IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/zbw/espost/301807.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can we estimate farm size from field size? An empirical investigation of the field size to farm size relationship

Author

Listed:
  • Jänicke, Clemens
  • Wesemeyer, Maximilian
  • Chiarella, Cristina
  • Lakes, Tobia
  • Levers, Christian
  • Meyfroidt, Patrick
  • Müller, Daniel
  • Pratzer, Marie
  • Rufin, Philippe

Abstract

CONTEXT: Farm size is a key indicator associated with environmental, economic, and social contexts and outcomes of agriculture. Farm size data is typically obtained from agricultural censuses or household surveys, but both are usually only available in infrequent time intervals and at aggregate spatial scales. In contrast, spatially explicit and detailed data on individual fields can be accessed from cadastral information systems or agricultural subsidy applications in some regions or can be derived from Earth observation data. Empirically exploring the field-size-to-farm size relationship (FFR) is a lever to enhance our understanding of spatial patterns of farm sizes by assessing field sizes. However, our currently limited empirical knowledge does not allow for the characterization of the FFR over large spatial extents. OBJECTIVE: We analyze the FFR using data from the Integrated Administration and Control System (IACS) for Germany. The IACS manages agricultural subsidy applications in the European Union; therefore, the data include spatial information on the extent of all fields and farms for which farmers have applied for subsidies. METHODS: We developed a Bayesian multilevel model and a machine learning model to estimate farm size based on field size, controlling for contextual factors such as crop types, state boundaries, topography, and neighborhood effects. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: We found that farm size generally increased with field size for almost all federal states and crop type groups, but the FFR varied considerably in magnitude. Farm size predictions were accurate for medium-sized and large farms (50–7,000 ha, representing 66% of the data) with mean absolute percentage errors of 40–114%, but estimates for smaller farms had higher errors. To evaluate the relationship at the landscape level, we spatially aggregated the predictions into hexagons with a diameter of 15 km. This resulted in more accurate predictions (mean absolute percentage errors of 37%) than at the field level. SIGNIFICANCE: Our study presents the first empirical insights into the FFR, opening future research directions towards producing spatially explicit farm size predictions at scale. Such information is key for monitoring scale transitions in agricultural systems, facilitating the design of timely and targeted interventions, and avoiding undesired outcomes of such processes.

