IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/ifprid/183522.html

Land tenure security, crop choices, and agricultural input investment decisions: Evidence from nationally representative data in Nigeria

Author

Listed:
  • Olanrewaju, Opeyemi
  • Kirui, Oliver K.
  • Popoola, Olufemi
  • Bamiwuye, Temilolu
  • Nwagboso, Chibuzo
  • Fasoranti, Adetunji

Abstract

Land tenure security is widely regarded as essential for agricultural investment and productivity growth. However, causal evidence on its effects across multiple farm decisions remains limited, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. This study investigates how tenure security is associated with crop portfolio choices and input investment decisions among smallholder farmers in rural Nigeria. It measures tenure security using a composite index, drawn from wave 5 of the Nigeria Living Standards Measurement Study-Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA), that captures plot-level perceived security of ownership, and household reported risk of land loss, ownership security, and duration of ownership. The study employs two complementary approaches: a multivariate probit model to capture the joint and correlated nature of crop adoption decisions, and limited information maximum likelihood instrumental variables (LIML-IV) estimation to establish association between land tenure and input investment decisions. Results reveal significant but heterogeneous effects. Greater tenure security increases the probability of cultivating grains and cereals by 29.8 percentage points, while reducing the likelihood of growing legumes and pulses by 24.6 percentage points and horticulture by 11.4 percentage points respectively, which suggests a substitution effect toward grain specialization. On input investments, LIML-IV estimates indicate that a one-unit increase in the tenure security index raises organic fertilizer use by 9.93 percent, inorganic fertilizer use by 6.57 percent, and pesticide use by approximately 0.89 percent. These findings are robust to Lewbel’s heteroskedasticity-based identification strategy. Heterogeneity analysis reveals stronger investment effects among youth-headed households, while impacts on female-managed plots are statistically insignificant, pointing to persistent gender barriers. The study highlights the need for integrated policies that combine tenure formalization with crop diversification support, gender- and youth-sensitive land governance, and input market development in order to maximize the productivity gains from land rights reform in Nigeria.

