IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/eaae11/115735.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Farm Size and the Share of Irrigated Land in total Landholding: the case of Water-Harvesting Irrigation in Ethiopia

Author

Listed:
  • Wakeyo, Mekonnen B.
  • Gardebroek, Cornelis

Abstract

Rain-fall shortage constrains production in small-holder agriculture in developing countries and with ongoing climate change these shortages may increase. Rain-water harvesting are interesting technologies that decrease this risk. Therefore, one would expect an increasing use of these technologies in drought-prone areas. However, data collected in Ethiopia shows that the share of irrigated land in total landholding declines with farm size. This study investigates why the share declines with farm size using panel data collected in 2005 and in 2010. A random-effect tobit model is estimated for the share of irrigated land as a function of variables affecting returns, market prices, source of finance and expectation formation. The findings show farm-specific factors such as credit per hectare, distance to market, ease of selling output, landholding, regional differences, aridity and distance of plots from natural water sources significantly affect the share. Thus, encouraging investment has to consider farm-size, and also geographical, environmental and regional diversity.

Suggested Citation

  • Wakeyo, Mekonnen B. & Gardebroek, Cornelis, 2011. "Farm Size and the Share of Irrigated Land in total Landholding: the case of Water-Harvesting Irrigation in Ethiopia," 2011 International Congress, August 30-September 2, 2011, Zurich, Switzerland 115735, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:eaae11:115735
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.115735
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/115735/files/Wakeyo_Mekonnen_252.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.115735?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. Andrew D. Foster & Mark R. Rosenzweig, 2010. "Microeconomics of Technology Adoption," Annual Review of Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 2(1), pages 395-424, September.
    2. Gregory Amacher & Lire Ersado & Donald Leo Grebner & William Hyde, 2004. "Disease, Microdams and Natural Resources in Tigray, Ethiopia: Impacts on Productivity and Labour Supplies," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(6), pages 122-145.
    3. Feder, Gershon, 1980. "Farm Size, Risk Aversion and the Adoption of New Technology under Uncertainty," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(2), pages 263-283, July.
    4. Sunding, David & Zilberman, David, 2001. "The agricultural innovation process: Research and technology adoption in a changing agricultural sector," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.), Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 4, pages 207-261, Elsevier.
    5. Just, Richard E. & Pope, Rulon D., 1978. "Stochastic specification of production functions and economic implications," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 67-86, February.
    6. Feder, Gershon & Just, Richard E & Zilberman, David, 1985. "Adoption of Agricultural Innovations in Developing Countries: A Survey," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 33(2), pages 255-298, January.
    7. repec:phd:pjdevt:jpd_1984_vol__xi_no__1-d is not listed on IDEAS
    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. Worden, David & Hailu, Getu, 2020. "Do genomic innovations enable an economic and environmental win-win in dairy production?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 181(C).
    2. Barham, Bradford L. & Chavas, Jean-Paul & Fitz, Dylan & Salas, Vanessa Ríos & Schechter, Laura, 2014. "The roles of risk and ambiguity in technology adoption," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 204-218.
    3. Tiffany Shih & Brian Wright, 2011. "Agricultural Innovation," NBER Chapters, in: Accelerating Energy Innovation: Insights from Multiple Sectors, pages 49-85, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Yigezu, Yigezu A. & Alwang, Jeffrey & Rahman, M. Wakilur & Mollah, M. Bazlur R. & El-Shater, Tamer & Aw-Hassan, Aden & Sarker, Ashutosh, 2019. "Is DNA fingerprinting the gold standard for estimation of adoption and impacts of improved lentil varieties?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 48-59.
    5. Paul Diederen & Hans Van Meijl & Arjan Wolters & Katarzyna Bijak, 2003. "Innovation adoption in agriculture : innovators, early adopters and laggards," Cahiers d'Economie et Sociologie Rurales, INRA Department of Economics, vol. 67, pages 29-50.
    6. Jia, Xiangping, 2009. "Synergistic Green and White Revolution: Evidence from Kenya and Uganda," 2009 Conference, August 16-22, 2009, Beijing, China 51367, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    7. Prisca Koncy Fosso & Roger Tsafack Nanfosso, 2016. "Adoption of agricultural innovations in risky environment: the case of corn producers in the west of Cameroon," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 97(1), pages 51-62, June.
    8. Elaine M. Liu, 2013. "Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 95(4), pages 1386-1403, October.
    9. Lim, Krisha & Wichmann, Bruno & Luckert, Martin, 2021. "Adaptation, spatial effects, and targeting: Evidence from Africa and Asia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 139(C).
    10. Villacis, Alexis H. & Bloem, Jeffrey R. & Mishra, Ashok K., 2023. "Aspirations, risk preferences, and investments in agricultural technologies," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    11. Ahsanuzzaman, & Priyo, Asad Karim Khan & Nuzhat, Kanti Ananta, 2022. "Effects of communication, group selection, and social learning on risk and ambiguity attitudes: Experimental evidence from Bangladesh," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    12. Negash, Martha, 2015. "Drivers of bioenergy crop adoption: evidence from Ethiopia's castor bean contract farming," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 230226, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    13. Freudenreich, H., 2018. "Explaining Mexican Farmers Adoption of Hybrid Maize Seed - The Role of Social Psychology, Risk and Ambiguity Aversion," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277410, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    14. Pietrobon, Davide, 2024. "The dual role of insurance in input use: Mitigating risk versus curtailing incentives," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 166(C).
    15. Bhargava, Anil K., 2013. "The Impact of India’s Rural Employment Guarantee on Demand for Agricultural Technology," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150163, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    16. Lionel Richefort & Jean-Louis Fusillier, 2010. "Imitation, rationalité et adoption de technologies d'irrigation améliorées à l'île de la Réunion," Economie & Prévision, La Documentation Française, vol. 0(2), pages 59-73.
    17. Arslan, Cansın & Wollni, Meike & Oduol, Judith & Hughes, Karl, 2022. "Who communicates the information matters for technology adoption," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    18. Thiagu Ranganathan & Sarthak Gaurav & Ashish Singh, 2014. "Anomaly in Decision Making Under Risk:Violation of Stochastic Dominance Among Farmers in Gujarat, India," IEG Working Papers 343, Institute of Economic Growth.
    19. Wang, Honglin & Yu, Fan & Reardon, Thomas & Huang, Jikun & Rozelle, Scott, 2013. "Social learning and parameter uncertainty in irreversible investments: Evidence from greenhouse adoption in northern China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(C), pages 104-120.
    20. Elaine Meichen Liu, 2008. "Time to Change What to Sow: Risk Preferences and Technology Adoption Decisions of Cotton Farmers in China," Working Papers 1064, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Land Economics/Use; Resource /Energy Economics and Policy;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:eaae11:115735. 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: https://edirc.repec.org/data/eaaeeea.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.