IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jfpoli/v102y2021ics0306919221000117.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Root for the tubers: Extended-harvest crop production and productivity measurement in surveys

Author

Listed:
  • Kilic, Talip
  • Moylan, Heather
  • Ilukor, John
  • Mtengula, Clement
  • Pangapanga-Phiri, Innocent

Abstract

Root and tuber crops, such as cassava, could be planted to hedge against climate shocks, seasonal crop failures and food insecurity during the lean season. Since their harvests occur over extended periods and often in small quantities, they present a serious challenge for household and farm surveys aiming to collect reliable information on crop production based on recall. To document the relative accuracy of recall-based approaches to survey data collection on cassava production vis-à-vis diary-based techniques, a survey experiment was implemented in Malawi over a 12-month period. The sampled cassava-producing households were randomly assigned to one of four treatments, including (1) daily diary-keeping, with semi-weekly supervision visits (diary-visit); (2) daily diary-keeping, with semi-weekly supervisory phone calls (diary-phone); (3) two six-month recall interviews, with six months in between; and (4) a single 12-month recall interview. We find that compared to diary-visit, the household-level annual cassava production is 295 kg higher under diary-phone. This effect corresponds to 28 percent of the average diary-visit annual production estimate. Since unavoidable, albeit limited, lapses in diary keeping over a 12-month period may have led both diary variants to underestimate true production, higher annual cassava production estimate obtained under diary-phone implies that this treatment is closer to the true estimate. Although the difference between the estimates based on six-month recall and diary-visit is statistically insignificant, 12-month recall, on average, underestimates annual production (i) by 516 kg with respect to diary-phone (corresponding to 37 percent of the diary-phone average) and (ii) by 221 kg with respect to diary-visit (corresponding to 21 percent of the diary-visit average). While the recall-based approaches both record production estimates lower than the diary-phone, six-month recall does so to a lesser extent. And supported by a crop cutting operation in which all sampled households participated irrespective of their assigned survey treatment, the analysis demonstrates likely gross overestimation in competing international and ministerial statistics on cassava yields in Malawi. For improved microdata on root and tuber crop production, the findings lend support to the adoption of (i) diary-keeping with phone calls, particularly if deployed in a broader mobile phone–based survey, or (ii) six-month recall, as a second-best alternative. The adoption of these practices can then facilitate a renewed look at the role of cassava farming in poverty, food security and agricultural production.

