Does Land Tenure Security Promote Manure Use by Farm Households in Vietnam?
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Land Tenure in Vietnam before and after the Renovation
2.1. Land Tenure before the Renovation
2.1.1. Land Tenure in the Pre-French Colonial Period
2.1.2. Land Tenure in the French Colonial Period
2.1.3. Land Tenure in the Separation Period
2.2. Land Reform in the Renovation Context
3. Land Tenure Security and Soil Conservation
3.1. Theoretical Linkage and Empirical Evidence
3.2. Empirical Evidence in Vietnam
4. Study Design
4.1. Study Area and Data Collection
4.2. Econometric Specification
5. Results and Discussion
5.1. Main Characteristics of Farm Households
5.2. Farm Land Endowment and Land Reform
5.3. Cattle, Manure Use, Input, and Output Price Indices
5.4. Determinants of Manure Use
6. Conclusions and Policy Implications
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Wauters, E.; Bielders, C.; Poesen, J.; Govers, G.; Mathijs, E. Adoption of soil conservation practices in Belgium: An examination of the theory of planned behaviour in the agri-environmental domain. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 86–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, L.K. The impact of landownership factors on soil conservation. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1980, 62, 1070–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Soil Degradation; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015; Available online: http://www.fao.org/soils-portal/soil-degradation-restoration/it/ (accessed on 10 October 2015).
- Kassie, M.; Pender, J.; Yesuf, M.; Kohlin, G.; Bluffstone, R.; Mulugeta, E. Estimating returns to soil conservation adoption in the northern ethiopian highlands. Agric. Econ. 2008, 38, 213–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bhattacharyya, R.; Ghosh, B.N.; Mishra, P.K.; Mandal, B.; Rao, C.S.; Sarkar, D.; Das, K.; Anil, K.S.; Lalitha, M.; Hati, K.M.; et al. Soil degradation in India: Challenges and potential solutions. Sustainability 2015, 7, 3528–3570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO); Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils (ITPS); Status of the World’s Soil Resources (SWSR). Main Report. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015; Available online: ftp://ext-ftp.fao.org/nr/Data/Upload/SWSR_MATTEO/Main_report/Pdf/web_Soil_Report_Main_001.pdf (accessed on 20 December 2015).
- Grote, U. Can we improve global food security? A socio-economic and political perspective. Food Secur. 2014, 6, 187–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alexandratos, N.; Bruinsma, J. World Agriculture: Towards 2030/2050: The 2012 Revision; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2012; Available online: http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/ap106e/ap106e.pdf (accessed on 25 January 2016).
- United Nations (UN). World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision: Highlights and Advance Tables. 2013. Available online: http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Publications/Files/WPP2012_HIGHLIGHTS.pdf (accessed on 5 November 2015).
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2012. 2012. Available online: http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3027e/i3027e.pdf (accessed on 5 November 2015).
- Nguyen, T.T.; Pham, V.D.; Tenhunen, J. Linking regional land use and payments for forest hydrological services: A case study of hoa binh reservoir in Vietnam. Land Use Policy 2013, 33, 130–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.T. Gains and Losses in Ecosystem Services: Trade-off and Efficiency Perspectives. Habilitation Thesis, University of Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany, November 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Arnhold, S.; Lindner, S.; Lee, B.; Martin, E.; Kettering, J.; Nguyen, T.T.; Koellner, T.; Ok, Y.S.; Huwe, B. Conventional and organic farming: Soil erosion and conservation potential for row crop cultivation. Geoderma 2014, 219–220, 89–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.T.; Ruidisch, M.; Koellner, T.; Tenhunen, J. Synergies and trade-offs between nitrate leaching and net farm income: The case of nitrogen best management practices in South Korea. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2014, 186, 160–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Le, T.H.S. Soil Conservation and Sustainable Agriculture: A Case Study of the Coastal Region of Quang Tri Province, Vietnam; Margraf Publishers: Weikersheim, Germany, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Lambini, C.K.; Nguyen, T.T. A comparative analysis of the effects of institutional property rights on forest livelihoods and forest conditions: Evidence from Ghana and Vietnam. Forest Policy Econ. 2014, 38, 178–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomiero, T.; Pettenella, D.; Paoletti, M.G. Is there a need for a more sustainable agriculture? Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2011, 30, 6–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lal, R. Restoring soil quality to mitigate soil degradation. Sustainability 2015, 7, 5875–5895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shively, G. Poverty, consumption risk, and soil conservation. J. Dev. Econ. 2001, 65, 267–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- DeLong, C.; Cruse, R.; Wiener, J. The soil degradation paradox: Compromising our resources when we need them the most. Sustainability 2015, 7, 866–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, Q.; He, C.; He, X.; Bao, Y.; Zhong, R.; Wen, A. Farmers’ sustainable strategies for soil conservation on sloping arable lands in the upper Yangtze river basin, China. Sustainability 2014, 6, 4795–4806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Waithaka, M.M.; Thornton, P.K.; Shepherd, K.D.; Ndiwa, N.N. Factors affecting the use of fertilizers and manure by smallholders: The case of Vihiga, western Kenya. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2007, 78, 211–224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simbizi, M.C.D.; Bennett, R.M.; Zevenbergen, J. Land tenure security: Revisiting and refining the concept for Sub-Saharan Africa’s rural poor. Land Use Policy 2014, 36, 231–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maxell, D.; Wiebe, K. Land Tenure and Food Security: A Review of Concepts, Evidence, and Methods; Land Tenure Center Research Paper No. 129; University of Wisconsin-Madison: Madison, WI, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Barrows, R.; Roth, M. Land tenure and investment in African agriculture: Theory and evidence. J. Modern Afr. Stud. 1990, 28, 265–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.T. Land reform and farm production in the northern uplands of Vietnam. Asian Econ. J. 2012, 26, 413–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knowler, D.; Bradshaw, B. Farmers’ adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research. Food Policy 2007, 32, 25–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mbaga-Semgalawe, Z.; Folmer, H. Household adoption behaviour of improved soil conservation: The case of the North Pare and West Usambara Mountains of Tanzania. Land Use Policy 2000, 17, 321–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feder, G.; Onchan, T.; Chalamvong, Y.; Hongladarom, C. Land Policies and Farm Productivity in Thailand; The Johns Hopkins University Press: Baltimore, MD, USA; London, UK, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Holden, S.T.; Otsuka, K. The roles of land tenure reforms and land markets in the context of population growth and land use intensification in Africa. Food Policy 2014, 48, 88–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grepperud, G. Soil conservation as an investment in land. J. Dev. Econ. 1997, 54, 455–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, G.; Rozelle, S.; Brandt, L. Tenure, land rights, and farmer investment incentives in China. Agric. Econ. 1998, 19, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deininger, K.; Jin, S. Land sales and rental markets in Transition: Evidence from rural Vietnam. Oxf. Bull. Econ. Stat. 2008, 70, 67–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Michler, J.D.; Shively, G.E. Land tenure, tenure security and farm Efficiency: Panel evidence from the Philippines. J. Agric. Econ. 2015, 66, 155–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.T.; Do, T.L.; Bühler, D.; Hartje, R.; Grote, U. Rural livelihoods and environmental resource dependence in Cambodia. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 120, 282–295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bromley, D.W. Making the Commons Work: Theory, Practice, and Policy; ICS Press: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Scheidel, A.; Giampietro, M.; Ramos-Martin, J. Self-sufficiency or surplus: Conflicting local and national rural development goals in Cambodia. Land Use Policy 2013, 34, 342–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- World Bank: Vietnam—Country Brief. Available online: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/EASTASIAPACIFICEXT/VIETNAMEXTN/0,,menuPK:387575~pagePK:141132~piPK:141107~theSitePK:387565,00.html (accessed on 5 November 2015).
