Institutional resilience and land-related conflict governance: a systematic literature review

In recent years, institutional resilience has gained growing attention as a concept for addressing governance challenges in conflict settings. However, its application in land-related conflict governance (including tenure, acquisition and expropriation disputes) remains fragmented and underexplored. This study conducts a systematic literature review to examine how institutional resilience influences governance performance under fragmented institutional arrangements. A total of 637 articles (2005–2025) were retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science, from which 16 core studies were selected based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria and analyzed using the TCCM framework. The review identifies (1) three conceptualizations of institutional resilience, (2) four key governance mechanisms, (3) its manifestations in fragmented governance, and (4) its influence on governance performance. This study advances the understanding of institutional resilience as a governance strategy within complex land systems and provides both conceptual and practical guidance for policy formulation in conflict-prone settings. This review was not prospectively registered. No funding was received. No formal risk of bias assessment was conducted. The main limitations relate to the limited number of included studies (n = 16) and the predominance of qualitative research designs in the existing literature. The findings offer theoretical and policy insights into addressing overlapping mandates, conflicting interests, and institutional fragmentation in land-related conflict governance.

近年来，制度韧性（institutional resilience）作为应对冲突场景治理挑战的核心概念，受到了学界日益广泛的关注。然而，其在土地相关冲突治理（包括土地权属、土地收购与土地征收纠纷）中的应用仍较为零散，且尚未得到充分探索。本研究采用系统文献综述法，探讨在制度安排零散的情境下，制度韧性如何影响治理绩效。研究从Scopus与Web of Science数据库中共检索得到2005至2025年的相关文献637篇，基于预先设定的纳入与排除标准，从中筛选出16项核心研究，并运用TCCM框架开展分析。本综述明确了四项核心研究结论：1）制度韧性的三种概念化界定；2）四类关键治理机制；3）其在零散型治理中的具体表现；4）其对治理绩效的影响路径。本研究深化了对制度韧性作为复杂土地系统内治理策略的认知，可为冲突多发场景下的政策制定提供概念与实践双重层面的指导。本综述未进行前瞻性注册，未获得任何资助，也未开展正式的偏倚风险评估。本研究的主要局限在于纳入研究数量有限（n=16），且现有文献多以质性研究设计为主。本研究结果可为解决土地相关冲突治理中的职权重叠、利益冲突与制度零散问题，提供理论与政策层面的启示。