Land suitability analysis is very important to assess and propose the most suitable land-use options. The reliability of land suitability evaluation is controlled by choosing the most limiting land characteristics and their ratings for the proposed land utilization types (LUTs). This study aims at examining the possibility of using current land use and farmers' knowledge as a starting point to suggest and/or modify land evaluation criteria, and to improve the land suitability evaluation process. The potential suitability of land for five LUTs (open range, improved range, rainfed barley, drip-irrigated vegetables and drip-irrigated trees) was evaluated near Al-Mafraq in Jordan using the maximum limitation method. The results indicated variable agreement levels between potential land suitability and current land use for different LUTs. Sixteen farms were selected to represent different cases of disagreement between potential suitability and current land use and were visited to explore the farmers' improved management practices adopted to overcome land-use limitations. Using proposed criteria, only 1% of the study area was highly suitable for drip irrigation, whereas most of the area was moderately or marginally suitable for other uses. This represents the conventional land evaluation procedures, which, in most cases, overlook the farmers' knowledge and practices that are adopted in a particular area to overcome biophysical limitations. The ratings for different land characteristics were modified based on comparisons with current land use, and by referring to farmers’ adopted management practices. Using modified criteria, the highly suitable area for drip-irrigated vegetables increased by 18% and the highly suitable area for drip-irrigated trees increased by 25%. The results emphasized that the consideration of the farmer's indigenous knowledge and current land use improve the land evaluation process, which leads to better utilization of limited land resources in fragile environments.

Conflict between wildlife and people can erode local support for conservation. Wildlife-based benefits are intended to offset costs and encourage tolerance or stewardship, but where the linkage between benefits and wildlife is not understood, benefits may be ineffective at bolstering conservation. In Laikipia, Kenya, wildlife and areas devoted to wildlife are on the increase, but most residents still suffer losses to wildlife and derive minimal benefits. The elephant situation is particularly problematic because elephants may compete with livestock for resources, raid people's crops, and chase and kill livestock and people. Although most unprotected elephant range in East Africa is in semi-arid rangelands occupied by pastoralists, previous research has emphasized agricultural, not pastoral or agri-pastoral conflicts. Between 1999 and 2002, interviews were conducted in Laikipia District to examine whether pastoralists also experience conflict, and to determine whether wildlife conservation provided appreciable benefits to residents, or fostered pro-conservation attitudes among residents. Three properties, Endana, Koija and Mpala, were selected to include the two primary land uses in Laikipia (livestock and agriculture) and two levels of wildlife-based benefits (indirect benefits and direct benefits from a locally-owned tourism operation). People were negative about many aspects of local wildlife conservation, especially animals that raided crops or were dangerous. Fundamental differences in attitudes were attributable to primary land use; within ethnic groups, people practising agriculture were less tolerant of elephants than people practising pastoralism. Despite evidence that elephants may compete with livestock for forage, ecological competition was not a primary concern among cattle-keeping people. In communities that received indirect benefits from tourism or wildlife, the connection between wildlife and employment or aid in kind was usually overlooked. Unlike elsewhere in Africa, education and wealth did not correlate with positive attitudes towards wildlife because the tourism programme was improving the situation and the outlook of people lacking education and material wealth. Pastoral people with indirect financial benefits expressed positive attitudes towards elephants for aesthetic reasons, while pastoral people with direct benefits cited financial rewards derived from tourism but attributed aesthetic values to living with elephants. The programme in the pastoral community receiving benefits was exemplary in that benefits were tangible, and the participants appreciated the linkage between benefits and active conservation. Land conversion from pastoralism to agriculture threatens elephant survival, not only in terms of habitat loss, but also in terms of lost tolerance among people who have shifted to farming.

Four land use options—annual cropping, agroforestry, agrihorticulture, and agrosilviculture—were tried on a Land Capability Class IVs Alfisol under rainfed conditions to find a farming system that would be profitable and sustainable. The agrihorticultural system required more cash input but gave a value/cost ratio of 2.16 compared with 1.95 with annual cropping, 1.69 with agroforestry and 1.52 with agrosilviculture. Runoff was 4.9% in the agrihorticultural system, and 10.6% with agroforesty. Economic and soil health considerations led to the conclusion that the agrihorticultural system would be a sustainable land use option for the semi-arid Alfisol However, other options also are profitable, with value/cost ratios of more than 1.50. Therefore, land users can choose among several systems, depending on their desired production level and their investment capacity.