Importance of Land in SDG Policy Instruments: A Study of ASEAN Developing Countries

Abstract

Allocating land-related social, economic, and legal benefits to people is crucial for meeting the commitments made by various countries for achieving sustainable development goals (SDGs). Economic growth in developing countries in the Southeast Asian region is very rapid, requiring primary resources such as land, which poses challenges for implementing nationally determined commitments towards SDGs. This paper quantitatively compares the relevant policy instruments issued by the key ASEAN countries to analyze the importance of land provision in achieving the specific SDGs. Using content analysis to formulate a framework for comparing the various policy instruments and strategic plans, the article identifies the importance of land use in various policy instruments focused on achieving SDGs. Most countries use authoritative instruments to incorporate land-related aspects. The use of the symbolic, capacity-building, and incentive instruments is relatively lesser. Many countries give prominence to land for providing shelter or as an economic resource, while land use for managing gender equality is negligible. Policy makers could incorporate a more balanced mix of instruments and those addressing different dimensions of land use while redesigning their policy or strategy documents to implement SDGs.

1. Introduction

The development paradigm based on meeting the needs of the current generation without hampering the needs of future generations was the basis for sustainable development as articulated by the World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 [1]. This concept has been the basis of various agreements related to sustainable living amongst the countries, leading to the formulation of eight millennium development goals (MDGs) [2]. Subsequently, The United Nations Sustainable Development Summit adopted the sustainable development goals, comprising 17 goals, whose progress is measured through 169 specific indicators [3,4]. These goals were ratified by less than 193 member states. Various countries have formulated their strategies, through nationally determined commitments, to chart their respective progress to achieve the SDGs.

The concept of sustainable development is based on three pillars of economic growth, environmental protection, and social inclusion, each of them receiving a fair share in the Declaration of the UN Conference on Sustainable Development titled “The Future We Want” [5]. The focus on sustainable development coexists with achieving a greener economy while eradicating poverty [6]. SDGs have become an integral part of governments’ policy and decision-making processes during the last few years. During their quest to implement the SDGs, different countries identify their local challenges and formulate customized solutions to keep track of their anticipated path for sustainable development. As every goal demands precise action or an attitude change [7], many countries have placed infrastructure development and improvement and the use of the available resources at the core of implementing SDGs [8]. A review of the nationally determined commitments of different countries indicates that countries have concentrated their efforts on reducing greenhouse gas emissions [8]. This emphasis addresses the environmental aspect of the SDG implementation.

Land, traditionally considered one of the factors of production, has been the mainstay for infrastructure development and is crucial for providing various civic services. The social and economic development, particularly in the urban context, depends on the availability of land, which further impacts the levels of hunger, poverty, and well-being [9,10]. With the growing world population, the per capita availability of land has declined. With an increasing demand for land in cities, its availability decreases for sectors such as agriculture. For example, land under agriculture use has declined significantly in Asia. In 2014, agricultural land use was one-third of what was available in 1961. The cropland declined from 0.45 hectare per capita in 1961 to 0.21 hectare per capita in 2016 [11,12]. Land is also used to augment governments’ finances through various instruments used to finance infrastructure. Indiscriminate adoption of land-based financing tools has also led to a sharp increase in land price that has exacerbated the inequality between landowners and non-landowners. One of the adverse consequences of rising land prices is housing affordability, with stark differences across various countries [13].

Land has featured predominantly under the SDGs than the MDGs. MDG 7 (ensuring environmental sustainability) considers the land as a resource for improving the lives of slum dwellers. The importance of land is noted to be much more crucial in many SDGs. SDG 1 (removing poverty in all its forms everywhere), SDG 2 (end hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture), SDG 5 (achieve greater gender equality and empower all women and girls) and SDG 11 (make cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable) have indicators that underpin the land as shelter or source of income. The transformation to a new sustainable development model of the world economy from the hitherto industrial development model would mean better management of the underlying resources, including land. Many countries are developing their national and subnational plans, policies, and legislative instruments that support SDG achievement.

There is a substantial amount of research that focuses on creating indices to evaluate the performance of the SDGs [6,14,15]. Previous research has also discussed the relationship of SDGs with specific resources or sectors such as energy (mostly renewable) or reduction of greenhouse gases [16,17,18]. Land has been researched from the perspective of forest degradation, soil erosion, wetlands, etc. [19,20,21]. However, there is scant literature on whether policies or plans associated with SDGs incorporate elements that address land management. This research is inspired by this lack of literature and addresses the knowledge gap regarding the inclusion of land management in SDG-related policies. The research findings intend to provide inputs to a discussion on the current extent of importance accorded to land in the national documents relevant to SDGs’ implementation and inspire further research on SDG-related policy analysis [22].

This study compares policy measures or actions undertaken by key developing countries of the Association of Southeast Nations (ASEAN) to address the land-specific indicators in the SDG targets. The ASEAN is an important collaboration in the global economy, with the member countries accounting for 8.5% of the world’s population and having the fifth largest GDP, amounting to USD 3.2 trillion [8]. The region has witnessed a rapid economic growth of 5.3% per annum from 2000 to 2018 [23]. The region also consists of the least developed countries (such as Cambodia, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, and Myanmar) [24]. According to The Long-Term Climate Risk Index, Myanmar, the Philippines, and Thailand were among the top ten countries most affected by extreme weather events during 2000–2019 [25]. The COVID-19 pandemic has severely impacted the region’s economic growth, adding to the challenges of achieving the SDGs [26] (ADB SDG Accelerator Bond, 2021). A study of the key countries in the region would provide pointers for other developing countries for incorporating land in their national policy instruments/strategic documents.

