Sustainable Land Management Practices (SLMPs) are crucial for addressing land degradation, improving agricultural productivity, and enhancing food security. Yet, adoption remains low due to a complex interplay of socio-economic and institutional constraints. While previous research has explored these constraints, there has been limited focus on how gender intersects with household structure to influence the likelihood of experiencing these barriers. This study addresses this gap by investigating whether and how constraints to SLMPs adoption differ between male and female farmers within male-headed households (MHHs) and female-headed households (FHHs). Data was collected from 480 farmers through structured surveys, complemented by qualitative insights from focus group discussions and in-depth interviews. Feminist and intersectionality theories underpinned the study’s theoretical framework. Logistic regression analyses revealed three key findings: (i) female farmers in FHHs have significantly higher odds (OR =2.185) of facing economic and financial constraints than those in MHHs; while within MHHs, male farmers are more likely than their female counterparts to experience these constraints (OR = 2.098); (ii) male farmers in MHHs have higher odds (OR = 2.402) of encountering constraints related to SLMPs characteristics than their female counterparts; and (iii) female farmers in FHHs are 62.3 % more likely to experience constraints related to land property rights than those in MHHs. These findings emphasise the unique vulnerabilities faced by female farmers in FHHs and challenge the common assumption that male farmers are always more advantaged in agricultural systems. The study’s insights underscore the need for nuanced, context-sensitive policies to effectively address these barriers and promote SLMPs adoption. • Gender and household structure intersect to shape SLMPs adoption barriers. • Female farmers in FHHs face unique vulnerabilities compared to those in MHHs. • Male farmers in MHHs also experience significant barriers to SLMPs adoption. • Findings challenge the assumption of universal male advantage in agriculture. • SLMPs policies should be context-sensitive and prioritise marginalised groups.

The rapid growth and increasing complexity of European cities highlight the need for urban planning and governance in creating sustainable urban environments. Specifically, regulations on building form and location are key to designing efficient and equitable cities. However, these regulations vary widely among municipalities across European countries and are not well understood. Notably, there is no comprehensive overview of the prevailing regulations and their objectives. This study fills this gap by analysing how European countries prioritise local building regulations and whether they pursue efficiency, i.e. making the best use of space, or equity, i.e. promoting fair and inclusive distribution of urban benefits. We examine regulations related to building height, volume, density, outlook, design coherence, value capacity, and hazard prevention. Through an online survey of planning experts in 30 countries, we found that regulations on height and density are prioritised the most and are primarily efficiency-oriented. While some regulations of lesser priority exhibited a more balanced pursuit of both goals, overall, building regulations in Europe pursue efficiency more than equity. The findings from this study are expected to enhance knowledge exchange in planning practice and foster better cooperation between countries. Furthermore, they provide an important empirical basis for much-needed theory development and future comparative research in spatial planning and land-use regulation.

UK and European land-use policy increasingly promotes tree cover expansion on farmland, yet existing research has focused mainly on structural barriers rather than farmers’ motivations and socio-cultural values. This paper addresses this gap by applying the Bourdieusian concept of the ‘good farmer’ and drawing on in-depth ‘farmer journey’ interviews with farmers who have expanded tree cover. It examines how historical experiences shape decisions and how skills and capitals associated with good farmer status may initially conflict with, but can gradually align with, tree-related practices. The findings challenge assumptions that trees are antithetical to good farming and indicate potential shifts in the farming ‘field’ and its ‘rules of the game.’ The paper also highlights that effective policy could look beyond structural barriers and engage with farmers’ identities, reframing trees as an expression of skill and recognising the work involved in establishing and managing them, while supporting approaches that integrate trees alongside productive farming. More broadly, the paper advances the good farmer literature by demonstrating how symbols of good farming are context-specific and evolve within changing agri-environmental conditions, showing how existing markers of good farming can coexist with—and potentially be strengthened by—those linked to tree cover expansion. • Farmer decisions on tree expansion are shaped by long-term farm and family histories. • Intergenerational capitals enable experimentation and reduce perceived risks of trees. • Tree planting can demonstrate skilled practice through siting, care, and integration. • Trees can complement production, supporting livestock welfare and marginal land use. • Emerging environmental policies are reshaping what counts as “good farming.”