IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/ecdecc/doi10.1086-698309.html

Land Measurement Bias and Its Empirical Implications: Evidence from a Validation Exercise

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Dillon
  • Sydney Gourlay
  • Kevin McGee
  • Gbemisola Oseni

Abstract

We investigate how land size measurements vary across three land measurement methods (farmer estimated, GPS, and compass-and-rope) and the effect of land measurement error on the inverse farm size relationship and input demand functions. Our findings indicate that self-reported measurement bias leads to overreporting for small plots and underreporting for large plots. The error is nonlinear, is not resolved by trimming of outliers, and results in biased estimates of the inverse land size relationship. Input demand functions that rely on self-reported land measures underestimate the effect of land on input utilization, including fertilizer and household labor.

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Dillon & Sydney Gourlay & Kevin McGee & Gbemisola Oseni, 2019. "Land Measurement Bias and Its Empirical Implications: Evidence from a Validation Exercise," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 67(3), pages 595-624.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:ecdecc:doi:10.1086/698309
    DOI: 10.1086/698309
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/698309
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/698309
    Download Restriction: Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/698309?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

    for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    More about this item

    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:ucp:ecdecc:doi:10.1086/698309. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/EDCC .

    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.