The rest of the paper is structured as follows. The contextual background of the countries being compared is presented in Section 2. The method adopted and the data used for the analysis is described in Section 3. The results and discussions are presented in Section 4. Finally, in Section 5, the conclusions are presented.

2. SDG Status of Key ASEAN Countries

This paper studies the SDG policy initiatives of seven ASEAN countries—Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. As per the SDG Index 2021 [27] report (data for the year 2020), the total ASEAN population was 667.3 million, out of which these seven countries account for about 98% of the population. The data for Brunei Darussalam and Lao People’s Democratic Republic is not readily available. Being more developed than the rest of the ASEAN countries, Singapore has also been excluded from this study.

The demographics profile of the seven ASEAN member countries has been set out in

Table 1. Demographics of the key ASEAN developing countries.

Country	SDG Ranking 2021	Population (Millions)	GDP (USD Million)	Poverty Headcount Ratio at $1.90/Day (%)	Proportion of Urban Population Living in Slums (%)
Cambodia	102	16.49	27,089.39	0.48	45.1
Indonesia	97	270.63	1,119,190.78	2.42	30.6
Malaysia	65	31.95	364,681.37	0	NA
Myanmar	101	54.05	76,085.85	0.62	56.1
Philippines	103	108.12	376,795.51	6.22	42.9
Thailand	43	69.63	543,548.97	0	23.7
Vietnam	51	96.46	261,921.24	0.85	13.8

Source: World Bank [28] and Sustainable Development Report website [29].

. The Table indicates that a sizeable population in these countries lives in slums. In the Philippines and Indonesia, approximately 10 million people live under $1.90/day.

The Southeast Asian region is estimated to require an investment of about $210 billion per annum for fifteen years between 2016 and 2030 to achieve climate-resilient infrastructure [26]. The region is estimated to have an investment shortfall of 3.8% of its GDP (4.1% when accounted for climate resiliency). The decade from the year 2020 has been termed as the Decade for Action for achieving the SDGs [30]. Most countries have been renewing their commitments and making suitable modifications to their chosen paths to achieve them. The challenges faced by many countries, particularly the ASEAN group, include huge investments, limited integration of SDGs into infrastructure planning, inadequate capacity in the government and private sector, and the complexity in translating the SDG targets, indicators to project outcomes [26].

Even though the ASEAN region has made substantial progress in recent years, the trajectory remains challenging as the pace of implementation is varied. Except for Thailand, none of the countries are in the top 50 countries to achieve the SDGs.

Table 2. SDG Index Report Goal wise trend for the seven countries considered for the article.

Country (SDG Ranking)	2021 SDG Index Score	2021 SDG Index Rank	Population in 2020	Goal 1 DashBoard	Goal 1 Trend	Goal 2 DashBoard	Goal 2 Trend	Goal 5 DashBoard	Goal 5 Trend	Goal 11 DashBoard	Goal 11 Trend
Finland (1)	85.9	1	5,540,718	GA	On track	SC	Moderate	CR	Moderate	CR	Moderate
Thailand (43)	74.2	43	69,799,978	GA	On track	MC	Stagnating	SC	Moderate	SC	Moderate
Vietnam (51)	72.8	51	97,338,583	CR	On track	MC	Moderate	SC	Moderate	SC	On track
Malaysia (65)	70.9	65	32,365,998	GA	On track	MC	Stagnating	MC	Moderate	CR	Moderate
Indonesia (97)	66.3	97	273,523,621	SC	Moderate	MC	Moderate	SC	Moderate	MC	Stagnating
Myanmar (101)	64.9	101	54,409,794	CR	On track	SC	Stagnating	SC	Stagnating	MC	Stagnating
Cambodia (102)	64.5	102	16,718,971	CR	On track	SC	Moderate	MC	Stagnating	SC	Moderate
Philippines (103)	64.5	103	109,581,085	SC	Moderate	MC	Moderate	SC	Stagnating	MC	Stagnating

Source: Sustainable Development Report (Download Data) [29]. Abbreviations: Goal Achievement—GA, On track or maintaining achievement—On track; Challenges remain—CR, Moderately Increasing—Moderate; Significant challenges—SC, Stagnating—Stagnating; Major challenges—MC, Decreasing—Decreasing.

and

Table 3. SDG Target and Indicator wise data from SDG Gateway.