- Nguyen, T.T.; Bauer, S.; Uibrig, H. Land privatization and afforestation incentive of rural farms in the northern uplands of Vietnam. J. Forest Policy Econ. 2010, 12, 518–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vu, Q.M.; Le, Q.B.; Frossard, E.; Vlek, P.L.G. Socio-economic and biophysical determinants of land degradation in Vietnam: An Integrated causal analysis at the national level. Land Use Policy 2014, 36, 605–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ravallion, M.; van de Walle, D. Land Allocation in Vietnam’s Agrarian Transition; Policy Research Working Paper No. 2951; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
- Orden, D.; Cheng, F.; Nguyen, H.; Grote, U.; Thomas, M.; Mullen, K.; Sun, D. Agricultural Producer Support Estimates for Developing Countries: Measurement Issues and Evidence from India, Indonesia, China, and Vietnam; IFPRI Research Report 152; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Do, Q.T.; Iyer, L. Land titling and rural transition in Vietnam. Econ. Dev. Cult. Chang. 2008, 56, 531–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Markussen, T.; Tarp, F.; van den Broeck, K. The forgotten property rights: Evidence on land use rights in Vietnam. World Dev. 2011, 39, 839–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saint-Macary, C.; Keil, A.; Zeller, M.; Heidhues, F.; Dung, P.T.M. Land titling policy and soil conservation in the northern uplands of Vietnam. Land Use Policy 2010, 27, 611–627. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomiero, T.; Giampietro, M. Multiple-scale integrated analysis of farming systems: The Thuong lo commune (Vietnamese uplands) case study. Popul. Environ. 2001, 22, 315–352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arizpe, N.; Ramos-Martín, J.; Giampietro, M. An assessment of the metabolic profile implied by agricultural change in two rural communities in the North of Argentina. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2014, 16, 903–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flammini, A.; Puri, M.; Pluschke, L.; Dubois, O. Walking the Nexus Talk: Assessing the Water-Energy-Food Nexus in the Context of the Sustainable Energy for All Initiative; Environment and Natural Resources Working Paper No. 58; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Adger, W.N. Evolutionary and Ecological Economics of Land Use and Climate in Vietnam; CSERGE Working Paper GEC 98-14; Centre for Social and Economic Research on the Global Environment, University of East Anglia: Norwich, UK, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Wiegersma, N. Vietnam: Peasant Land, Peasant Revolution: Patriarchy and Collectivity in the Rural Economy; St. Martin’s Press: New York, NY, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, T.H. Economic Development of Socialist Vietnam, 1955–1980; Praeger Special Studies: New York, NY, UAS, 1977. [Google Scholar]
- Pham, X.N.; Be, V.D.; Hainsworth, G.B. Rural Development in Vietnam: The Search for Sustainable Development; Social Sciences Publishing House: Hanoi, Vietnam, 1999. (In Vietnamese) [Google Scholar]
- Phuc, V.H. Studying the Land System in Vietnam during the First Half of the 19th Century; Social Sciences Publishing House: Hanoi, Vietnam, 1979. (In Vietnamese) [Google Scholar]
- Vo, T.X.; Pingali, P.L. Vietnam: De-collectivization and rice productivity growth. Econ. Dev. Cult. Chang. 1992, 40, 697–718. [Google Scholar]
- Brenier, H. Essai d’atlas statistique de I’Indochine Francaisse. Bull. l'École Fr. d'Extrême-Orient 1914, 14, 7–8. (in French). [Google Scholar]
- Henry, Y. L’Economie agricole de I’Inochine; Imprimerie d'Extrême-Orient: Hanoi, Vietnam, 1932. (In French) [Google Scholar]
- Gittinger, J.P. Communist land policy in North Vietnam. Far East. Surv. 1959, 28, 113–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fforde, A. Coping with the State: Peasant Strategies in North Vietnam; Discussion Paper No. 155; Birkbeck, University of London: London, UK, 1984. [Google Scholar]
- Hendry, J.B. Land tenure in South Vietnam. Econ. Dev. Cult. Chang. 1960, 9, 27–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). World Rice Statistics 1987; IRRI: Los Banos, Philippines, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, T.T. The Impact of Land Reform on Farm Households in the Northern Uplands of Vietnam; Margraf Publishers: Weikersheim, Germany, 2008. [Google Scholar]
- Schlager, E.; Ostrom, E. Property-rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysis. Land Econ. 1992, 68, 249–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Libecap, G.D. Property rights in economic history: Implication for research. Explor. Econ. Hist. 1986, 23, 227–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Demsetz, H. Towards a theory of property rights. Am. Econ. Rev. 1967, 57, 347–359. [Google Scholar]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Land Tenure Studies 3: Land Tenure and Rural Development; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2002; Available online: http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y4307e/y4307e00.htm (accessed on 5 November 2015).
