle land can be categorised into several typologies, each presenting unique challenges and opportunities for reactivation. Agricultural idle land typically arises from rural abandonment, land degradation, or economic non-viability, while urban idle land may stem from land banking, legal disputes, or failed commercial ventures [2]. Meanwhile, brownfields—sites previously used for industrial or commercial purposes—pose challenges due to contamination or infrastructure decay [11]. For example, in China, over 8 million hectares of arable land were classified as idle by 2020, with many falling into the category of “urban-edge” wastelands caught in transition zones [12]. Understanding these typologies is crucial for designing targeted strategies that reflect the socio-economic and spatial characteristics of each land type.

The underlying causes of land idleness are deeply rooted in structural, institutional, and market-related factors. Demographic shifts such as ageing rural populations, youth migration to cities, and declining birth rates have contributed to the depopulation of agricultural areas, leaving land uncultivated [13]. Policy inertia, land tenure insecurity, and fragmented land administration systems further exacerbate disuse, as landholders may lack incentives or face bureaucratic hurdles in repurposing their land [2]. For instance, in parts of Eastern Europe, post-socialist land reforms led to parcel fragmentation and absentee ownership, stalling productive reinvestment [3]. These systemic drivers of idleness suggest that solutions must go beyond land users to address broader governance, demographic, and market mechanisms.

Idle land is also symptomatic of broader land use inefficiencies within national development frameworks. In many cases, governments prioritise new land conversion over the rehabilitation of already-alienated land, leading to urban sprawl and environmental degradation [14]. Idle land becomes “invisible” in planning systems, often excluded from investment pipelines, infrastructure planning, and spatial optimisation models. For example, in Nairobi, nearly 30% of land within city boundaries was identified as underutilised in a 2019 spatial audit, largely due to speculative holding and inadequate enforcement of land use regulations [4]. Recognising idle land as a spatial planning failure shifts the discourse from a passive to an active lens, where governments and communities are seen as agents in unlocking potential rather than victims of disuse.

Strategic Approaches to Idle Land Utilisation Policy and Regulatory Approaches

Policy and regulatory instruments are among the most direct and influential mechanisms used by governments to reactivate idle land and steer it toward productive use. These approaches include land banks, fiscal incentives, zoning reforms, and legal mandates for land redevelopment [5]. In many countries, legal frameworks empower local or national authorities to identify, repossess, or repurpose idle land, especially when it poses risks to public health, urban safety, or environmental integrity. For instance, the United States has implemented land banking authorities that allow cities to acquire tax-delinquent or abandoned properties and reintegrate them into housing or commercial development pipelines [5]. These institutionalised policy tools not only reduce vacancy rates but also offer a structured pathway for aligning idle land with public interest objectives.

One of the most widely adopted policy tools for managing idle land is the use of tax incentives or penalties to encourage landholders to either develop or release underused land. Fiscal instruments can significantly alter landowner behaviour by changing the cost-benefit calculation of holding versus using land [6]. In South Korea, the government introduced a vacant land tax and redevelopment subsidies to incentivise landholders to put idle urban plots to better use, contributing to a noticeable decrease in land hoarding in metropolitan areas [6]. Similarly, Taiwan has successfully used differential property taxes to discourage speculation and stimulate inner-city revitalisation projects [7]. These cases demonstrate that with carefully designed policies, governments can shift idle land from being a passive liability into an active asset within national and local development strategies.

Community-Based and Bottom-Up Approaches

Community-based approaches play a pivotal role in reclaiming idle land, particularly in contexts where government intervention is limited or where trust in formal institutions is weak. These grassroots strategies are often rooted in local knowledge, collective action, and participatory governance, which can empower communities to take ownership of land resources and convert them into socially beneficial spaces [8]. Such approaches not only address land use inefficiencies but also generate co-benefits in terms of food security, social cohesion, and environmental regeneration. In urban settings, community-driven projects frequently focus on transforming vacant lots into community gardens, recreational spaces, or micro-farms, enabling marginalised groups to engage with land in meaningful and productive ways [9].

One notable example of successful bottom-up land utilisation is Detroit’s urban agriculture movement, where residents converted thousands of derelict parcels into community-managed food gardens amidst widespread post-industrial decline [9]. These initiatives, supported by local NGOs and informal networks, helped address food deserts, promote environmental education, and reduce urban blight. Similarly, in Havana, Cuba, state-sanctioned but locally managed organopónicos—urban organic gardens—have played a key role in utilising idle land for local food production since the early 1990s [8]. These cases illustrate how land use transformation, when anchored in community agency, can achieve rapid, sustainable, and scalable impacts even in the absence of major institutional reform.