Target No	UNESCAPE Target	UNESCAPE Indicator	Unit	Cambodia *	Indonesia	Malaysia	Myanmar	Philippines	Thailand	Vietnam
1.4	Access to basic Services	1.4.1 Access to basic service—drinking water	% of Total Population	59.2% (2017)	73.1% (2017)	99.9% (2017)	64.3% (2017)	76.5% (2017)	98.8% (2017)	83.5% (2017)
2.3	Agriculture productivity and income	2.3.2 Income of small-scale food producers	in 2011 PPP Dollars	983 (2009)	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	2810 (2010)
5. a	Ownership or secure rights over agricultural land	5.a.1 Ownership or secure rights over agricultural land	%	NA	NA	NA	NA	NA	58.7%	NA
11.1	Adequate, safe, and affordable housing	11.1.1 Urban Slum Population	% of urban population	45.1% (2018)	30.6% (2018)	NA	56.1% (2018)	42.9% (2018)	23.7% (2018)	13.8% (2018)

Source: SDG Gateway Asia Pacific—Country SDG Profile [32]. * For the indicator numbers—11.2, 11.3, 11.7, and 11.a—data is unavailable on the SDG Gateway website [32].

present the current scenario of the SDG implementation process in the seven countries. The statistics of the top-ranked country, Finland, also give a perspective of the difference between the leader and the ASEAN countries. Finland is on track in achieving SDG 1 and is moderate in its progress in achieving SDGs 2, 5, and 11. Thailand leads the ASEAN group, followed by Vietnam and Malaysia on the SDG Index score. The rest of the four countries have similar scores and figure in the second half of the global ranking. Thailand and Malaysia appear to be on track to achieve SDG1, while the other five countries are having challenges in their path. All the countries have significant or major challenges in their progress towards SDGs 2, 5, and 11. Three of the seven countries appear to be stagnating in their progress, while four others appear to be having moderate progress in these SDGs. Thailand, Malaysia, and Myanmar appear to be stagnating in their progress in SDG 2, while the progress of the other four countries is moderate. The progress of Myanmar, Cambodia, and the Philippines is stagnating in SDG 5, while the status of Indonesia, Myanmar, and the Philippines are similar with regards to SDG 11.

The available data on some of the SDG indicators are presented in Table 3. Malaysia and Thailand have very high access to basic service, i.e., water, whereas the other countries lag in providing access to water to a substantial portion of their population. The disparity in income of small-scale food producers is stark between Vietnam and Cambodia. The share of the urban population living in slums also varies significantly. Myanmar, Cambodia, and the Philippines have more than 40% of their urban population residing in slums; Vietnam fares better than other ASEAN countries with only 13.8% urban slum population.

The COVID-19 pandemic is estimated to have had a further debilitating impact on the ASEAN region’s efforts to grow its economy sustainably. It is estimated that more than $250 billion have been invested in the region to support economic recovery from the effects of COVID-19. However, some of these investments have a negative effect on climate resilience and sustainable infrastructure, thereby, hampering the progress towards achieving SDGs as intended [31].

3. Methodology and Data

This research aimed to assess the extent to which land and its related elements have been considered by different countries while developing their respective SDG-related policy documents. Content analysis is preferred for inferring the extent of usage of categories or keywords in a set of documents [33]. This replicable and systematic approach provides a way to interpret a large quantum of data by tabulating it in categories using coding rules. The method allows researchers to systematically sieve through a large volume of data to identify trend/s communicated by stakeholders through the documents [34]. The content analysis method used for this article is adapted from the approach used by Xie et al. in their comparative study of policy instruments to assess how China is faring in implementing the SDGs [35].

The process adopted for the content analysis is set out in Figure 1.

As a first step, SDG targets with clear land-related indicators are identified. The SDGs and the indicators that mention land either as an economic resource (farming, agriculture), shelter (residential, housing), public space (transportation, recreation, parks, urban green spaces), and to achieve gender equality from the perspective of females being entitled to use the facilities [35] are set out in

Table 4. SDG Targets and land utilization categories.

Sustainable Development Goal	Target	Land Utilization/Entitlement Categorization as per Targets
SDG 1 Removing Poverty in all its forms everywhere	1.4 By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property, inheritance, natural resources, appropriate new technology, and financial services, including micro-finance.	Access to or ownership of land as an economic resource Access to or ownership of land as shelter
SDG 2 End hunger, achieve food security and improve nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture	2.3 By 2030, double the agricultural productivity and incomes of small-scale food producers, in particular women, indigenous peoples, family farmers, and fishers, including through secure and equal access to land, other productive resources, and inputs, knowledge, financial services, markets and opportunities for value addition and non-farm employment.	Access to or ownership of land as an economic resource
SDG 5 Achieve gender equality and empower all women and girls	5.a Undertake reforms to give women equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to ownership and control over land and other forms of property, financial services, inheritance, and natural resources, in accordance with national laws	Ownership of land for achieving gender equality Access to or ownership of land as an economic resource Access to or ownership of land as shelter
SDG 11 Make cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable	11.1 By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe, and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums	Access to or ownership of land as shelter
	11.3 By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated, and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries	Access to or ownership of land as shelter
	11.7 By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces, in particular for women and children, older persons and persons with disabilities	Access to or ownership of land as an economic resource Access to land as public spaces
	11.a Support positive economic, social and environmental links between urban, peri-urban and rural areas by strengthening national and regional development planning	Access to or ownership of land as economic resource

Source: Authors’ compilation from the SDGs [36].

below.

