IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/lauspo/v79y2018icp671-683.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pursuing productivity gains and risk reduction in a multi-hazard landscape: A case study from eastern Uganda

Author

Listed:
  • Sullivan-Wiley, Kira A.
  • Short Gianotti, Anne G.

Abstract

Agricultural land and natural resource management has an important role to play in reducing the vulnerability of rural populations to hazard risk and to promote increases in agricultural yields. Though strategies for hazard risk mitigation and productivity gains are sometimes viewed in opposition to each other, many of the practices promoted to achieve one goal provide co-benefits toward the other. Our understanding remains imperfect with respect to the mechanisms underlying the use of such practices, and how these motivations are weighted in the context of multiple environmental hazards, multiple practice alternatives, and multiple sources of information. This study addresses these knowledge gaps by investigating the voluntary adoption of agricultural land management practices among farmers in the Bugisu sub-region in eastern Uganda. A set of multinomial logistic (MNL) regression analyses reveal that socio-economic and risk perception factors contribute significantly to the use of the more labor-intensive practices, while others are best explained by variations in household income and income streams. The village context is an important factor in explaining variation in use rates, and the contributions of village characteristics beyond the household are discussed, as is the role that risk reduction and agricultural development organizations play in facilitating adoption. The results of this study are well placed to inform the intervention targets of development and disaster risk reduction organizations seeking to increase uptake of agricultural land management practices.

Suggested Citation

  • Sullivan-Wiley, Kira A. & Short Gianotti, Anne G., 2018. "Pursuing productivity gains and risk reduction in a multi-hazard landscape: A case study from eastern Uganda," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 671-683.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:lauspo:v:79:y:2018:i:c:p:671-683
    DOI: 10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.035
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264837717311225
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.08.035?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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lubowski, Ruben N. & Plantinga, Andrew J. & Stavins, Robert N., 2006. "Land-use change and carbon sinks: Econometric estimation of the carbon sequestration supply function," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 135-152, March.
    2. United Nations, 2016. "The Sustainable Development Goals 2016," Working Papers id:11456, eSocialSciences.
    3. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, December.
    4. Sullivan-Wiley, Kira A. & Short Gianotti, Anne G., 2017. "Risk Perception in a Multi-Hazard Environment," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 97(C), pages 138-152.
    5. Eakin, Hallie, 2005. "Institutional change, climate risk, and rural vulnerability: Cases from Central Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 33(11), pages 1923-1938, November.
    6. Joanne Harvatt & Judith Petts & Jason Chilvers, 2011. "Understanding householder responses to natural hazards: flooding and sea-level rise comparisons," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 14(1), pages 63-83, January.
    7. Knowler, Duncan & Bradshaw, Ben, 2007. "Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 25-48, February.
    8. JunJie Wu & Kathleen Segerson, 1995. "The Impact of Policies and Land Characteristics on Potential Groundwater Pollution in Wisconsin," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 77(4), pages 1033-1047.
    9. Michael K. Lindell & Ronald W. Perry, 2012. "The Protective Action Decision Model: Theoretical Modifications and Additional Evidence," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 32(4), pages 616-632, April.
    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. Salaisook, Phastraporn & Faysse, Nicolas & Tsusaka, Takuji W., 2020. "Reasons for adoption of sustainable land management practices in a changing context: A mixed approach in Thailand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    2. Jamil, Ihsan & Jun, Wen & Mughal, Bushra & Waheed, Junaid & Hussain, Hadi & Waseem, Muhammad, 2021. "Agricultural Innovation: A comparative analysis of economic benefits gained by farmers under climate resilient and conventional agricultural practices," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).

