IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wbk/wbrwps/7597.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Land measurement bias and its empirical implications : evidence from a validation exercise

Author

Listed:
  • Dillon,Andrew S.
  • Gourlay,Sydney
  • Mcgee,Kevin Robert
  • Oseni,Gbemisola O.
  • Dillon,Andrew S.
  • Gourlay,Sydney
  • Mcgee,Kevin Robert
  • Oseni,Gbemisola O.

Abstract

This paper investigates how land size measurements vary across three common land measurement methods (farmer estimated, Global Positioning System (GPS), and compass and rope), and the effect of land size measurement error on the inverse farm size relationship and input demand functions. The analysis utilizes plot-level data from the second wave of the Nigeria General Household Survey Panel, as well as a supplementary land validation survey covering a subsample of General Household Survey Panel plots. Using this data, both GPS and self-reported farmer estimates can be compared with the gold standard compass and rope measurements on the same plots. The findings indicate that GPS measurements are more reliable than farmer estimates, where self-reported measurement bias leads to over-reporting land sizes of small plots and under-reporting of large plots. The error observed across land measurement methods is nonlinear and results in biased estimates of the inverse land size relationship. Input demand functions that rely on self-reported land measures significantly underestimate the effect of land on input utilization, including fertilizer and household labor.

Suggested Citation

  • Dillon,Andrew S. & Gourlay,Sydney & Mcgee,Kevin Robert & Oseni,Gbemisola O. & Dillon,Andrew S. & Gourlay,Sydney & Mcgee,Kevin Robert & Oseni,Gbemisola O., 2016. "Land measurement bias and its empirical implications : evidence from a validation exercise," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7597, The World Bank.
    • Handle: RePEc:wbk:wbrwps:7597
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/258851468197930768/pdf/Land-measurement-bias-and-its-empirical-implications-evidence-from-a-validation-exercise.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Barrett, Christopher B., 1996. "On price risk and the inverse farm size-productivity relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(2), pages 193-215, December.
    2. Deininger, Klaus & Jin, Songqing, 2003. "The Impact of Property Rights on Households' Investment, Risk Coping, and Policy Preferences: Evidence from China," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 51(4), pages 851-882, July.
    3. Carletto, Calogero & Savastano, Sara & Zezza, Alberto, 2013. "Fact or artifact: The impact of measurement errors on the farm size–productivity relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 254-261.
    4. Calogero Carletto & Sydney Gourlay & Paul Winters, 2015. "Editor's choice From Guesstimates to GPStimates: Land Area Measurement and Implications for Agricultural Analysis," Journal of African Economies, Centre for the Study of African Economies, vol. 24(5), pages 593-628.
    5. Assunção, Juliano & Braido, Luis H.B., 2007. "AJAE Appendix: Testing Household-Specific Explanations for the Inverse Productivity Relationship," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1-8, November.
    6. Marenya, Paswel P. & Barrett, Christopher B., 2007. "Household-level determinants of adoption of improved natural resources management practices among smallholder farmers in western Kenya," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 515-536, August.
    7. Jerry Hausman, 2001. "Mismeasured Variables in Econometric Analysis: Problems from the Right and Problems from the Left," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 57-67, Fall.
    8. Juliano J. Assunção & Luis H. B. Braido, 2007. "Testing Household-Specific Explanations for the Inverse Productivity Relationship," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 980-990.
    9. Erenstein, Olaf, 2006. "Intensification or extensification? Factors affecting technology use in peri-urban lowlands along an agro-ecological gradient in West Africa," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 90(1-3), pages 132-158, October.
    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. Omotilewa, Oluwatoba J. & Jayne, T.S. & Muyanga, Milu & Aromolaran, Adebayo B. & Liverpool-Tasie, Lenis Saweda O. & Awokuse, Titus, 2021. "A revisit of farm size and productivity: Empirical evidence from a wide range of farm sizes in Nigeria," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Abay, Kibrom A. & Barrett, Christopher B. & Kilic, Talip & Moylan, Heather & Ilukor, John & Vundru, Wilbert Drazi, 2023. "Nonclassical measurement error and farmers’ response to information treatment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    7. William J. Burke & Stephen N. Morgan & Thelma Namonje & Milu Muyanga & Nicole M. Mason, 2023. "Beyond the “inverse relationship”: Area mismeasurement may affect actual productivity, not just how we understand it," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 54(4), pages 557-569, July.
    8. Burke, William J. & Jayne, Thom S. & Snapp, Sieglinde S., 2022. "Nitrogen efficiency by soil quality and management regimes on Malawi farms: Can fertilizer use remain profitable?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 152(C).
    9. Wollburg, Philip & Tiberti, Marco & Zezza, Alberto, 2021. "Recall length and measurement error in agricultural surveys," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    10. 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.
    11. Steven Helfand & Matthew Taylor, 2018. "The Inverse Relationship between Farm Size and Productivity: Refocusing the Debate," Working Papers 201811, University of California at Riverside, Department of Economics.
    12. Burke, William J. & Jayne, T.S., 2021. "Disparate access to quality land and fertilizers explain Malawi’s gender yield gap," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    13. Mensah, Edouard R. & Kostandini, Genti, 2020. "The inverse farm size-productivity relationship under land size mis-measurement and in the presence of weather and price risks: Panel data evidence from Uganda," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304477, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Reitmann, Ann-Kristin & Goedhuys, Micheline & Grimm, Michael & Nillesen, Eleonora E.M., 2020. "Gender attitudes in the Arab region – The role of framing and priming effects," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    15. Jorge M. Agüero & Veronica Frisancho, 2022. "Measuring Violence against Women with Experimental Methods," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 70(4), pages 1565-1590.