The method used by Xie et al. [35] is based on McDonnell and Schneider’s theory for policy instruments analysis [37,38]. The method categorizes the policy instruments based on their nature (into five groups—authoritative instruments, incentive instruments, symbolic and advisory instruments, capacity-building instruments, and system change instruments). Authoritative instruments refer to those possessing official or legal power. By the virtue of government being policymakers, these instruments suggest the implementation of the measures which may demand, guarantee or forbid some actions or things [38]. The authoritative instruments typically cover zoning, urban planning, land use, regional planning, standards, and labelling. The incentive instruments involve the transfer of monetary benefits to the public, agencies, or institutions as defined or suggested by the instrument. They are usually combined with some rule or regulation to ensure the implementation of this rule or regulation as intended by the policymakers [38]. The incentive instruments pertaining to land include taxes, subsidies, property rights, payment for ecosystem services, etc. Symbolic and advisory instruments are used to communicate the policy elements or guidelines for directing the target audience’s behavior [38]. The examples were symbolic and adversary instruments include voluntary commitments and guidance documents. Capacity-building instruments focus on developing the capacity of the various stakeholders involved in the process. The capacity-building initiatives can cover a wider gamut of information campaigns, education on infrastructure investments, R&D spending, and procurement, etc. System change instruments refer to those that enable organizational, institutional, or governance structures for implementing the policies [38]. Directions relating to land readjustment, land information systems, registration, cadastre, and expropriation constitute system change instruments.

These policy instruments are then compared against the four dimensions of land utilization, i.e., land as an economic resource, land as shelter, land access for public spaces, and land and gender inequality. The various types of policy instruments are then plotted against the dimensions of land utilization to reflect the various characteristics of incorporation in policy or strategic documents. The types of instruments are plotted on the X-dimension and the land utilization characteristics are presented on the Y-dimension, as depicted in Figure 2.

The list of documents related to land utilization, SDG achievement in different countries, and the document considered for content analysis are presented in

Table 5. Documents Used for Content Analysis.

Country	List of Documents	Document Considered for Analysis	Observations
Cambodia	National Strategic Development Plan 2019–2023 [40] Strategic Framework on Decentralization and Deconcentration (2005) [39] National Spatial Policy (2011) [41] Capacity Development for Urban Management Project (2013) [39] Strategic Green Development Plan (2012–2030) [42] National Housing Policy (2014) [39] The White Paper on Land Policy (adopted in 2015) [39]	National Strategic Development Plan 2019–2023	Latest available document relating to SDGs
Indonesia	The National Medium-Term Development Plan For 2020–2024 [43] National Policies and Strategies for Urban Development towards Sustainable Competitive Cities for 2045 [39] National Spatial Policy (late 2000s) [39] National Urban Development Strategy (NUDS) [39] the Master Plan for Expansion and Acceleration of Indonesia’s Economic Development (2011) [44] Main Message VNR Indonesia 2021 [45]	The National Medium-Term Development Plan For 2020–2024	Latest document available setting out the steps/initiatives taken/planned for SDGs. This document is available in English. The other document that could have been considered is Vision 2045, however, it is accessible only in Bahasa language.
Malaysia	Shared Vision Prosperity 2030 [46] National Heritage Act [47] National Physical Plan—3 [39] the 11th Malaysia Plan [39] National Urbanization Policy 2 [39] National Housing Policy [39]	Shared Vision Prosperity 2030	Latest available document relating to SDGs
Myanmar	Myanmar Sustainable Development Plan (2018–2030) [48] Myanmar Development Assistance Policy [49] Policy Priorities for 2012–2015 towards the Long-Term—Goals of the National Comprehensive Development Plan [39] National Urban Policy and Smart City Strategy [39] Master Plan for Yangon (draft) [39]	Myanmar Sustainable Development Plan (2018–2030)	Document provides a comprehensive country perspective of the SDG implementation
Philippines	Philippine Development Plan (2017–2022) [50] National Urban Development and Housing Framework 2017–2022 [39] National Framework for physical Planning Policy (2001–2030) [39] the National Urban Development and Housing Framework (NUDHF) (2009–2016) [39] Philippines Development Plan 2011–2016 [39]	Philippine Development Plan (2017–2022)	Document provides a comprehensive country perspective of the SDG implementation
Thailand	The Twelfth National 2017–2021 Sufficiency Economy Philosophy: Thailand’s Path towards Sustainable Development Goals [51] Eleventh National Economic and Social Development Plan 2012–2016 [39] National Urban Development Policy Framework (1991) [39] the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Global Warming Action Plan 2007–2012 [39]	The Twelfth National 2017–2021 Sufficiency Economy Philosophy: Thailand’s Path towards Sustainable Development Goals	Document provides a comprehensive country perspective of the SDG implementation
Vietnam	National Action Plan 2018–2030 [52] National Urban Development Programme 2012–2020 [39] Vietnam Urban Upgrading Project (VUUP) 2004–2014 [39] National Urban Upgrading Strategy and Overall Investment Plan (NUUP) [39] Orientation Plan for Urban Development 2025 [39] 2030 integrated financing and investment strategy [39]	National Action Plan 2018–2030	Document provides a comprehensive country perspective of the SDG implementation

Source: Authors’ compilation.

below. These documents are collated from the respective countries’ websites and the list compiled by the Urban Policy Platform facilitated by UN-Habitat [39].

Firstly, all irrelevant data and terms were removed from each document for content analysis. Only the relevant chapters were scanned to identify the measures. The following

Table 6. Text considered for content analysis.