Suggested Citation

  • Jänicke, Clemens & Wesemeyer, Maximilian & Chiarella, Cristina & Lakes, Tobia & Levers, Christian & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Müller, Daniel & Pratzer, Marie & Rufin, Philippe, 2024. "Can we estimate farm size from field size? An empirical investigation of the field size to farm size relationship," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 220.
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:espost:301807
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104088
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/301807/1/Jaenicke_2024_farm_size.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2024.104088?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. Carpenter, Bob & Gelman, Andrew & Hoffman, Matthew D. & Lee, Daniel & Goodrich, Ben & Betancourt, Michael & Brubaker, Marcus & Guo, Jiqiang & Li, Peter & Riddell, Allen, 2017. "Stan: A Probabilistic Programming Language," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 76(i01).
    2. T.S. Jayne & Ayala Wineman & Jordan Chamberlin & Milu Muyanga & Felix Kwame Yeboah, 2022. "Changing Farm Size Distributions and Agricultural Transformation in Sub-Saharan Africa," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 14(1), pages 109-130, October.
    3. Carletto, Calogero & Savastano, Sara & Zezza, Alberto, 2013. "Fact or artifact: The impact of measurement errors on the farm size–productivity relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 254-261.
    4. Wesemeyer, Maximilian & Kamp, Johannes & Schmitz, Tillman & Müller, Daniel & Lakes, Tobia, 2023. "Multi-objective spatial optimization to balance trade-offs between farmland bird diversity and potential agricultural net returns," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 345, pages 1-10.
    5. Bevis, Leah EM. & Barrett, Christopher B., 2020. "Close to the edge: High productivity at plot peripheries and the inverse size-productivity relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    6. Heinrichs, J. & Kuhn, T. & Pahmeyer, C. & Britz, W., 2021. "Economic effects of plot sizes and farm-plot distances in organic and conventional farming systems: A farm-level analysis for Germany," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 187(C).
    7. P. Sklenicka & J. Hladík & F. Střeleček & B. Kottová & J. Lososová & L. Číhal & M. Šálek, 2009. "Historical, environmental and socio-economic driving forces on land ownership fragmentation, the land consolidation effect and project costs," Agricultural Economics, Czech Academy of Agricultural Sciences, vol. 55(12), pages 571-582.
    8. De Groote, Hugo & Traore, Oumar, 2005. "The cost of accuracy in crop area estimation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 84(1), pages 21-38, April.
    9. Joshi, P.K. & Joshi, Laxmi & Birthal, Pratap Singh, 2006. "Diversification and Its Impact on Smallholders: Evidence from a Study on Vegetable Production," Agricultural Economics Research Review, Agricultural Economics Research Association (India), vol. 19(2), July.
    10. Jänicke, Clemens & Goddard, Adam & Stein, Susanne & Steinmann, Horst-Henning & Lakes, Tobia & Nendel, Claas & Müller, Daniel, 2022. "Field-level land-use data reveal heterogeneous crop sequences with distinct regional differences in Germany," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 141, pages 1-12.
    11. Kuemmerle, Tobias & Erb, Karlheinz & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Müller, Daniel & Verburg, Peter H & Estel, Stephan & Haberl, Helmut & Hostert, Patrick & Jepsen, Martin R. & Kastner, Thomas & Levers, Christi, 2013. "Challenges and opportunities in mapping land use intensity globally," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 5(5), pages 484-493.
    12. David B Lobell & George Azzari & Marshall Burke & Sydney Gourlay & Zhenong Jin & Talip Kilic & Siobhan Murray, 2020. "Eyes in the Sky, Boots on the Ground: Assessing Satellite‐ and Ground‐Based Approaches to Crop Yield Measurement and Analysis," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 102(1), pages 202-219, January.
    13. Lowder, Sarah K. & Skoet, Jakob & Raney, Terri, 2016. "The Number, Size, and Distribution of Farms, Smallholder Farms, and Family Farms Worldwide," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 16-29.
    14. Chiarella, Cristina & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Abeygunawardane, Dilini & Conforti, Piero, 2023. "Balancing the trade-offs between land productivity, labor productivity and labor intensity," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 52(10), pages 1618-1634.
    15. Wolz, Axel & Duong, Pham Bao, 2010. "The Transformation of Agricultural Producer Cooperatives: The Case of Vietnam," Journal of Rural Cooperation, Hebrew University, Center for Agricultural Economic Research, vol. 38(2), pages 1-17.
    16. Vincent Ricciardi & Zia Mehrabi & Hannah Wittman & Dana James & Navin Ramankutty, 2021. "Higher yields and more biodiversity on smaller farms," Nature Sustainability, Nature, vol. 4(7), pages 651-657, July.
    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. Xiang Deng & Jie Peng & Chunlin Wan, 2024. "The Impact of Internet Use on Land Productivity: Evidence from China Land Economy Survey," Land, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-21, February.
    2. Calogero Carletto, 2021. "Better data, higher impact: improving agricultural data systems for societal change [Correlated non-classical measurement errors, ‘second best’ policy inference, and the inverse size-productivity r," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 48(4), pages 719-740.
    3. William J. Burke & Stephen N. Morgan & Thelma Namonje & Milu Muyanga & Nicole M. Mason, 2023. "Beyond the “inverse relationship”: Area mismeasurement may affect actual productivity, not just how we understand it," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(4), pages 557-569, July.
    4. Yuta J. Masuda & Jonathan R.B. Fisher & Wei Zhang & Carolina Castilla & Timothy M. Boucher & Genowefa Blundo‐Canto, 2020. "A respondent‐driven method for mapping small agricultural plots using tablets and high resolution imagery," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 32(5), pages 727-748, July.
    5. Helfand, Steven M. & Taylor, Matthew P.H., 2021. "The inverse relationship between farm size and productivity: Refocusing the debate," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    6. Hailemariam Ayalew & Jordan Chamberlin & Carol Newman & Kibrom A. Abay & Frederic Kosmowski & Tesfaye Sida, 2024. "Revisiting the size–productivity relationship with imperfect measures of production and plot size," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(2), pages 595-619, March.
    7. Chiarella, Cristina & Meyfroidt, Patrick & Abeygunawardane, Dilini & Conforti, Piero, 2023. "Balancing the trade-offs between land productivity, labor productivity and labor intensity," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 52(10), pages 1618-1634.
    8. Aragón, Fernando M. & Restuccia, Diego & Rud, Juan Pablo, 2022. "Are small farms really more productive than large farms?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    9. Dang, Hai-Anh & Carletto, Calogero, 2022. "Recall Bias Revisited: Measure Farm Labor Using Mixed-Mode Surveys and Multiple Imputation," IZA Discussion Papers 14997, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Chaoran Chen & Diego Restuccia & Raül Santaeulàlia-Llopis, 2023. "Land Misallocation and Productivity," American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 15(2), pages 441-465, April.
    11. Holden, Stein T. & Otsuka, Keijiro, 2014. "The roles of land tenure reforms and land markets in the context of population growth and land use intensification in Africa," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 88-97.
    12. Carletto,Calogero & Gourlay,Sydney & Winters,Paul Conal & Carletto,Calogero & Gourlay,Sydney & Winters,Paul Conal, 2013. "From guesstimates to GPStimates : land area measurement and implications for agricultural analysis," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6550, The World Bank.
    13. Yong Liu & Jorge Ruiz-Menjivar & Junbiao Zhang, 2023. "Do soil nutrient management practices improve climate resilience? Empirical evidence from rice farmers in central China," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 25(9), pages 10029-10054, September.
    14. Wollburg, Philip & Tiberti, Marco & Zezza, Alberto, 2021. "Recall length and measurement error in agricultural surveys," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    15. Gourlay, Sydney & Kilic, Talip & Lobell, David B., 2019. "A new spin on an old debate: Errors in farmer-reported production and their implications for inverse scale - Productivity relationship in Uganda," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    16. C. S. C. Sekhar & Namrata Thapa, 2023. "Rural market imperfections in India: Revisiting old debates with new evidence," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(5), September.
    17. Galaz, Victor & Centeno, Miguel A. & Callahan, Peter W. & Causevic, Amar & Patterson, Thayer & Brass, Irina & Baum, Seth & Farber, Darryl & Fischer, Joern & Garcia, David & McPhearson, Timon & Jimenez, 2021. "Artificial intelligence, systemic risks, and sustainability," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 67(C).
    18. Kibrom A. Abay & Tesfamicheal Wossen & Jordan Chamberlin, 2023. "Mismeasurement and efficiency estimates: Evidence from smallholder survey data in Africa," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 74(2), pages 413-434, June.
    19. Bevis, Leah EM. & Barrett, Christopher B., 2020. "Close to the edge: High productivity at plot peripheries and the inverse size-productivity relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    20. Arulingam, Indika & Brady, G. & Chaya, M. & Conti, M. & Kgomotso, P. K. & Korzenszky, A. & Njie, D. & Schroth, G. & Suhardiman, Diana, 2022. "Small-scale producers in sustainable agrifood systems transformation," IWMI Reports 329171, International Water Management Institute.

    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:zbw:espost:301807. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zbwkide.html .

    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.