- Thiesenhusen, W. Review: Land reform lives. Eur. J. Dev. Res. 1995, 7, 193–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Montaner-Larson, J.B. An Economic Analysis of Land Titling in Honduras. Ph.D. Thesis, Worcester College, Oxford, UK, 1995. Available online: http://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:be8d5f2d-f676-45f1-8e3f-2b2a7f49b4e0 (accessed on 5 November 2015). [Google Scholar]
- Besley, T. Property rights and investment incentives: Theory and evidence from Ghana. J. Political Econ. 1995, 103, 903–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Platteau, J.P. The evolutionary theory of land rights as applied to Sub-Saharan Africa: A critical assessment. Dev. Chang. 1996, 27, 29–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, B.E.; Holland, M.B.; Naughton-Treves, L. Does secure land tenure save forests? A meta-analysis of the relationship between land tenure and tropical deforestation. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2014, 29, 281–293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sjaastad, E.; Cousins, B. Formalisation of land rights in the South: An overview. Land Use Policy 2008, 26, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kabubo-Mariara, J. Land conservation and tenure security in Kenya: Boserup’s hypothesis’s revisited. Ecol. Econ. 2007, 64, 25–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Place, F.; Migot-Adholla, S.E. The economic effects of land registration on smallholder farms in Kenya: Evidence from Nyeri and Kakamega districts. Land Econ. 1998, 74, 360–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.T. Land reform and farm land rental market operation in the northern uplands of Vietnam. Econ. Appl. Inform. 2009, 1, 153–160. [Google Scholar]
- Duangjai, W.; Schmidt-Vogt, D.; Shrestha, R.P. Farmers’ land use decision-making in the context of changing land and conservation policies: A case study of Doi Mae Salong in Chiang Rai Province, Northern Thailand. Land Use Policy 2015, 48, 179–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Marenya, P.; Barrett, C. Household-level determinants of adoption of improved natural resources management practices among smallholder farmers in western Kenya. Food Policy 2007, 32, 515–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lopez, R. Land Titles and Farm Productivity in Honduras; Unpublished Draft; University of Maryland, College Park: College Park, MD, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Carter, M.; Wiebe, K.; Blarel, B. Tenure Security for Whom? Differential Impacts of Land Policy in Kenya; Land Tenure Center Research Paper No. 106; University of Wisconsin-Madison: Madison, WI, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
- Hayes, J.; Roth, M.; Zepeda, L. Tenure security, investment and productivity in Gambian agriculture: A generalized probit analysis. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1997, 79, 369–382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Place, F.; Hazell, P. Productivity effects of indigenous land tenure systems in Sub-Saharan Africa. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1993, 75, 10–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nguyen, T.T.; Koellner, T.; Le, Q.B.; Lambini, C.L.; Choi, I.; Shin, H.; Pham, V.D. An economic analysis of reforestation with a native tree species: The case of Vietnamese farmers. Biodivers. Conserv. 2014, 23, 811–830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ayanu, Y.Z.; Nguyen, T.T.; Marohn, C.; Koellner, T. Crop production versus surface water regulation services: Assessing trade-offs for land use scenarios in the tat hamlet watershed of vietnam. Int. J. Biodivers. Sci. Ecosyst. Serv. Manag. 2011, 7, 231–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gomiero, T.; Pettenella, D.; Phan, T.G.; Paoletti, M.G. Vietnamese uplands: Environmental and socio-economic perspective of forest land allocation and deforestation process. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2000, 2, 119–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- State Planning Committee (SPC). Vietnam Living Standards Survey 1992–1993; SPC: Hanoi, Vietnam, 1994. [Google Scholar]