Country	Document Name	Chapter/Section Considered	Count of Text (Paragraphs)
Cambodia	National Strategic Development Plan 2019–2023 [40]	Chapter 3—Macroeconomic Framework for NSDP 2019–2023 3.3—Targets and Policies for 2019–2023, Section 3.26–3.44 3.4—Economic Outlook 2019–2023, Section 3.45–3.58 Chapter 4—Key Policy Priorities and Actions 2019–2023, Section 4.1–4.191 [40]	224
Indonesia	The National Medium-Term Development Plan for 2020–2024 [43]	Chapter—6: Strengthening Infrastructure to Support Economic and Basic Services Development Sections considered for Paper—Environmental and Strategic Issues; Objectives, Indicators, and Targets; Policy Directions and Strategies Chapter—7: Strengthening the Environment and Improving Resilience Against Natural Disasters and Climate Change Sections considered for Paper—Environmental and Strategic Issues; Objectives, Indicators, and Targets; Policy Directions and Strategies [43]	238
Malaysia	Shared Vision Prosperity 2030 [46]	Chapter 6—Strategic Thrusts [46]	85
Myanmar	Myanmar Sustainable Development Plan (2018–2030) [48]	Goal 3 Job Creation & Private Sector-Led Growth Goal 5 Natural Resources & The Environment For Posterity Of The Nation [48]	171
Philippines	Philippine Development Plan [50]	Chapter 7—Promoting Philippine Culture and Values Chapter 8—“Expanding Economic Opportunities in Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries” Chapter 11—Reducing Vulnerability of Individuals and Families Chapter 12—Building Safe and Secure Communities [50]	227
Thailand	The Twelfth National Economic and Social Development Plan [51]	Strategy 2—Strategy for Creating a Just Society and Reducing Inequality Strategy 3—Strategy for Strengthening the Economy, and Underpinning Sustainable Competitiveness Strategy 4—Strategy for Environmentally-Friendly Growth for Sustainable Development Strategy 7—Strategy for Advancing Infrastructure and Logistics Strategy 9—Strategy for Regional, Urban, and Economic Zone Development [51]	357
Vietnam	National Action Plan [52]	Annex 1 [52]	145

Source: Authors compilation based on a review of the documents listed above.

lists the chapters and the text (paragraphs) considered for the research.

The count of relevant text (paragraphs) in the respective country documents ranges from 85 in Malaysia to 357 in Thailand. From the above-listed text, land utilization-related policy instruments were identified and segregated in the tabulated format (

Table 7. Content Analysis grid for Myanmar.

Myanmar	Authoritative Instruments	Incentive Instruments	Symbolic and Advisory Instruments	Capacity-Building Instruments	System Change Instruments
Land as economic resource ownership/access	Create market conditions to enable greater investment in agriculture, aquaculture and polyculture, and mechanization [48]			Revise and develop education and training in the agriculture, aquaculture and food sectors, responding to the evolving needs of farmers and the rural private sector [48]
Land & Gender equality	Strengthen urban governance and related policy frameworks, including those related to urban land management, with a focus on gender-specific and youth-related concerns [48]

Source: Authors compilation based on a review of the documents listed in Table [48].

), as shown in the sample below. Similar information for all the remaining countries data have been provided as Appendix A.

4. Results and Discussion

Results from the analysis of seven countries’ SDG policy and strategic instruments are presented in the

Table 8. Statistical analysis results of SDGs policy tools implemented by countries.

Type of Instrument	Type of Land Utilization	Cambodia		Indonesia		Malaysia		Myanmar		Philippines		Thailand		Vietnam
		Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%	Count	%
Authoritative instruments	Land as Economic Resource	4	20.00	2	18.18	1	14.29	2	22.22	1	7.14%	2	13.33	1	8.33
	Land as shelter ownership	1	5.00	3	27.27	1	14.29	1	11.11	4	28.57%	1	6.67	2	16.67
	Land access as public spaces	2	10.00	0	0.00	1	14.29	2	22.22	0	0.00%	2	13.33	2	16.67
	Land & Gender equality	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	1	11.11	1	7.14%	0	0.00	1	8.33
	Subtotal	7	35.00	5	45.45	3	42.86	6	66.67	6	42.86%	5	33.33	6	50.00
Incentive instruments	Land as Economic Resource	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00%	1	6.67	0	0.00
	Land as shelter ownership	1	5.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	3	21.43%	0	0.00	1	8.33
	Land access as public spaces	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00%	1	6.67	0	0.00
	Land & Gender equality	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00%	0	0.00	0	0.00
	Subtotal	1	5.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	3	21.43%	2	13.33	1	8.33
Symbolic and advisory instruments	Land as Economic Resource	2	10.00	1	9.09	2	28.57	0	0.00	1	7.14%	0	0.00	0	0.00
	Land as shelter ownership	4	20.00	4	36.36	1	14.29	0	0.00	1	7.14%	0	0.00	1	8.33
	Land access as public spaces	1	5.00	1	9.09	0	0.00	0	0.00	1	7.14%	0	0.00	3	25.00
	Land & Gender equality	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	1	7.14%	0	0.00	0	0.00
	Subtotal	7	35.00	6	54.55	3	42.86	0	0.00	4	28.57%	0	0.00	4	33.33
Capacity-building instruments	Land as Economic Resource	0	0.00	0	0.00	1	14.29	1	11.11	1	7.14%	2	13.33	0	0.00
	Land as shelter ownership	1	5.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	1	11.11	0	0.00%	0	0.00	0	0.00
	Land access as public spaces	1	5.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00%	1	6.67	1	8.33
	Land & Gender equality	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00%	0	0.00	0	0.00
	Subtotal	2	10.00	0	0.00	1	14.29	2	22.22	1	7.14%	3	20.00	1	8.33
System change instruments	Land as Economic Resource	1	5.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00%	3	20.00	0	0.00
	Land as shelter ownership	1	5.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	1	11.11	0	0.00%	1	6.67	0	0.00
	Land access as public spaces	1	5.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00%	1	6.67	0	0.00
	Land & Gender equality	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	0	0.00%	0	0.00	0	0.00
	Subtotal	3	15.00	0	0.00	0	0.00	1	11.11	0	0.00%	5	33.33	0	0.00
Total		20	100%	11	100%	7	100%	9	100%	14	100%	15	100%	12	100%

below. The information in the Table refers to how many times instruments appear under respective categories, and the percentage of their appearance for the respective country. All the countries have a diverse mix of authoritative instruments, incentive instruments, capacity-building instruments, symbolic and advisory instruments, and system change instruments.

i.