Suggested Citation

  • Kilic, Talip & Moylan, Heather & Ilukor, John & Mtengula, Clement & Pangapanga-Phiri, Innocent, 2021. "Root for the tubers: Extended-harvest crop production and productivity measurement in surveys," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jfpoli:v:102:y:2021:i:c:s0306919221000117
    DOI: 10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102033
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306919221000117
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.foodpol.2021.102033?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Troubat, Nathalie & Grünberger, Klaus, 2017. "Impact of survey design in the estimation of habitual food consumption," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 132-145.
    2. Abay, Kibrom A. & Abate, Gashaw T. & Barrett, Christopher B. & Bernard, Tanguy, 2019. "Correlated non-classical measurement errors, ‘Second best’ policy inference, and the inverse size-productivity relationship in agriculture," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 139(C), pages 171-184.
    3. de Nicola, Francesca & Giné, Xavier, 2014. "How accurate are recall data? Evidence from coastal India," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 52-65.
    4. Brzozowski, Matthew & Crossley, Thomas F. & Winter, Joachim K., 2017. "A comparison of recall and diary food expenditure data," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 53-61.
    5. McCarthy, Nancy & Kilic, Talip & Brubaker, Josh & Murray, Siobhan & de la Fuente, Alejandro, 2021. "Droughts and floods in Malawi: impacts on crop production and the performance of sustainable land management practices under weather extremes," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(5-6), pages 432-449, October.
    6. Deininger, Klaus & Carletto, Calogero & Savastano, Sara & Muwonge, James, 2012. "Can diaries help in improving agricultural production statistics? Evidence from Uganda," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 42-50.
    7. Beegle, Kathleen & De Weerdt, Joachim & Friedman, Jed & Gibson, John, 2012. "Methods of household consumption measurement through surveys: Experimental results from Tanzania," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 98(1), pages 3-18.
    8. Davis, Benjamin & Di Giuseppe, Stefania & Zezza, Alberto, 2017. "Are African households (not) leaving agriculture? Patterns of households’ income sources in rural Sub-Saharan Africa," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 67(C), pages 153-174.
    9. Nancy McCarthy & Talip Kilic & Alejandro de la Fuente & Joshua M. Brubaker, 2018. "Shelter from the Storm? Household-Level Impacts of, and Responses to, the 2015 Floods in Malawi," Economics of Disasters and Climate Change, Springer, vol. 2(3), pages 237-258, October.
    10. Andrew Dabalen & Alvin Etang & Johannes Hoogeveen & Elvis Mushi & Youdi Schipper & Johannes von Engelhardt, 2016. "Mobile Phone Panel Surveys in Developing Countries," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 24595, December.
    11. Desiere, Sam & Jolliffe, Dean, 2018. "Land productivity and plot size: Is measurement error driving the inverse relationship?," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 84-98.
    12. 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).
    13. Backiny-Yetna, Prospère & Steele, Diane & Yacoubou Djima, Ismael, 2017. "The impact of household food consumption data collection methods on poverty and inequality measures in Niger," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 7-19.
    14. Fermont, Anneke & Benson, Todd, 2011. "Estimating yield of food crops grown by smallholder farmers: A review in the Uganda context," IFPRI discussion papers 1097, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    15. Friedman, Jed & Beegle, Kathleen & De Weerdt, Joachim & Gibson, John, 2017. "Decomposing response error in food consumption measurement: Implications for survey design from a randomized survey experiment in Tanzania," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 94-111.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Elena Serfilippi & Daniele Giovannucci & David Ameyaw & Ankur Bansal & Thomas Asafua Nketsia Wobill & Roberta Blankson & Rashi Mishra, 2022. "Benefits and Challenges of Making Data More Agile: A Review of Recent Key Approaches in Agriculture," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(24), pages 1-18, December.
    2. Maxwell Mkondiwa & Jeffrey Apland, 2022. "Inter-district food flows in Malawi," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 14(6), pages 1553-1568, December.
    3. André, Pierre & Delesalle, Esther & Dumas, Christelle, 2021. "Returns to farm child labor in Tanzania," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    4. Michler, Jeffrey D. & Josephson, Anna & Kilic, Talip & Murray, Siobhan, 2022. "Privacy protection, measurement error, and the integration of remote sensing and socioeconomic survey data," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Dang, Hai-Anh & Kilic, Talip & Hlasny, Vladimir & Abanokova, Kseniya & Carletto, Calogero, 2024. "Using Survey-to-Survey Imputation to Fill Poverty Data Gaps at a Low Cost: Evidence from a Randomized Survey Experiment," IZA Discussion Papers 16792, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Carletto,Calogero & Dillon,Andrew S. & Zezza,Alberto, 2021. "Agricultural Data Collection to Minimize Measurement Error and Maximize Coverage," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9745, The World Bank.
    8. Gourlay, Sydney & Kilic, Talip & Martuscelli, Antonio & Wollburg, Philip & Zezza, Alberto, 2021. "Viewpoint: High-frequency phone surveys on COVID-19: Good practices, open questions," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 105(C).
    9. Wollburg, Philip & Tiberti, Marco & Zezza, Alberto, 2021. "Recall length and measurement error in agricultural surveys," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    10. Zezza,Alberto & Mcgee,Kevin Robert & Wollburg,Philip Randolph & Assefa,Thomas Woldu & Gourlay,Sydney, 2022. "From Necessity to Opportunity : Lessons for Integrating Phone and In-Person Data Collectionfor Agricultural Statistics in a Post-Pandemic World," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10168, The World Bank.