Market-Based and Private Sector Initiatives

Market-based mechanisms and private sector engagement offer flexible and scalable pathways to transform idle land into economically productive assets. These approaches leverage market incentives, entrepreneurial innovation, and investment capital to revitalise underutilised spaces without the need for heavy state intervention [7]. Instruments such as lease markets, joint development agreements, and asset-backed financing have enabled both governments and private actors to reduce the opportunity cost of unused land and generate returns through development or agricultural use. In liberalised economies, the private sector often plays a catalytic role in assembling fragmented plots, introducing new land uses, and mobilising financial resources for infrastructure and regeneration projects [7].

An illustrative example comes from China, where pilot land transfer markets in rural provinces have allowed farmers to lease their idle land to agribusiness firms or cooperatives, resulting in higher productivity and rural employment [12]. Similarly, in Brazil, private investment in degraded land through carbon credit-backed reforestation projects has incentivised the revival of idle land for environmental and commercial purposes [13]. Another compelling case is Rwanda’s public-private partnership (PPP) framework that enabled a private tea company to rehabilitate abandoned plantations, generating export revenue and rural jobs while maintaining land ownership under the state [14]. These examples illustrate that market-driven strategies can unlock significant value from idle land, especially when aligned with broader economic and social development goals.

Technology and Innovation in Land Management

Technological innovation has emerged as a powerful enabler in identifying, monitoring, and reactivating idle land, offering data-driven solutions to long-standing land use inefficiencies. Digital tools such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS), remote sensing, and satellite imagery allow planners and policymakers to map land cover changes, detect abandonment patterns, and evaluate land suitability in near real-time [12]. These technologies reduce information asymmetry, enhance transparency, and support spatial decision-making in contexts where formal land records are out-dated or incomplete. For example, UN-SPIDER has supported governments in using satellite data to detect agricultural land abandonment across Africa, helping to prioritise areas for investment or land reform [15].

In addition to spatial data, emerging technologies such as the Internet of Things (IoT), block-chain, and artificial intelligence (AI) are transforming how land is managed, especially in agricultural contexts. IoT-enabled sensors allow smallholders to monitor soil conditions, moisture levels, and crop health, thus making previously idle or marginal land viable for precision farming [13]. Block chain applications are being piloted in countries like Ghana and India to secure land titles and reduce land disputes—key barriers to productive land use [14]. In Estonia, a fully digitised land cadastre integrates ownership, usage, and zoning data to streamline land transactions and prevent prolonged underutilisation [11]. These examples show that technology can act as both a direct strategy for reactivation and a supporting infrastructure that enables other policy, market, or community-based efforts to succeed.

Comparative Insights and Best Practices

Cross-country comparisons reveal that the success of idle land activation strategies is highly dependent on the alignment between local contexts, institutional capacity, and stakeholder engagement. While many nations adopt similar tools—such as land banks or fiscal incentives—their impact varies based on governance quality, land tenure security, and administrative coordination [2]. For instance, Japan’s success in reducing abandoned housing and urban land through its Akiya Bank (Vacant House Bank) was possible due to robust inter-agency coordination, digital property listings, and strong municipal involvement [10]. In contrast, similar efforts in Southeast Asia have often stalled due to fragmented land data, unclear ownership, and lack of follow-through at the local level [3]. These differences underscore that replication without contextual adaptation is unlikely to yield sustainable outcomes.

Successful land reactivation often hinges on institutional leadership and incentives that are aligned with broader development goals. In South Korea, the government facilitated large-scale regeneration of idle industrial zones by offering tax exemptions and streamlined planning procedures, resulting in the rapid transformation of previously dormant spaces into tech hubs and green infrastructure [6]. Likewise, Rwanda’s coordinated land use planning and PPP frameworks enabled private tea companies to rehabilitate idle land in line with national export strategies [14]. In both cases, the presence of a clear policy vision, political support, and economic alignment enabled swift and targeted activation of land. These examples demonstrate that strong leadership, policy coherence, and development alignment are common ingredients of successful interventions.

However, best practices also highlight critical pitfalls that must be avoided, particularly in terms of equity, ecological balance, and long-term sustainability. For instance, aggressive redevelopment of idle land in Manila has led to gentrification and displacement of low-income communities due to weak tenant protection and profit-oriented zoning changes [3]. In Ethiopia, while land rental reforms initially succeeded in improving land access, the lack of long-term tenure guarantees has discouraged private investment in land improvement, thereby undermining sustainability [14]. These cases highlight that unintended consequences can arise when idle land strategies prioritize short-term economic gains over inclusive and participatory frameworks. Hence, context-aware risk mitigation is crucial in strategy design and rollout.

Challenges In Strategy Adoption

Institutional fragmentation remains one of the most persistent barriers to effective idle land utilisation. In many countries, responsibilities related to land governance are dispersed across multiple ministries and agencies, leading to overlapping mandates, conflicting regulations, and bureaucratic inertia [2]. This fragmentation hinders coordination, delays implementation, and weakens accountability. For instance, in India, efforts to redevelop urban idle land often face hurdles due to the disconnect between local municipalities, state-level land revenue departments, and central planning authorities [3]. Without institutional clarity and streamlined governance structures, even well-designed strategies risk stagnation or co-optation.