Categorization of Policy Instruments: X-Dimension

Table 9. Distribution by Instrument Category.

	Authoritative Instruments	Incentive Instruments	Symbolic and Advisory Instruments	Capacity-Building Instruments	System Change Instruments	Total
Cambodia	7(35%)	1(5%)	7(35%)	2(10%)	3(15%)	20(100%)
Indonesia	5(45%)	0(0%)	6(55%)	0(0%)	0(0%)	11(100%)
Malaysia	3(43%)	0(0%)	3(43%)	1(14%)	0(0%)	7(100%)
Myanmar	6(67%)	0(0%)	0(0%)	2(22%)	1(11%)	9(100%)
Philippines	6(43%)	3(21%)	4(29%)	1(7%)	0(0%)	14(100%)
Thailand	5(33%)	2(13%)	0(0%)	3(20%)	5(33%)	15(100%)
Vietnam	6(50%)	1(8%)	4(33%)	1(8%)	0(0%)	12(100%)
	38(44%)	5(6%)	23(26%)	11(13%)	10(11%)	87(100%)

below presents the extracted information of the distribution of the category of instruments for each country. The number of instruments across all the five categories has ranged between 7 and 20 in different countries. The differences amongst the number of land-related policy instruments across the various countries indicate the lack of uniformity on land-related aspects while progressing towards SDG implementation. The percentage of various categories of instrument used, in descending order, when taken together for all the countries is authoritative instruments (44%), symbolic and advisory instruments (26%), capacity-building instruments (13%), system change instruments (11%), and incentive instruments (6%). It appears that all the countries rely on statutory or legislative mechanisms and provide guidance documents to influence aspects of SDGs rather than focusing on capacity-building, or institutional governance or structural changes, or providing incentives for better behaviour.

Among all five categories, the proportion of authoritative instruments is highest in all countries except in Indonesia, making it the most prominently used instrument category. Incentive instruments have not been used in Indonesia, Malaysia, and Myanmar, whereas the Philippines mentions three incentive instruments. Thailand mentions two, while Vietnam and Cambodia have one incentive instrument. Except for Myanmar and Thailand, all the other countries have symbolic and advisory instruments. Cambodia has the maximum number of symbolic and advisory instruments, followed by Indonesia, the Philippines and Vietnam. Every country, except for Indonesia, has mentioned capacity-building instruments in their policy documents. However, the number of instruments is low, ranging from one to three per country. Cambodia, Myanmar, and Thailand mention system-change instruments in their policy documents, while the other four countries do not have any instruments under this category.

Indonesia has used only two categories of instruments, symbolic and advisory instruments. Cambodia has used all five types of instruments, with authoritative instruments, symbolic and advisory instruments being the more prominent categories. Malaysia has the least number of policy instruments relating to the land (7) and has used three types of instruments, with no incentive or a system change instrument. Similarly, Myanmar also has fewer instruments (9) and does not have any under the category of incentive instruments and symbolic and advisory instruments. The policy documents of the Philippines mention instruments under all the categories except the system change instrument category. Thailand also has instruments under all the categories except the symbolic and advisory instruments category. However, Vietnam does not have any system change instrument has instruments in all the other categories.

Government still use authoritative instruments as the preferred means to implement their plans. However, the usage of the other types of instruments indicates their increased openness to consider alternative mechanisms to communicate their intentions and translate the same into desired outcomes. The symbolic and advisory instruments are the next prominent category that points to the government’s willingness to reach out through more guidance and best practices’ dissemination efforts. These policy instruments are typically characterized by their adoption with lower prior requirements, wider stakeholders, and lower investment. The success of these instruments relies on greater dissemination and propaganda to reach a wider audience. These instruments have the potential to create consensus across different societal groups, and foster partnerships to implement the land-related policies. The capacity-building instruments, and the system change instruments are not the widely used categories across the ASEAN countries. This indicates that the countries, while important to implementing land-related policies, are yet to support the implementation of SDGs through more comprehensive education or to commit resources to augment the institutional structures for land-related aspects. The use of incentive instruments appears to be insufficient across all the ASEAN countries. While the incentive instruments need to be used judiciously, they have the potential to quickly reduce the gap between the expectations of the governments and the operative conditions on the ground. As the countries are currently behind in their stated commitments of achieving the SDGs, it might be helpful to investigate the role of incentive instruments in greater detail.

ii.

Categorization of Policy Instruments: Y-Dimension

Table 10. Distribution by Land Utilization Category.