Suggested Citation

  • Olanrewaju, Opeyemi & Kirui, Oliver K. & Popoola, Olufemi & Bamiwuye, Temilolu & Nwagboso, Chibuzo & Fasoranti, Adetunji, 2026. "Land tenure security, crop choices, and agricultural input investment decisions: Evidence from nationally representative data in Nigeria," IFPRI discussion papers 2425, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    • Handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:183522
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://hdl.handle.net/10568/183522
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hailemariam Teklewold & Menale Kassie & Bekele Shiferaw, 2013. "Adoption of Multiple Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Rural Ethiopia," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(3), pages 597-623, September.
    2. Deininger, Klaus & Jin, Songqing, 2006. "Tenure security and land-related investment: Evidence from Ethiopia," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 50(5), pages 1245-1277, July.
    3. Steven Lawry & Cyrus Samii & Ruth Hall & Aaron Leopold & Donna Hornby & Farai Mtero, 2017. "The impact of land property rights interventions on investment and agricultural productivity in developing countries: a systematic review," Journal of Development Effectiveness, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(1), pages 61-81, January.
    4. Abdulai, Awudu & Owusu, Victor & Goetz, Renan, 2011. "Land tenure differences and investment in land improvement measures: Theoretical and empirical analyses," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(1), pages 66-78, September.
    5. Ghebru, Hosaena & Edeh, Hyacinth & Ali, Daniel & Deininger, Klaus & Okumo, Austen & Woldeyohannes, Sileshi, 2014. "Tenure security and demand for land tenure regularization in Nigeria: Empirical evidence from Ondo and Kano states," NSSP working papers 25, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    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. Kimlong Chheng & Budy P. Resosudarmo, 2021. "Land property rights and food insecurity in rural Cambodia," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(6), pages 1911-1929, December.
    2. Abebaw Andarge Gedefaw, 2023. "Analysis of the Contribution of Land Registration to Sustainable Land Management in East Gojjam Zone, Ethiopia," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(6), pages 1-21, May.
    3. Dagdeviren, Hulya & Elangovan, Arthanari & Parimalavelli, Ramanathan, 2023. "Land tenure and food security in South India," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    4. Xinyue Qu & Wenfeng Zhou & Jia He & Dingde Xu, 2023. "Land Certification, Adjustment Experience, and Green Production Technology Acceptance of Farmers: Evidence from Sichuan Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(4), pages 1-20, April.
    5. Linyi Zheng, 2024. "Those with constant property rights have perseverance: China’s land tenure reform promotes environment-friendly farming practices," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 11(1), pages 1-10, December.
    6. Séogo, Windinkonté & Zahonogo, Pam, 2023. "Do land property rights matter for stimulating agricultural productivity? Empirical evidence from Burkina Faso," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    7. Alexis Rampa & Yiorgos Gadanakis & Gillian Rose, 2020. "Land Reform in the Era of Global Warming—Can Land Reforms Help Agriculture Be Climate-Smart?," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(12), pages 1-24, November.
    8. Hoang Huu Dinh & Shyam Basnet & Justus Wesseler, 2023. "Impact of Land Tenure Security Perception on Tree Planting Investment in Vietnam," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-23, February.
    9. Adere, Tilahun Habtamu & Mertens, Kewan & Maertens, Miet & Vranken, Liesbet, 2022. "The impact of land certification and risk preferences on investment in soil and water conservation: Evidence from southern Ethiopia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(C).
    10. Uwacu Alban Singirankabo & Maurits Willem Ertsen, 2020. "Relations between Land Tenure Security and Agricultural Productivity: Exploring the Effect of Land Registration," Land, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-18, May.
    11. Bambio, Yiriyibin & Bouayad Agha, Salima, 2018. "Land tenure security and investment: Does strength of land right really matter in rural Burkina Faso?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 111(C), pages 130-147.
    12. Meinzen-Dick, Laura & Zavale, Helder, 2025. "Gender and tenure insecurity in a matrilineal customary system," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 157(C).
    13. Anthony Harris & Anthony D'Agostino & Sara Litke-Farzaneh & Beryl Seiler & Matt Sloan, "undated". "Morocco Land Productivity Project: Evaluation Design Report," Mathematica Policy Research Reports f3fc788501b64608b17e1cb23, Mathematica Policy Research.
    14. Tawanda Chingozha & Dieter von Fintel, 2019. "Property rights, market access and crop cultivation in Southern Rhodesia: evidence from historical satellite data," Working Papers 03/2019, Stellenbosch University, Department of Economics.
    15. Ayalew, Hailemariam & Admasu, Yeshwas & Chamberlin, Jordan, 2021. "Is land certification pro-poor? Evidence from Ethiopia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    16. Abman, Ryan & Carney, Conor, 2020. "Land rights, agricultural productivity, and deforestation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 94(C).
    17. Xianlei Ma & Justus Wesseler & Nico Heerink & Futian Qu, 2013. "Land Tenure Reforms and Land Conservation Investments in China ¨C What Does Real Option Value Theory Tell Us?," Review of Economics & Finance, Better Advances Press, Canada, vol. 3, pages 19-33, August.
    18. Zafar Kurbanov & Nodir Djanibekov & Thomas Herzfeld, 2025. "Land Property Rights and Investment Incentives in Movable Farm Assets: Evidence from Post-Soviet Central Asia," Comparative Economic Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Association for Comparative Economic Studies, vol. 67(2), pages 396-425, June.
    19. Leonhardt, Heidi & Penker, Marianne & Salhofer, Klaus, 2019. "Do farmers care about rented land? A multi-method study on land tenure and soil conservation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 228-239.
    20. Asaaga, Festus A. & Hirons, Mark A. & Malhi, Yadvinder, 2020. "Questioning the link between tenure security and sustainable land management in cocoa landscapes in Ghana," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 130(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:fpr:ifprid:183522. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.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.