In primitive societies, the entitlements to use land were frequently possessory rights rather than ownership rights. Those on the land could use it as they wished, but they could not transfer it to anyone else. One could acquire a new plot by simply occupying and using it, leaving the old plot available for someone else. Would this type of entitlement system cause more or less incentive to conserve the land than an ownership entitlement? Why?

The definition of the situation mentioned question is outlined in the following subsequent subsection.

Explanation:

The freedom to use resources in ancient cultures is indefeasibility freedom. This implies that a person has the right to use the land in as many respects as he wants without any kind of stated date for the revocation including its title. The regions were easily transferable as well. Which means, there was no worth added to something like the land for individuals.This is a very well-known truth that we shouldn't realize its true meaning and we'll have to compensate for doing something. Individuals used land civilian populations in prehistoric days, even though of the detrimental environmental effect. There are too many cases of land infertility induced by their farming system of divide and conquer. Even though a person is paying for the land throughout the property ownership scheme or has inheritance rights attached to it. As the legitimate building owner, he remains lawfully recognized. Here, the person would never sacrifice the nature of the land, thereby saving the ecosystem.

Michigan cannot ignore the us constitutionboth constitutions contain the same fundamental ideas

The answer would definitely false