	Cambodia	Indonesia	Malaysia	Myanmar	Philippines	Thailand	Vietnam	Total
Land as Economic Resource	7(35%)	3(27%)	4(57%)	3(33%)	3(21%)	8(53%)	1(8%)	26(30%)
Land as shelter ownership	8(40%)	7(64%)	2(29%)	3(33%)	8(57%)	2(13%)	4(33%)	32(37%)
Land access as public spaces	5(25%)	1(9%)	1(14%)	2(22%)	1(7%)	5(33%)	6(50%)	24(28%)
Land & Gender equality	0(0%)	0(0%)	0(0%)	1(11%)	2(14%)	0(0%)	1(8%)	5(6%)
	20(100%)	11(100%)	7(100%)	9(100%)	13(100%)	15(100%)	12(100%)	87(100%)

below presents the extracted information of the land utilization distribution in each country’s policy instruments. Land utilization in the policy instruments is categorized into four groups, namely, land as an economic resource, land as shelter, ownership, land access for public spaces, and land for gender equality. The SDG-related policy instruments of all the seven countries incorporate elements relating to land as an economic resource, land as shelter, and land access for public spaces. However, the elements related to land for gender equality do not seem to be as important as the other three categories.

The count of the policy instruments related to land for shelter have the highest mention, with 37% of the total. The policy instruments related to land as an economic resource and land access for public spaces are almost equal at about 30%. The count of the policy instruments relating to utilization of land for gender equality show the lowest importance, at about 6% of the total. With eight each, Cambodia, the Philippines, and Indonesia, with seven policy instruments related to land utilization as shelter, have the highest number in the ASEAN region. All the other countries have two to four policy instruments related to land utilization for shelter. Thailand has the highest number of policy instruments mentioning land as an economic resource (8), followed by Cambodia (7). Vietnam’s policy document has only one mention of land as an economic resource. All the other countries have three to four policy instruments mentioned in their respective documents. Vietnam’s policy document mentions six policy instruments for land utilization for public spaces. Cambodia and Thailand have five such policy instruments. All the other countries have one or two policy instruments related to land utilization for public spaces.

A review of the land utilization policy instruments in Cambodia indicates that the highest importance is accorded to land usage for shelter (8) followed by utilization of land as an economic resource (7) and the availability of land for public spaces (5). This document does not have any policy instrument relating to land utilization for addressing gender inequality. Limited land availability, high reliance on the agriculture and fisheries sector, and the historical turmoil that the country has witnessed leading to social inequality could be the reasons for such a distribution. Cambodia’s National Strategic Development Plan is based on its Rectangular Strategy Phase IV, which is a progressive improvement on the earlier phases. This document focuses on land, in terms of real estate, urbanization, construction, land use, and public private partnership. The document mentions developing laws related to the land—particularly land management, housing, and construction. The overarching focus appears to be on making affordable housing available using land reforms as a tool and encouraging public private partnerships. The policy instruments also ensure that illegal settlements are regularised as per the prevailing provisions.

The pattern is similar for Indonesia, with seven instruments for utilization of land for shelter, three instruments relating to land utilization as an economic resource, and one policy instrument for utilizing the land for public spaces. The fast-growing urban population, leading to greater aspirations for affordable housing, and the general congestion, particularly in the country’s urban areas, could have influenced such a distribution. Indonesia’s 2020–2024 National Medium-term Development Plan (RPJMN) is part of the 2005–2025 National Long-Term Development Plan (RPJPN). This plan has integrated the sustainable development goals to such an extent that, now, many of the SDGs are inseparable from the Indonesian Government’s current development agendas. Moreover, this document acts as a precursor to the broader Vision 2045, whose objective is to achieve sustainable infrastructure, improved public services, and high human development. The focus of the policy instruments has been on providing legal certainty to land rights, enabling better access to land through land banks, promoting urban renewal, using public land for affordable housing find augmenting the income of the farmers and fisheries sector.

Out of the seven policy instruments relating to land in Malaysia, four relate to land as an economic resource, two relate to land utilization as shelter, and one for land access for public spaces. No policy instrument directly refers to land utilization for addressing gender inequality. Malaysia’s Shared Vision Prosperity 2030 document has been developed keeping 15 guiding principles and 8 enablers at the core. The focus of land utilization in the policy document is on making the rural, semi-urban, and unutilized land more economically beneficial. There is an increased focus on ensuring equality for the indigenous people, balanced regional development, improving access to common infrastructures such as hospitals, transportation modes, etc. and access to affordable housing.

Myanmar has three policy instruments, each relating to land utilization as an economic resource and for shelter, two instruments relating to land for public spaces, and one for addressing gender inequality. Myanmar Sustainable Development Plan—MSDP (2018–2030) has been crafted by keeping 3 pillars, 5 goals, 28 strategies, and 251 action items in focus with a long-term vision to achieve broad objective of making Myanmar prosperous, democratic, and peaceful country. MSDP focuses on different cross-cutting themes such as equity and inclusion, sustainability in all its forms, conflict-sensitive approaches, and democratic principles. This plan aligns with SDGs and domestic and international commitments of the country as a part of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC), Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) Strategic Framework, and others. The land related policy instruments focus on strengthening the legal rights of urban households, creating an institutional and governance infrastructure to support the same, improving the quality of life through better public infrastructure, and implementing a national housing strategy that focuses on affordable housing for the low-income groups.

