IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ccsesa/231343.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Comparative Analysis of Motorized and Manually Propelled Technologies of Artisanal Fisheries in Ijebu Waterside of Ogun State

Author

Listed:
  • Kareem, R O
  • Idowu, E O
  • Williams, S B
  • Ayinde, I A
  • Bashir, N O

Abstract

This study was carried out to analyze the comparative analysis of efficiencies of artisanal fisheries in Ijebu Waterside of Ogun State. The objectives determined gross margin analysis; estimate the technical efficiencies of both the manually propelled technology (MPT) and motorized technology (MT) of artisanal fishery systems and determining the factors influencing the technical efficiencies of artisanal fisheries in the study area. A multistage sampling technique was used to select a total of 400 Artisans from the study area. Primary data were collected using structured questionnaire as interview guide, on the socio-economic characteristics, production inputs and output prices. The data collected were analyzed using both descriptive and inferential statistics. Stochastic production frontier model was used to estimate the technical, efficiencies of both motorized and manually propelled technologies in artisanal fishery system as well as the factors influencing the technical, efficiencies of the artisans. The results of the comparison of the MPT and (MT) revealed that the average income per month for MPT was N361,847.48 and the amount accruable per month for the MT was N560,755.57. The results of the comparison of catch efficiency and inefficiency function showed that in MPT, fishing gear, vessel length, number of crew/skippers, quantity of bait and battery were all significant at 5 percent probability level while for MT, fishing gear, outboard engine, battery and miscellaneous quantity were the significant factors. The mean catch efficiency of MPT was 0.92 compared to MT with 0.98. However, the comparison of the inefficiency shows that education, age, and household size are significant factors while education is significant factors in both MPT and MT respectively. The results of the returns-to-scale revealed that the parameters estimate of the MT was higher with 4.35 compared to MPT with 2.56.

Suggested Citation

  • Kareem, R O & Idowu, E O & Williams, S B & Ayinde, I A & Bashir, N O, 2013. "Comparative Analysis of Motorized and Manually Propelled Technologies of Artisanal Fisheries in Ijebu Waterside of Ogun State," Sustainable Agriculture Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 2(1).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ccsesa:231343
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.231343
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/231343/files/p133_133-142_.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.231343?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James E. Kirkley & Dale Squires & Ivar E. Strand, 1995. "Assessing Technical Efficiency in Commercial Fisheries: The Mid-Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(3), pages 686-697.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Standal, Dag & Annie Sønvisen, Signe, 2015. "Gear liberalization in the Northeast Arctic cod fisheries – Implications for sustainability, efficiency and legitimacy," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 141-148.
    2. Tom Kompas & Tuong Nhu Che & R. Quentin Grafton, 2004. "Technical efficiency effects of input controls: evidence from Australia's banana prawn fishery," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 36(15), pages 1631-1641.
    3. Sturla Furunes Kvamsdal, 2019. "Indexing of Technical Change in Aggregated Data," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 53(3), pages 901-920, March.
    4. Michael Basch & Julio Peña-Torres & Sebastian Vergara, "undated". "Catch Efficiency in the Chilean Pelagic Fishery: Does size matter ?," ILADES-UAH Working Papers inv140, Universidad Alberto Hurtado/School of Economics and Business.
    5. Per Sandberg, 2006. "Variable unit costs in an output-regulated industry: The Fishery," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(9), pages 1007-1018.
    6. Quinn Weninger, 2008. "Economic Benefits of Management Reform in the Gulf of Mexico Grouper Fishery: A Semi-parametric Analysis," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 41(4), pages 479-497, December.
    7. Antonio Alvarez & Peter Schmidt, 2006. "Is skill more important than luck in explaining fish catches?," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 26(1), pages 15-25, August.
    8. Giannis Karagiannis & Stelios Katranidis & Vangelis Tzouvelekas, 1999. "Measuring Productive Efficiency of Seabass and Seabream Farms in Greece," Working Papers 9911, University of Crete, Department of Economics.
    9. Yamazaki, Satoshi & Resosudarmo, Budy P. & Girsang, Wardis & Hoshino, Eriko, 2018. "Productivity, Social Capital and Perceived Environmental Threats in Small-Island Fisheries: Insights from Indonesia," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 152(C), pages 62-75.
    10. Acquah, H. de-Graft & Onumah, E. E., 2014. "Alternative Approaches to Technical Efficiency Estimation in the Stochastic Frontier Model," AGRIS on-line Papers in Economics and Informatics, Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, vol. 6(2), pages 1-8, June.
    11. Roy, Manish & Mazumder, Ritwik, 2016. "Technical Efficiency of Fish Catch in Traditional Fishing: A Study in Southern Assam," Journal of Regional Development and Planning, Rajarshi Majumder, vol. 5(1), pages 55-68.
    12. James Innes & Sean Pascoe, 2008. "Productivity Impacts of Veil Nets on UK Crangon Vessels," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(3), pages 574-588, September.
    13. Sean Pascoe & Phoebe Koundouri & Trond Bjørndal, 2007. "Estimating Targeting Ability in Multi-Species Fisheries: A Primal Multi-Output Distance Function Approach," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 83(3), pages 382-397.
    14. Edward Ebo ONUMAH & Bernhard BRÜMMER & Gabriele HÖRSTGEN-SCHWARK, 2010. "Productivity of the hired and family labour and determinants of technical inefficiency in Ghana's fish farms," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 56(2), pages 79-88.
    15. Nguyen Hung Anh & Wolfgang Bokelmann & Do Thi Nga & Nguyen Van Minh, 2019. "Toward Sustainability or Efficiency: The Case of Smallholder Coffee Farmers in Vietnam," Economies, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-25, July.
    16. Msuya, Elibariki & Ashimogo, Gasper, 2005. "Estimation of Technical Efficiency in Tanzanian Sugarcane Production: A Case Study of Mtibwa Sugar Estate Outgrowers Scheme," MPRA Paper 3747, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    17. Tom Kompas, 2001. "Catch, Efficiency and Management: A Stochastic Production Frontier Analysis of the Australian Northern Prawn Fishery," International and Development Economics Working Papers idec01-8, International and Development Economics.
    18. Grafton, R Quentin & Squires, Dale & Fox, Kevin J, 2000. "Private Property and Economic Efficiency: A Study of a Common-Pool Resource," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 43(2), pages 679-713, October.
    19. Ben Gilbert & Bee Hong Yeo, 2014. "Technological Change and Managerial Ability: Evidence from a Malaysian Artisanal Fishery," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(2), pages 352-371.
    20. Tom Kompas & Tuong Nhu Che & R. Quentin Grafton, 2008. "Fisheries Instrument Choice under Uncertainty," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(4), pages 652-666.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:ccsesa:231343. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ccsenet.org/sar .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.