- General Statistics Office (GSO). Vietnam Living Standards Survey 1997–1998; GSO: Hanoi, Vietnam, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Baltagi, B.H. Economic Analysis of Panel Data, 1st ed.; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Hausman, J.A. Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica 1978, 46, 1251–1271. [Google Scholar]
- Thanh Nguyen, T.; Hoang, N.N.; Seo, B. Cost and environmental efficiency of rice farms in South Korea. Agric. Econ. 2012, 43, 369–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Madrid-Lopez, C.; Cadillo-Benalcazar, J.; Diaz-Maurin, F.; Kovacic, Z.; Serrano-Tovar, T.; Gomiero, T.; Giampietro, M.; Aspinall, R.; Ramos-Martin, J.; Bukkens, S.G.F. Punjab state, India. In Resource Accounting for Sustainability Assessment: The Nexus between Energy, Food, Water and Land Use; Giampietro, M., Aspinall, R., Ramos-Martin, J., Bukkens, S.G.F., Eds.; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 2014; pp. 181–193. [Google Scholar]
- Giampietro, M.; Richard, J.; Aspinall, R.; Bukkens, S.G.F.; Benalcazar, J.C.; Diaz-Maurin, F.; Flammini, A.; Gomiero, T.; Kovacic, Z.; Madrid, C.; et al. An Innovative Accounting Framework for the Food-Energy-Water Nexus: Application of the MuSIASEM Approach to Three Case Studies; Environment and Natural Resources Working Paper No. 56; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2013. [Google Scholar]
Characteristic | 1993 (1) | 1998 (2) | 2006 (3) | Test |
---|---|---|---|---|
HH size | 5.16 ** 2 *** 3 | 5.14 ** 1 | 4.72 *** 1 | 12.41 *** a |
(1.84) | (1.53) | (1.36) | ||
HH labor | 2.35 *** 2 *** 3 | 2.65 *** 1 *** 3 | 2.92 *** 1 *** 2 | 28.95 *** b |
(0.89) | (0.99) | (1.05) | ||
Dependency ratio | 1.31 ** 2 *** 3 | 1.08 **1 *** 3 | 0.77 *** 1 *** 2 | 41.53 *** b |
(0.80) | (0.65) | (0.70) | ||
Age (years) | 40.7 ** 2 *** 3 | 43.4 ** 1 *** 3 | 49.36 *** 1 *** 2 | 39.47 *** b |
(14.27) | (13.09) | (11.74) | ||
Education (years) | 5.92 | 6.12 | 6.19 | 0.08 a |
(2.42) | (2.42) | (2.37) | ||
Share of male heads (%) | 90 | 89 | 91 | 0.17 c |
(29.81) | (30.81) | (28.76) | ||
Share of minority heads (%) | 70 | 70 | 70 | 0.00 c |
(46.03) | (46.03) | (46.03) | ||
Asset value (million VND) | 2.64 *** 2 *** 3 | 4.32 *** 1 *** 3 | 6.72 *** 1 *** 2 | 180.31 *** b |
(0.86) | (1.98) | (3.28) | ||
Real non-farm income (million VND) | 0.63 *** 2 *** 3 | 1.64 *** 1 *** 3 | 2.94 *** 1 *** 2 | 93.80 *** b |
(0.81) | (1.53) | (3.53) | ||
Share of HHs with permanent non-farm income (%) | 8.27 | 6.02 * 3 | 12.78 * 2 | 3.85 c |
(27.65) | (23.87) | (33.52) |
Characteristic | 1993 (1) | 1998 (2) | 2006 (3) | Test |
---|---|---|---|---|
Privatized farm land (ha) | 0.28 * 2 *** 3 | 0.34 * 1 *** 3 | 0.40 *** 1 *** 2 | 24.190 *** |
(0.17) | (0.22) | (0.22) | ||
Claimed farm land (ha) | 0.41 *** 2 *** 3 | 0.29 *** 1 *** 3 | 0.15 *** 1 *** 2 | 55.878 *** |
(0.84) | (0.61) | (0.18) | ||
Total farm land (ha) | 0.69 | 0.63 | 0.55 | 1.939 |
(0.91) | (0.71) | (0.34) | ||
Farm land per capita (ha) | 0.13 | 0.12 | 0.12 | 2.379 |
(0.12) | (0.14) | (0.08) |
1993 | 1998 | 2006 | |
---|---|---|---|
Share of HHs with privatized farm land (%) | 100 | 100 | 100 |
