IFPRI Discussion Paper 01696

December 2017

Adoption of Sustainable Intensification Practices

Evidence from Maize-legume Farming Systems in Tanzania

Beliyou Haile

Cindy Cox

Carlo Azzarri

Jawoo Koo

Environment and Production Technology Division

INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY RESEARCH INSTITUTE
The International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), established in 1975, provides evidence-based
policy solutions to sustainably end hunger and malnutrition and reduce poverty. The Institute conducts
research, communicates results, optimizes partnerships, and builds capacity to ensure sustainable food
production, promote healthy food systems, improve markets and trade, transform agriculture, build
resilience, and strengthen institutions and governance. Gender is considered in all of the Institute’s work.
IFPRI collaborates with partners around the world, including development implementers, public
institutions, the private sector, and farmers’ organizations, to ensure that local, national, regional, and
global food policies are based on evidence.

AUTHORS
Beliyou Haile (b.haile@cgiar.org) is a Research Fellow in the Environment and Production Technology
Division of the International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA.
Cindy Cox (c.cox@cgiar.org) is a Technical Writer in the Environment and Production Technology
Division of the International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA.
Carlo Azzarri (c.azzarri@cgiar.org) is a Research Fellow in the Environment and Production Technology
Division of the International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA.
Jawoo Koo (j.koo@cgiar.org) is a Senior Research Fellow in the Environment and Production Technology
Division of the International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA.

Notices
1
IFPRI Discussion Papers contain preliminary material and research results and are circulated in order to stimulate discussion and
critical comment. They have not been subject to a formal external review via IFPRI’s Publications Review Committee. Any opinions
stated herein are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily representative of or endorsed by the International Food Policy
Research Institute.

2
The boundaries and names shown and the designations used on the map(s) herein do not imply official endorsement or
acceptance by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) or its partners and contributors.

3
Copyright remains with the authors.

ii
 Contents

Abstract v
Acknowledgments vi
Acronyms vii
1. Introduction 1
2. Data and Descriptive Summary 3
3. Multivariate Analyses 11
4. Results and Discussion 14
5. Conclusions 24
References 26

iii
 Tables

Table 2.1 Plot-level adoption of SIPs 5

Table 2.2 Descriptive summary of conditioning variables 10
Table 4.1 Description of farm types 15
Table 4.2 Correlates of SIP adoption (multivariate probit) 19
Table 4.3 Correlates of intensity of SIP adoption (ordered probit) 23

Figures

Figure 2.1 Farming systems 5

Figure 2.2 Most commonly adopted SIPs 6
Figure 2.3 Number of SIPs applied per plot 7
Figure 4.1 Summary of selected SI indicators by farm types 16
Figure 4.2 Adoption of individual SIPs by farm type 17
Figure 4.3 Intensity of SIP adoption by farm type (out of six SIPs) 18

iv
 ABSTRACT

Ensuring nutritionally adequate food supply in Africa south of the Sahara requires the sustainable
intensification (SI) of its agricultural sector, especially in the face of expected population growth and
climatic changes. In turn, this necessitates expanding the suite of integrated technological options at hand.
Using primary data from Tanzania, this study examines the correlates and likely determinants of the
adoption of six SI practices (SIPs)‒improved cultivars, cereal-legume intercropping, crop rotation,
organic fertilizer, contour ploughing, and leguminous trees. Adoption is examined across different farm
types we develop addressing five SI domains‒productivity, environmental sustainability, social
sustainability, economic sustainability, and human wellbeing. Multivariate and ordered probit models are
estimated to examine the correlates of adoption of individual SIPs as well as adoption intensity, the latter
measured by the count of SIPs applied per plot. Adoption rates are the highest (lowest) for farm types that
score the highest (lowest) based on selected SI indicators. Average household education, access to
agricultural extension services, and land ownership are positively correlated with adoption intensity,
while fertile soils, homestead‒plot travel time, and drier agro-ecologies are all negatively correlated with
the adoption intensity.