    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. Wollburg, Philip & Tiberti, Marco & Zezza, Alberto, 2021. "Recall length and measurement error in agricultural surveys," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    2. Joachim De Weerdt & John Gibson & Kathleen Beegle, 2020. "What Can We Learn from Experimenting with Survey Methods?," Annual Review of Resource Economics, Annual Reviews, vol. 12(1), pages 431-447, October.
    3. Abate, Gashaw T. & de Brauw, Alan & Hirvonen, Kalle & Wolle, Abdulazize, 2023. "Measuring consumption over the phone: Evidence from a survey experiment in urban Ethiopia," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C).
    4. Zezza, Alberto & Carletto, Gero & Fiedler, John L & Gennari, Pietro & Jolliffe, Dean M, 2017. "Food Counts. Measuring Food Consumption And Expenditures In Household Consumption And Expenditure Surveys (HCES)," 2017 International Congress, August 28-September 1, 2017, Parma, Italy 260886, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Zezza, Alberto & Carletto, Calogero & Fiedler, John L. & Gennari, Pietro & Jolliffe, Dean, 2017. "Food counts. Measuring food consumption and expenditures in household consumption and expenditure surveys (HCES). Introduction to the special issue," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 1-6.
    6. 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.
    7. Abay,Kibrom A. & Barrett,Christopher B. & Kilic,Talip & Moylan,Heather G. & Ilukor,John & Vundru,Wilbert Drazi, 2022. "Nonclassical Measurement Error and Farmers’ Response to Information Reveal Behavioral Anomalies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9908, The World Bank.
    8. Azzari,George & Jain,Shruti & Jeffries,Graham & Kilic,Talip & Murray,Siobhan, 2021. "Understanding the Requirements for Surveys to Support Satellite-Based Crop Type Mapping : Evidence from Sub-Saharan Africa," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9609, The World Bank.
    9. 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).
    10. Kosmowski, Frederic & Chamberlin, Jordan & Ayalew, Hailemariam & Sida, Tesfaye & Abay, Kibrom & Craufurd, Peter, 2021. "How accurate are yield estimates from crop cuts? Evidence from smallholder maize farms in Ethiopia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    11. Godlonton, Susan & Hernandez, Manuel A. & Paz, Cynthia, 2021. "Can survey design reduce anchoring bias in recall data? Evidence from Malawi," IFPRI discussion papers 2055, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    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. Gashaw T Abate & Alan de Brauw & John Gibson & Kalle Hirvonen & Abdulazize Wolle, 2022. "Telescoping Error in Recalled Food Consumption: Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Ethiopia [Video-Based Behavioral Change Communication to Change Consumption Patterns: Experimental Evidence from," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 36(4), pages 889-908.
    14. Sharp,Michael K. & Buffière,Bertrand & Himelein,Kristen & Troubat,Nathalie & Gibson,John, 2022. "Effects of Data Collection Methods on Estimated Household Consumption and Survey Costs: Evidence from an Experiment in the Marshall Islands," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10029, The World Bank.
    15. Ameye, Hannah & De Weerdt, Joachim & Gibson, John, 2021. "Measuring macro- and micronutrient consumption in multi-purpose surveys: Evidence from a survey experiment in Tanzania," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    16. Fang Xia & Lingling Hou & Songqing Jin & Dongqing Li, 2020. "Land size and productivity in the livestock sector: evidence from pastoral areas in China," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 64(3), pages 867-888, July.
    17. Li, Zhiyun & Ortiz-Bobea, Ariel, 2022. "On the Timing of Relevant Weather Conditions in Agriculture," 2023 Allied Social Sciences Association (ASSA) Annual Meeting, January 6-8, 2023, New Orleans, Louisiana 316528, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Douglas Gollin & Christopher Udry, 2021. "Heterogeneity, Measurement Error, and Misallocation: Evidence from African Agriculture," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 129(1), pages 1-80.
    19. Wossen, Tesfamicheal & Abay, Kibrom A. & Abdoulaye, Tahirou, 2022. "Misperceiving and misreporting input quality: Implications for input use and productivity," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    20. Taylor, Matthew P.H. & Helfand, Steven M., 2021. "The Farm Size – Productivity Relationship in the Wake of Market Reform: An Analysis of Mexican Family Farms," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315138, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Root and tuber crops; Production and yield measurement; Harvest diaries; Recall; Crop cutting; Household surveys;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C83 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Data Collection and Data Estimation Methodology; Computer Programs - - - Survey Methods; Sampling Methods
    • Q12 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Agriculture - - - Micro Analysis of Farm Firms, Farm Households, and Farm Input Markets

    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:eee:jfpoli:v:102:y:2021:i:c:s0306919221000117. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/foodpol .

    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.