    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. CARPENTIER, Alain & GOHIN, Alexandre & SCKOKAI, Paolo & THOMAS, Alban, 2015. "Economic modelling of agricultural production: past advances and new challenges," Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies - Revue d'Etudes en Agriculture et Environnement (RAEStud), Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 96(01), March.
    2. Carpentier, Alain & Letort, Elodie, 2009. "Modeling acreage decisions within the multinomial Logit framework," Working Papers 211011, Institut National de la recherche Agronomique (INRA), Departement Sciences Sociales, Agriculture et Alimentation, Espace et Environnement (SAE2).
    3. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Soh, Moonwon & English, Burton C. & Yu, T. Edward & Boyer, Christopher N., 2019. "Targeting payments for forest carbon sequestration given ecological and economic objectives," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 214-226.
    4. Hyunseok Kim & GianCarlo Moschini, 2018. "The Dynamics of Supply: U.S. Corn and Soybeans in the Biofuel Era," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(4), pages 593-613.
    5. Verena Preusse & Nils Nölke & Meike Wollni, 2024. "Urbanization and adoption of sustainable agricultural practices in the rural‐urban interface of Bangalore, India," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 72(2), pages 167-198, June.
    6. Enid M. Katungi & Catherine Larochelle & Josephat R. Mugabo & Robin Buruchara, 2018. "The effect of climbing bean adoption on the welfare of smallholder common bean growers in Rwanda," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 10(1), pages 61-79, February.
    7. Raja Chakir & Olivier Parent, 2009. "Determinants of land use changes: A spatial multinomial probit approach," Papers in Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 88(2), pages 327-344, June.
    8. Yigezu, Yigezu Atnafe & Mugera, Amin & El-Shater, Tamer & Aw-Hassan, Aden & Piggin, Colin & Haddad, Atef & Khalil, Yaseen & Loss, Stephen, 2018. "Enhancing adoption of agricultural technologies requiring high initial investment among smallholders," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 199-206.
    9. Tambo, J. & Mockshell, J., 2018. "Differential impacts of conservation agriculture technology options on household welfare in sub-Saharan Africa," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277035, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    10. Kwamivi Mawuli GOMADO, 2025. "Labor productivity growth effects of structural reforms: evidence from developing countries," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 63(2), pages 151-182, April.
    11. Joop de Boer & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Teun Terpstra, 2014. "Improving Flood Risk Communication by Focusing on Prevention‐Focused Motivation," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 34(2), pages 309-322, February.
    12. Lungarska, Anna & Chakir, Raja, 2018. "Climate-induced Land Use Change in France: Impacts of Agricultural Adaptation and Climate Change Mitigation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 134-154.
    13. Ngoma, Hambulo & Mulenga, Brian P. & Jayne, T.S., 2014. "What Explains Minimal Usage of Minimum Tillage Practices in Zambia? Evidence from District-Representative Data," Food Security Collaborative Working Papers 165886, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    14. Tsegaye Ginbo & Helena Hansson, 2023. "Intra-household risk perceptions and climate change adaptation in sub-Saharan Africa," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 50(3), pages 1039-1063.
    15. Akter, Shaheen & Gathala, Mahesh K. & Timsina, Jagadish & Islam, Saiful & Rahman, Mahbubur & Hassan, Mustafa Kamrul & Ghosh, Anup Kumar, 2021. "Adoption of conservation agriculture-based tillage practices in the rice-maize systems in Bangladesh," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 21(C).
    16. Wrenn, Douglas H. & Klaiber, Allen & Newburn, David, 2018. "Price Based Policies for Managing Residential Development and Impacts on Water Quality," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 274029, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    17. Jean-Sauveur Ay & Raja Chakir & Julie Le Gallo, 2014. "The effects of scale, space and time on the predictive accuracy of land use models," Working Papers 2014/02, INRA, Economie Publique.
    18. Boonyanam, Nararuk, 2020. "Agricultural economic zones in Thailand," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    19. Tambo, Justice A. & Mockshell, Jonathan, 2018. "Differential Impacts of Conservation Agriculture Technology Options on Household Income in Sub-Saharan Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 151(C), pages 95-105.
    20. Hörner, Denise & Wollni, Meike, 2021. "Integrated soil fertility management and household welfare in Ethiopia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:lauspo:v:79:y:2018:i:c:p:671-683. 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: Joice Jiang (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.elsevier.com/land-use-policy .

    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.