The Philippines also has instruments across the four land utilization categories. Eight of its instruments relate to shelter, three relate to land as an economic resource, two address gender inequality, and one relates to land access to public spaces. The Philippine Development Plan—PDP (2017–2022) has been built on three pillars of enhancing the social fabric (Malasakit), reducing inequality (Pagbabago), and increasing growth potential (Patuloy na Pagunlad). This plan focuses on alleviating poverty (in agriculture and lagging regions) and inequality. The land-related policy instruments emphasize strengthening housing as a means to eradicate poverty, having a better land titling system through appropriate institutional governance structures, providing incentives for affordable housing, and providing better public infrastructure, particularly for low-income households.

Thailand has accorded the highest importance to land as an economic resource (8) followed by utilization of land for public spaces (5) and the availability of land for shelter (2). It does not have any policy instrument that addresses land for gender inequality. Thailand’s Twelfth National Economic and Social development Plan focuses on self-sufficiency and people-centred development. The land related policy instruments focus on enhancing land ownership opportunities in order to augment income, particularly of low-income groups, applying economic instruments to ensure land rights, the development of land banks, and to support infrastructure to ensure efficient land management.

Vietnam has the highest number of policy instruments accorded to land utilization for public spaces. It has four instruments that address the utilization of land for shelter and one instrument each for the other two categories. Vietnam’s National Action Plan focuses explicitly on the SDGs-related indicators and outlines the phased implementation and activities to be performed by various entities. The national plan emphasizes urban development, promotes participation by various sectors to increase housing affordability, and provides incentives and initiatives to attract investments in housing.

The ASEAN countries put more prominence to making land available for shelter/housing. The other two major uses in the SDG policy and strategy documents are using land as an economic resource and making land available for public spaces. Cambodia and the Philippines have the greatest number of instruments for land use as shelter, whereas Malaysia and Thailand give more prominence to land use as an economic resource. Myanmar has given equal importance to land usage as an economic resource and shelter. Vietnam is the only country with the highest number of instruments relating to land usage for public spaces.

The approach used for the study is a semi-quantitative analysis method that examines the contents of the policy documents in a systematic manner. This research studied the representative policy and strategy documents of the ASEAN countries to implement SDGs. The intention is to investigate the importance attached to land-related issues in implementing SDGs. However, there is no uniform or established mechanism to classify the policy documents and there are no standardized coding mechanisms. The classification system adopted in this paper synthesizes the work done by MacDonald and Elmore [37], Ingram and Schneider [38], and Xie et al. [35]. Another element that needs to be considered is the extent of usage of various instruments or the ideal combination of instruments needed for achieving the desired outcome. Given the early stage of the SDG policy formulation and incorporation of the land-related aspects, the equilibrium quantum of land-related instruments in the overall SDG implementation documents cannot be accurately estimated. This research assumes that the relative appearance of the types of instruments or the purposes of land usage is consistent with the intention of the respective governments. The relative presence of a particular type of policy instrument or the land use mentioned could be due to the broader range of elements that need to be covered. Hence, the equilibrium required of the respective land-related policy instruments would need to be studied in greater detail. There are numerous documents developed at the sub national level that also have elements related to land. A more extensive study in the future incorporating a wider group of countries at both national and subnational levels would provide a perspective of how much importance land related issues have been accorded in the SDG implementation.

5. Conclusions

The research investigates the importance accorded to land in various policy and strategy documents developed by countries in their quest to achieve SDGs. The policy and strategy documents of a representative group of countries from the ASEAN region have been studied using content analysis to draw inferences on how the land-related aspects have been used. Ensuring land availability for the shelter/housing purposes is the primary focus of the ASEAN countries. All the countries have their own priority areas where they have higher number of instruments; for example, Malaysia and Thailand have given preference to land used as economic resources. However, Cambodia and the Philippines have given preference to land use as shelter. For Malysia and Thailand, there is no specific policy instrument that is related to land utilization while addressing gender equality. Myanmar’s policy instruments give equal preference to land as economic resource and land as shelter/housing. Land use for public space has the highest policy instruments for Vietnam. The usage of different types of instruments is not relatively balanced across the region. All the countries have, predominantly, used authoritative instruments. The usage of more collaborative, transformative, and capacity-promoting building is not as widely used. The reliance on authoritative instruments depicts greater control and supervision, which demonstrates the importance attached to the incorporation of land-based aspects in achieving the SDGs. The substantially lower use of other categories of instruments may compromise the strength of the executive, weaken partnership spirit and collaborative ventures. The dimensions of the land usage demonstrate a strong emphasis on providing shelter and promoting economic use. The importance of making land available for public spaces is relatively lower, while the number of instruments that indicate land availability to promote gender equality is significantly less.

The achievement of SDGs would mean a fair distribution of societal benefits and is contingent upon a myriad of factors, including the ability to implement initiatives and projects. SDG achievement is contingent upon a balanced, cohesive presence of all the elements pertaining to land. Incorporation of the various dimensions of land in their respective policy and strategy documents by the respective countries signals their commitment to sustainable development. Giving greater prominence to instruments that promote capacity-building, institutional reforms can form is a stronger foundation for the accelerated achievement of SDGs. As the countries progress towards their respective committed dates of achieving SDGs, there would be a need to strengthen the policy aspects that would necessitate the adoption of a wider range of instruments. A proper equilibrium in the various categories of the instruments and the different dimensions of land usage could be considered with the policymakers for fostering sustainable development.