Land tenure insecurity and legal ambiguity further complicate the effective activation of idle land, especially in regions with informal or customary land systems. When ownership or use rights are disputed, unclear, or poorly documented, stakeholders are less likely to invest in land improvement, and public authorities are hesitant to intervene [14]. In sub-Saharan Africa, overlapping customary and statutory land rights often prevent governments from reallocating or incentivising the productive use of idle rural land [3]. For example, in Ghana, attempts to repurpose idle peri-urban land for infrastructure projects have faced resistance from communities citing ancestral claims, despite a lack of formal land titles [14]. Strengthening legal frameworks, modernising land records, and promoting inclusive adjudication mechanisms are therefore critical to addressing this challenge.

Data and monitoring deficiencies significantly undermine the ability of governments and institutions to identify, evaluate, and manage idle land effectively. In many developing countries, there is no comprehensive national land inventory, and existing cadastral systems are often out-dated, fragmented, or inaccessible [11]. This absence of accurate data not only limits evidence-based planning but also impedes public accountability and private sector participation. For instance, in Indonesia, the lack of synchronised land databases between the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and local governments has led to double allocation, misclassification, and legal disputes over idle land [3]. These gaps highlight the urgent need for digital land governance platforms that can consolidate and visualise land information in real time.

Socioeconomic and environmental constraints also shape the adoption and sustainability of idle land strategies, especially in marginalised and ecologically sensitive areas. In some cases, reactivating idle land may lead to elite capture, gentrification, or displacement of vulnerable populations, exacerbating existing inequalities [3]. Additionally, the ecological fragility of some idle land—such as degraded forests or contaminated brownfields—may limit its reuse potential without substantial investment in rehabilitation [13]. A case in point is the Philippines, where reforestation of idle upland areas has faced trade-offs between conservation goals and community livelihoods, leading to project reversals [20]. These realities underline the importance of integrating social safeguards and environmental assessments into idle land policies and programmes.

Towards A Holistic Strategy Framework

An effective approach to idle land utilisation requires a holistic framework that integrates policy reform, institutional coordination, community engagement, market mechanisms, and technological innovation. Rather than treating idle land as an isolated land use issue, it must be embedded within broader spatial planning and sustainable development agendas [1]. Integrated frameworks enable synergy across sectors, reduce implementation silos, and align incentives across stakeholders. For example, the Netherlands’ integrated land use model combines spatial zoning, participatory planning, and fiscal instruments to encourage land densification while preserving ecological integrity [3]. By adopting such a multidimensional strategy, policymakers can maximise the developmental value of idle land while ensuring alignment with environmental and social goals.

Aligning idle land strategies with global agendas such as the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the New Urban Agenda (NUA), and national climate adaptation frameworks enhances legitimacy, financing potential and inter-agency cooperation [4]. Specifically, idle land revitalisation contributes to SDG 2 (zero hunger), SDG 11 (sustainable cities), SDG 13 (climate action), and SDG 15 (life on land). For instance, South Africa’s National Development Plan incorporates the rehabilitation of unused agricultural land as a strategy to address food insecurity, employment, and land reform simultaneously [17]. This alignment not only attracts international support but also provides a shared language for multi-stakeholder engagement.

Policy recommendations must therefore address the multi-level dynamics of land governance by promoting inter-agency coordination, enabling legal clarity, and incentivising innovation at the local level. First, cross-ministerial land councils or steering committees should be established to align national and subnational land priorities. Second, land laws should recognise informal and communal tenure systems to reduce legal barriers to land access. Third, fiscal tools—such as tax incentives and grants—should be designed to reward communities, farmers, or private actors who activate idle land sustainably [18]. These recommendations echo findings from Vietnam, where decentralised planning and agricultural land-use rights reforms have empowered local actors to cultivate previously idle lands while maintaining tenure security [19].

Equally important is the need to build local capacity and promote adaptive management that responds to evolving land dynamics and community needs. Training programmes for local officials, investment in spatial data systems, and participatory monitoring frameworks are essential for ensuring that strategies remain relevant and effective over time [16]. For example, the Philippines’ GeoRiskPH platform integrates geospatial data with land use planning tools to assist local governments in identifying vulnerable or idle lands for targeted intervention [20]. Such systems empower local actors with information and promote transparency and accountability in land decisions.

