to increase agricultural productivity

Return your view to full page Focus your view on this article
Agricultural Economics
Volume 31, Issues 2-3, December 2004, Pages 181-195
Current Issues in the Economics of Agriculture, Food, and Resources: Reshaping Agriculture's Contributions to Society
doi:10.1016/j.agecon.2004.09.006 | How to Cite or Link Using DOI
Copyright © 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. Cited By in Scopus (13)
Permissions & Reprints


Strategies to increase agricultural productivity and reduce land degradation: evidence from Uganda

Alert
This article is not included in your organization's subscription. However, you may be able to access this article under your organization's agreement with Elsevier.

John Pendera, Corresponding Author Contact Information, E-mail The Corresponding Author, Ephraim Nkonyaa, Pamela Jaggera, Dick Sserunkuumab and Henry Ssalic

aInternational Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), 2033 K St., NW, Washington, DC 20006-1002, USA

bMakerere University, Kampala, Uganda

cNational Agricultural Research Organization, Kampala, Uganda

Available online 17 November 2004.

Abstract

This paper estimates a structural econometric model of household decisions regarding income strategies, participation in programs and organisations, crop choices, land management, and labour use, and their implications for agricultural production and soil erosion; based upon a survey of over 450 households and their farm plots in Uganda. Many factors have context-specific impacts and involve trade-offs between increasing production and reducing land degradation. Government agricultural extension and training programs contribute to higher value of crop production in the lowlands, but to soil erosion in the highlands. By contrast, non-governmental organization (NGO) programs focusing on agriculture and environment help to reduce erosion, but have less favourable impacts on production in the lowlands. Education increases household incomes, but also reduces crop production in the lowlands. Poverty has mixed impacts on agricultural production, depending on the nature of poverty: smaller farms obtain higher crop production per hectare, while households with fewer livestock have lower crop production. Population pressure contributes to agricultural intensification, but also to erosion in the densely populated highlands. Several household income strategies contribute to increased value of crop production, without significant impacts on soil erosion. We find little evidence of impact of access to markets, roads and credit, land tenure or title on agricultural intensification and crop production and land degradation. In general, the results imply that the strategies to increase agricultural production and reduce land degradation must be location-specific, and that there are few ‘win-win’ opportunities to simultaneously increase production and reduce land degradation.

Keywords: Agricultural productivity; Land degradation; Agricultural development strategies; Sustainable land management, Uganda

JEL classification: Q01; Q24; Q12; Q18
Article Outline

1.
Introduction

2.
Methodology
2.1. Empirical model
2.2. Value of crop production
2.3. Crop choice, labour use and land management
2.4. Income strategies and participation in programs and organisations
2.5. Soil erosion
2.6. Dependent variables
2.7. Explanatory variables
2.8. Hypotheses
2.9. Data
2.10. Analysis

3.
Results
3.1. Value of production
3.2. Erosion
3.3. Potential impacts of selected interventions

4.
Conclusions and implications

References

Table 1. Determinants of output value and predicted erosion View table in article

*, **, *** mean reported coefficient is statistically significant at 10%, 5% or 1% level, respectively.
a Coefficients of agro-climatic zones, altitude, plot quality variables (slope, position on slope, soil depth, texture, colour and perceived fertility) and ethnic groups in reduced form not reported due to space limitations. Full regression results available upon request.
b Variables that were jointly statistically insignificant in the OLS and full version of the IV regressions were excluded from the reported restricted IV regressions. Hausman tests failed to reject OLS model for value of crop production (P = 1.000) and erosion (P = 0.432).

Table 2. Simulated impacts of changes in selected variables on outcomesa View table in article

*, **, *** mean direct effect is based on a coefficient that is statistically significant in the OLS regression at 10%, 5% or 1% level, respectively. Statistical significance of indirect effects not computed. +, ++, +++ and −, −−, −−− mean direct effect in is of the sign shown and statistically significant in the IV regression at 10%, 5% or 1% level, respectively.
a Simulation results for direct effects based upon predictions from OLS model regressions reported in Table 1. Results of regressions predicting choices of income sources, crops, land management practices and labour use were used to predict indirect impacts.

Table 3. Simulated impacts of changes in selected variables on outcomes, lowlands vs. highlands (total effects)a View table in article

*, **, *** mean direct effect is based on a coefficient that is statistically significant in the OLS regression at 10%, 5% or 1% level, respectively. Statistical significance of indirect effects not computed. +, ++, +++ and −, −−, −−− mean direct effect in is of the sign shown and statistically significant in the IV regression at 10%, 5% or 1% level, respectively. R means that the coefficient is of the same sign and statistically significant in the reduced form regression. Since participation in agricultural training, extension and organisations were excluded from the reduced form regressions, the robustness of the total effects for these variables could not be shown.
a Simulation results for direct effects based upon predictions from OLS model regressions reported in Table 1. Results of regressions predicting choices of income sources, participation in programs and organisations, crops, land management practices and labour use were used to predict indirect impacts.

Corresponding Author Contact InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: +1 202 862 5645; fax: +1 703 426 0416.
Agricultural Economics
Volume 31, Issues 2-3, December 2004, Pages 181-195
Current Issues in the Economics of Agriculture, Food, and Resources: Reshaping Agriculture's Contributions to Society




* Home
* Browse
* Search
* My settings
* My alerts

* Help

Elsevier homepage (opens in a new window)

* About ScienceDirect
*
o What is ScienceDirect
o Content details
o Set up
o How to use
o Subscriptions
o Developers

* Contact and Support
*
o Contact and Support

* About Elsevier
*
o About Elsevier
o About SciVerse
o About SciVal
o Terms and Conditions
o Privacy policy
o Information for advertisers

Copyright © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. SciVerse® is a registered trademark of Elsevier Properties S.A., used under license. ScienceDirect® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V.