Types of Research
This poster presentation summarizes research on changes in crop planting decisions on the extensive and intensive margin in Tanzania, with regards to changes in agricultural land that a farmer has available and area planted in the context of smallholders and farming systems. We use household survey data from the Tanzania National Panel Survey (TNPS), part of the World Bank’s Living Standards Measurement Study–Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS – ISA) to test how much the agricultural land available to households changes, how much farmers change the proportion of land decidated to growing priority crops, and how crop area changes vary with changes in landholding. We find that almost half of households had a change of agricultural land area of at least half a hectare from 2008-2010. Smallholder farmers on average decreased the amount of available land between 2008 and 2010, while non-smallholder farmers increased agricultural land area during that time period, but that smallholder households planted a greater proportion of their agricultural land than nonsmallholders. Eighty percent of households changed crop proportions from 2008 to 2010, yet aggregate level indicators mask household level changes.
This brief explores how two datasets – The Tanzania National Panel Survey (TZNPS) and the TNS-Research International Farmer Focus (FF) – predict the determinants of inorganic fertilizer use among smallholder farmers in Tanzania by using regression analysis. The (TZNPS) was implemented by the Tanzania National Bureau of Statistics, with support from the World Bank Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA) team and includes extensive information on crop productivity and input use. The FF survey was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and implemented by TNS Research International and focuses on the on the behaviors and attitudes of smallholder farmers in Tanzania. The two datasets produce relatively comparable results for the primary predictors of inorganic fertilizer use: agricultural extension and whether or not a household grows cash crops. However, other factors influencing input use produce results that vary in magnitude and direction of the effect across the two datasets. Distinct survey instrument designs make it difficult to test the robustness of the models on input use other than inorganic fertilizer. This brief uses data inorganic fertilizer use, rather than adoption per se. The TZNPS did not ask households how recently they began using a certain product and although the FF survey asked respondents how many new inputs were tried in the past four planting seasons, they did not ask specifically about inorganic fertilizer.
This report investigates the potential environmental and socio-economic benefits and costs of glyphosate resistant cassava. Glyphosate resistant crops (also referred to as glyphosate tolerant) have been rapidly adopted by a number of crop producers because they simplify and/or reduce the cost of weed management. Glyphosate resistant crops also provide external environmental benefits by promoting reduced tillage agriculture, decreasing erosion and increasing soil health. However, glyphosate resistant crops also have some environmental costs, potentially leading to increased use of herbicides and environmental contamination. Because transgenic glyphosate resistant cassava is not currently in use, literature on its potential environmental and socioeconomic costs and benefits is limited. Therefore, this report draws on the literature for glyphosate resistant crops that are in current use, including maize, soybeans, sugar beets and canola (rapeseed). We find that socioeconomic and environmental impacts of glyphosate resistant crops differ by crop-type, agroecological conditions, production systems and local regulatory structure. Therefore, some benefits and costs associated with other glyphosate resistant crops may not be applicable to glyphosate resistant cassava.
This brief provides an overview of the national and zonal characteristics of agricultural production in Tanzania using the 2008/2009 wave of the Tanzania National Panel Survey (TZNPS), part of the Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA). More detailed information and analysis is available in the separate EPAR Tanzania LSMS-ISA Reference Report, Sections A-G.
This is "Section B" of a report that presents estimates and summary statistics from the 2008/2009 wave of the Tanzania National Panel Survey (TZNPS), part of the Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA). We present our analyses of household characteristics by gender and by administrative zone, considering landholding size, number of crops grown, yields, livestock, input use, and food consumption.
This is "Section H" of a report that presents estimates and summary statistics from the 2008/2009 wave of the Tanzania National Panel Survey (TZNPS), part of the Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA). We present our analysis of nutrition and malnutrition, and of the variation across agricultural and non-agricultural households, gender, age, and zones. For example, we find that stunting (low height for age) was the most prevalent indicator of malnutrition, with 43% of the under-five population categorized in the moderate to severe range, while less than 17% children under the age of five were reported to be underweight (low weight for age). A higher proportion of children in female-headed households experienced stunting (46% versus 42% in male-headed households) and were underweight (19% versus 16% in male-headed households).
This is "Section G" of a report that presents estimates and summary statistics from the 2008/2009 wave of the Tanzania National Panel Survey (TZNPS), part of the Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA). We present our analyses of data related to consumption of priority foods, total value of consumption, levels of food consumption and production, including analyses by zone in Tanzania. We find, for example, that the mean total value of household consumption was higher for agricultural households (US$27.28) compared to non-agricultural households (US$26.59), but the mean per capita value of household consumption was higher for non-agricultural households (US$7.32) compared to agricultural households (US$5.24). The mean per capita value of weekly consumption for the Southern zone was only US$5.34, compared to the highest mean per capita value of US$6.63 in the Eastern zone. The Central zone still had the lowest per capita value of consumption at US$4.40.
This is the introductory section of a report that presents estimates and summary statistics from the 2008/2009 wave of the Tanzania National Panel Survey (TZNPS), part of the Living Standards Measurement Study – Integrated Surveys on Agriculture (LSMS-ISA). We present an overview of report sections, as well as an executive summary of findings on crops and livestock, constraints to productivity, and productivity and nutrition outcomes.
This brief presents selected material from the Fourth African Agricultural Markets Program (AAMP) policy symposium, Agricultural Risks Management in Africa: Taking Stock of What Has and Hasn’t Worked, organized by the Alliance for Commodity Trade in Eastern and Southern Africa and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa that took place in Lilongwe, Malawi, September 6-10, 2010. We draw almost exclusively from Rashid and Jayne’s summary, “Risk Management in African Agriculture: A review of experiences.” This article summarizes across the background papers, with major findings grouped into three broad categories: cross cutting, government-led policies, and modern instruments.
This brief reviews the literature and empirical evidence on waste extraction and treatment in the developing world. The brief assesses the quantity and quality of research supporting key components of program theory related to the extraction of sludge from on-site sanitation facilities and pre-disposal transport. In general, we find few empirical studies that directly evaluate the assertions of the program theory. Most of the evidence in the literature that addresses the target components of program theory is based upon case studies or general observational and experiential assertions by sanitation experts. Where appropriate, we have identified evidence in the literature according to whether case studies or informal observations formed the basis of the conclusion.