    16. 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.
    17. Khor, Ling Yee & Sariyev, Orkhan & Loos, Tim, 2020. "Gender differences in risk behavior and the link to household effects and individual wealth," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    18. Hailemariam Ayalew & Jordan Chamberlin & Carol Newman & Kibrom A. Abay & Frederic Kosmowski & Tesfaye Sida, 2024. "Revisiting the size–productivity relationship with imperfect measures of production and plot size," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(2), pages 595-619, March.
    19. Keiti Kondi & Stefanija Veljanoska, 2023. "Internal Migration as a Response to Soil Degradation: Evidence from Malawi," LIDAM Discussion Papers IRES 2023004, Université catholique de Louvain, Institut de Recherches Economiques et Sociales (IRES).
    20. Nchare, Karim & Vitouley, Marcel & Kaila, Heidi & Liu, Yanyan, 2022. "A Geometric Analysis of Technological Heterogeneity in the Agricultural Sector: Evidence from Maize in Tanzania," PRCI Research Papers 330119, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food and Resource Economics, Food Security Group.
    21. William J. Burke & Sieglinde S. Snapp & Thom S. Jayne, 2020. "An in‐depth examination of maize yield response to fertilizer in Central Malawi reveals low profits and too many weeds," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(6), pages 923-940, November.
    22. Morgan, Stephen N. & Mason, Nicole M. & Levine, N. Kendra & Zulu-Mbata, Olipa, 2019. "Dis-incentivizing sustainable intensification? The case of Zambia’s maize-fertilizer subsidy program," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 122(C), pages 54-69.
    23. Helfand, Steven M. & Taylor, Matthew P.H., 2021. "The inverse relationship between farm size and productivity: Refocusing the debate," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    24. Lowder, Sarah K. & Sánchez, Marco V. & Bertini, Raffaele, 2021. "Which farms feed the world and has farmland become more concentrated?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 142(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. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Mensah, Edouard R. & Kostandini, Genti, 2020. "The inverse farm size-productivity relationship under land size mis-measurement and in the presence of weather and price risks: Panel data evidence from Uganda," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304477, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Helfand, Steven M. & Taylor, Matthew P.H., 2021. "The inverse relationship between farm size and productivity: Refocusing the debate," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    5. 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.
    6. Omotilewa, Oluwatoba J. & Jayne, T.S. & Muyanga, Milu & Aromolaran, Adebayo B. & Liverpool-Tasie, Lenis Saweda O. & Awokuse, Titus, 2021. "A revisit of farm size and productivity: Empirical evidence from a wide range of farm sizes in Nigeria," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 146(C).
    7. 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).
    8. C. S. C. Sekhar & Namrata Thapa, 2023. "Rural market imperfections in India: Revisiting old debates with new evidence," Development Policy Review, Overseas Development Institute, vol. 41(5), September.
    9. Bevis, Leah EM. & Barrett, Christopher B., 2020. "Close to the edge: High productivity at plot peripheries and the inverse size-productivity relationship," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    10. Ayala Wineman & Thomas S. Jayne, 2021. "Factor Market Activity and the Inverse Farm Size-Productivity Relationship in Tanzania," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 57(3), pages 443-464, March.
    11. Ateka, Josiah & Onono-Okelo, Perez Ayieko & Etyang, Martin, 2021. "Does the inverse farm size productivity hypothesis hold for perennial monocrop systems in developing countries? Evidence from Kenya," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 16(3), September.
    12. Basile Boulay, 2018. "Revisiting the old debate: on the relationship between size and productivity in Tanzania," Discussion Papers 2018-02, University of Nottingham, CREDIT.
    13. Hailemariam Ayalew & Jordan Chamberlin & Carol Newman & Kibrom A. Abay & Frederic Kosmowski & Tesfaye Sida, 2024. "Revisiting the size–productivity relationship with imperfect measures of production and plot size," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 106(2), pages 595-619, March.
    14. Aragón, Fernando M. & Restuccia, Diego & Rud, Juan Pablo, 2022. "Are small farms really more productive than large farms?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 106(C).
    15. Klaus Deininger & Songqing Jin & Yanyan Liu & Sudhir K. Singh, 2018. "Can Labor-Market Imperfections Explain Changes in the Inverse Farm Size–Productivity Relationship? Longitudinal Evidence from Rural India," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 94(2), pages 239-258.
    16. Larson,Donald F. & Muraoka,Rie & Otsuka,Keijiro, 2016. "On the central role of small farms in African rural development strategies," Policy Research Working Paper Series 7710, The World Bank.
    17. Klaus Deininger & Songqing Jin & Yanyan Liu & Sudhir K Singh, 2016. "Can Labor Market Imperfections Explain Changes in the Inverse Farm Size–Productivity Relationship? Longitudinal Evidence from Rural India," Working Papers id:10987, eSocialSciences.
    18. Xingguang Li & Xuexi Huo, 2022. "Agricultural labor markets and the inverse plot size–productivity relationship: Evidence from China's apple growers," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(4), pages 2163-2183, November.
    19. Donald F. Larson & Keijiro Otsuka & Tomoya Matsumoto & Talip Kilic, 2014. "Should African rural development strategies depend on smallholder farms? An exploration of the inverse-productivity hypothesis," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(3), pages 355-367, May.
    20. Rada, Nicholas & Wang, Chenggang & Qin, Lijian, 2015. "Subsidy or market reform? Rethinking China’s farm consolidation strategy," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 93-103.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Primary Metals; Climate Change and Agriculture; Crops and Crop Management Systems; Food Security; Crime and Society; Educational Sciences;
    All these 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:wbk:wbrwps:7597. 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: Roula I. Yazigi (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dvewbus.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.