(0.00) | (0.00) | (0.00) | |
Share of HHs with title for privatized farm land (%) | 0.00 | 69.92 | 90.23 |
(0.00) | (46.03) | (29.81) | |
Share of privatized land of a HH (%) | 51.40 | 67.19 | 79.12 |
(18.54) | (23.18) | (18.50) | |
Share of titled land of a HH (%) | 0.00 | 57.83 | 78.64 |
(0.00) | (32.70) | (20.84) |
1993 (1) | 1998 (2) | 2006 (3) | Test | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Share of HHs having cattle (%) | 71.43 | 66.92 | 72.93 | |
(45.35) | (47.23) | (44.60) | ||
No. of cattle per HH | 1.74 | 1.39 | 1.47 | 2.069 |
(2.20) | (1.57) | (1.72) | ||
Share of HHs having pigs (%) | 81.20 | 94.74 | 88.72 | |
(39.22) | (22.41) | (31.75) | ||
No. of pigs per HH | 1.63 *** 2 *** 3 | 3.41 *** 1 ** 3 | 4.62 *** 1 ** 2 | 77.308 *** |
(1.52) | (2.60) | (3.98) | ||
Manure use (ton/ha) | 1.31 *** 2 *** 3 | 3.27 *** 1 *** 3 | 6.17 *** 1 *** 2 | 191.685 *** |
(1.79) | (2.28) | (8.65) | ||
Input price index | 1.00 | 1.90 | 2.94 | |
(0.00) | (0.28) | (0.39) | ||
Output price index | 1.00 | 1.66 | 2.49 | |
(0.00) | (0.12) | (0.08) |
Random-Effects GLS Dependent Variable: Manure Quantity/ha (ln) | Full Model | Price-Excluded Model | Significant-Factor Model |
---|---|---|---|
No. of cattle and pigs (ln) | 0.045 *** (0.017) | 0.045 *** (0.017) | 0.043 *** (0.016) |
Dependency ratio (ln) | −0.008 (0.016) | −0.011 (0.016) | |
Education (ln) | 0.169 *** (0.031) | 0.172 *** (0.031) | 0.171 *** (0.026) |
Age (ln) | −0.079 (0.083) | −0.069 (0.083) | |
Ethnicity (Kinh = 1) | 0.263 *** (0.052) | 0.256 *** (0.052) | 0.261 *** (0.050) |
Gender (male = 1) | −0.084 (0.076) | −0.099 (0.076) | |
Farm land (ln) | −0.855 *** (0.042) | −0.861 *** (0.042) | −0.871 *** (0.041) |
Asset value (ln) | −0.001 (0.057) | 0.002 (0.057) | |
Non-farm income (ln) | −0.042 *** (0.012) | −0.044 *** (0.012) | −0.046 *** (0.011) |
Permanent non-farm income (yes = 1) | -0.052 (0.079) | −0.040 (0.078) | |
Privatized land share | 0.003 ** (0.001) | 0.003 ** (0.001) | 0.003 *** (0.001) |
Land title (yes = 1) | 0.200 *** (0.073) | 0.168 ** (0.072) | 0.174 ** (0.070) |
Input price index | 0.186 (0.114) | ||
Output price index | 0.536 * (0.286) | ||
Year 1998 dummy (yes = 1) | 0.406 * (0.236) | 0.944 *** (0.072) | 0.938 *** (0.071) |
Year 2006 dummy (yes = 1) | 0.336 (0.502) | 1.511 *** (0.090) | 1.499 *** (0.085) |
Province 2 dummy (yes = 1) | −0.090 (0.074) | −0.148 ** (0.070) | −0.159 ** (0.068) |
Province 3 dummy (yes = 1) | −0.061 (0.073) | −0.067 (0.073) | −0.073 (0.072) |
Province 4 dummy (yes = 1) | 0.008 (0.082) | −0.019 (0.080) | −0.021 (0.078) |
Province 5 dummy (yes = 1) | −0.058 (0.094) | 0.009 (0.083) | 0.014 (0.079) |
Constant | −1.727 *** (0.464) | −1.054 *** (0.360) | −1.414 *** (0.103) |
Wald-chi2 | 2267 | 2238 | 2246 |
Prob. > chi2 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
R2 within | 0.85 | 0.85 | 0.85 |
R2 between | 0.86 | 0.86 | 0.87 |
R2 overall | 0.86 | 0.85 | 0.85 |
© 2016 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons by Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Nguyen, T.T.; Bauer, S.; Grote, U. Does Land Tenure Security Promote Manure Use by Farm Households in Vietnam? Sustainability 2016, 8, 178. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020178
Nguyen TT, Bauer S, Grote U. Does Land Tenure Security Promote Manure Use by Farm Households in Vietnam? Sustainability. 2016; 8(2):178. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020178
Chicago/Turabian StyleNguyen, Trung Thanh, Siegfried Bauer, and Ulrike Grote. 2016. "Does Land Tenure Security Promote Manure Use by Farm Households in Vietnam?" Sustainability 8, no. 2: 178. https://doi.org/10.3390/su8020178