CONCLUSION

Idle land represents a complex yet critically underexplored frontier in the pursuit of sustainable, inclusive, and resilient development. As this review has demonstrated, the existence of underutilised land across both rural and urban landscapes reflects deeper structural issues in governance, demographic shifts, legal frameworks, and market dynamics [1][2]. While land scarcity continues to pose serious constraints on housing, agriculture, and green infrastructure, vast tracts of dormant land remain overlooked in national development strategies, posing a paradox that demands urgent policy and scholarly attention.

A diverse range of strategies has been adopted globally to reactivate idle land, including policy reforms, community-based initiatives, market-driven investments, and technological innovation. Successful cases from Japan, South Korea, China, Rwanda, and Brazil demonstrate that land can be effectively mobilised for productive use when interventions are context-sensitive, participatory, and aligned with broader socio-economic goals [5][6][12][14]. However, the review also identifies critical challenges—such as institutional fragmentation, land tenure insecurity, weak data systems, and social-environmental trade-offs—that continue to hinder effective implementation [2][3].

This paper proposes a holistic strategy framework that situates idle land utilisation within the broader context of the SDGs and sustainable land management principles. It advocates for cross-sectoral policy coherence, legal reform, local empowerment, and the use of digital innovation to drive efficient and equitable land use. Future efforts must focus on institutionalising best practices, strengthening land information systems, and creating inclusive platforms for stakeholder engagement.

Moving forward, further research is needed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of idle land interventions, particularly in relation to equity, climate resilience, and economic inclusion. Comparative empirical studies across different land types and governance models will help refine the frameworks and assumptions currently guiding policy. Unlocking the potential of idle land is not only a spatial challenge but a developmental opportunity—one that requires vision, coordination, and commitment across disciplines and sectors.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to thank the to all reviewers and academic peers whose insights greatly contributed to the improvement of this study.

REFERENCES

1. FAO (2021). The state of the world’s land and water resources for food and agriculture – Systems at breaking point. Rome: FAO & UNEP.
2. Burnod, P., Gingembre, M., & Andrianirina Ratsialonana, R. (2013). Land reforms and the privatization of tenure in Madagascar: A failure on the ground. Land Use Policy, 34, pp. 60–69.
3. Zoomers, A. (2010). Globalisation and the foreignisation of space: seven processes driving the current global land grab. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 37(2), pp. 429–447.
4. UN-Habitat. (2020). World Cities Report 2020: The Value of Sustainable Urbanization. Nairobi: UN-Habitat.
5. Alexander, F. S. (2011). Land banks and land banking. Flint, MI: Center for Community Progress.
6. Kim, K., & Kim, D. (2019). Vacant land activation strategies in South Korea: Fiscal incentives and planning reform. Land Use Policy, 87, 104075.
7. Deininger, K., & Feder, G. (2001). Land institutions and land markets. In B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (Eds.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 1A. Elsevier, pp. 288–331.
8. Glover, T. D., Shinew, K. J., & Parry, D. C. (2005). Association, sociability, and civic culture: The democratic effect of community gardening. Leisure Sciences, 27(1), pp. 75–92.
9. Colasanti, K., Litjens, C., & Hamm, M. (2012). Growing food in the city: The production potential of Detroit’s vacant land. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, 27(1), pp. 1–11.
10. Matsumoto, N. (2018). Akiya Banks and Urban Shrinkage in Japan: The Role of Digital Platforms in Reusing Vacant Houses. Urban Studies, 55(7), pp. 1483–1500.
11. Williamson, I., Enemark, S., Wallace, J., & Rajabifard, A. (2010). Land administration for sustainable development. Redlands: ESRI Press.
12. Zhang, X., Jin, Y., & Zhou, Y. (2020). Land rental market development and agricultural productivity in rural China. Land Use Policy, 99, 104983.
13. Liakos, K. G., et al. (2018). Machine learning in agriculture: A review. Sensors, 18(8), 2674.
14. Ngoga, T. (2017). Public-private partnerships in agricultural land use in Rwanda. Rwanda Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 1(1), pp. 1–10.
15. UN-SPIDER. (2018). Application of Space-based Technology to Support Land Use and Land Cover Mapping. United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs.
16. McCall, M. K., & Dunn, C. E. (2012). Geo-information tools for participatory spatial planning: Fulfilling the criteria for ‘good’ governance? Geoforum, 43(1), pp. 81–94.
17. South African Government. (2012). National Development Plan 2030. Pretoria: The Presidency.
18. Deininger, K., Selod, H., & Burns, A. (2003). The land governance assessment framework: Identifying and monitoring good practice in the land sector. Washington, DC: World Bank.
19. Nguyen, T. T., Bauer, S., & Uibrig, H. (2018). Agricultural land-use rights reform and rural development in Vietnam. Land Use Policy, 77, pp. 117–125.
20. Pulhin, J. M., Inoue, M., & Enters, T. (2007). Three decades of community-based forest management in the Philippines: Emerging lessons for sustainable and equitable forest management. International Forestry Review, 9(4), pp. 865–883.