Keywords: sustainable intensification, technology adoption, farm typology, probit, Tanzania

v
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was undertaken as part of the CGIAR Research Program on Policies, Institutions, and Markets
(PIM) led by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI). Funding support for this study was
provided by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through the African
Research In Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation (Africa RISING) program and through
Cooperative Agreement No. AID-OAA-L-14-00006 (via sub-award #S15115) between Kansas State
University and the University of California (Davis campus) in support of the project entitled “Geospatial
and Farming Systems Consortium.”
The opinions expressed here belong to the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of PIM,
IFPRI, CGIAR, USAID, or Africa RISING program managers. We thank David J. Spielman for his
invaluable feedback on an earlier version of the paper.

vi
 ACRONYMS

ARBES Africa RISING Baseline Evaluation Survey

IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute
GHK Geweke–Hajivassiliou–Keane
ML Maximum likelihood
RISING Research In Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation
SDG Sustainable Development Goals
SI Sustainable intensification
SIPs Sustainable intensification practices
SML Simulated maximum likelihood
SSA Africa south of the Sahara
TLU Tropical livestock unit
USAID United States Agency for International Development

vii
 1. INTRODUCTION

Population growth, rising competition for resources, and climate change pose serious development

challenges in Africa south of the Sahara (SSA) and other developing regions. Sustainable intensification

(SI) of agriculture has been recognized as a necessary intervention to improve food and nutrition security

as well as ecosystem services. SI aims to improve resource-use efficiency, while producing more food

from the same resources and enhancing beneficial environmental and social services (Garnett et al., 2013;

Pretty et al., 2011; Smith et al., 2016). SI offers a departure from the longstanding paradigm of

agricultural development that narrowly focuses on enhancing yields, particularly in poorer regions that

face chronic food and nutrition insecurity (Campbell et al., 2014).

Broadly defined, sustainable intensification practices (SIPs) may include various inputs and

practices such as prudent use of chemical fertilizers, improved crop cultivars, soil and water

conservation, cereal-legume intercropping, crop rotation, and agroforestry (D’Souza et al., 1993; Lee,

2005). The term is neither prescriptive nor defined by a single innovation or set of practices; rather, it

provides a conceptual framework for achieving balanced outcomes across different dimensions of

sustainability (Smith et al., 2016). As such, measuring SI requires a multi-dimensional framework woven

together by strands of different but interconnected disciplines.

Accelerating the adoption of SIPs is fundamental to enhance productivity, preserve the

environment, improve food and nutrition security, and spur overall economic growth in SSA. However,

the adoption rate of these technologies has remained chronically low in the region (Foster and

Rosenzweig, 2010; Sheahan and Barrett, 2017; Suri, 2011). Several factors are responsible for suboptimal

adoption including liquidity constraints, imperfect (input, financial, and output) markets, informational

constraints, and risk aversion (Dercon and Christiaensen, 2011; D’Souza et al., 1993; Foster and

Rosenzweig, 2010; Jack, 2013; Meijer et al., 2015; Moser and Barrett, 2006).

The bulk of the adoption studies focus on one or two technologies, with improved cultivars and

chemical fertilizers being the most common. However, and with the increased focus on SI, more and

1
more studies are analyzing adoption correlates of multiple SIPs and possible interdependence between

adoption decisions (Kassie et al., 2015, 2013; Ndiritu et al., 2014; Teklewold et al., 2013).

This paper explores the correlates of the adoption of six SIPs in Tanzania—use of improved

cultivars, cereal‒legume intercropping1, crop rotation, organic fertilizer, contour ploughing2, and

leguminous trees.3 Use of improved cultivars is based on self-reported data and takes a value of one if all

the crops grown on the plot are improved varieties.4 The unit of analysis is the plot level (versus

household), considering potential biophysical benefits of input complementarities. A recent cross-country

study finds that a relatively small share of farm households that adopt multiple technologies tend to use

them across plots versus on single plots, experiencing potential yield losses (Sheahan and Barrett, 2017).

We assess both the correlates of adoption of individual SIPs and adoption intensity, the latter

measured by the number of SIPs applied per plot. To better capture the heterogeneity in farming systems

and adoption decisions, we develop a farm typology addressing the five SI domains discussed in Smith et

al. (2016) ‒ productivity, environment sustainability, economics sustainability, as well as social and

human wellbeing. Access to credit, agricultural extension services, and land tenure increase the likely

adoption of one or more of the SIPs while fertile soils, travel time (to plots and basic services) and drier

agro-ecologies have the opposite effect. SIP adoption, especially of cereal-legume intercropping and

organic fertilizer, is the highest among farm households that perform the best along the five SI domains.

The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes and summarizes data used for

the empirical analyses. Section 3 outlines the identification strategy. Section 4 presents and discusses the

results. Section 6 concludes the paper.

1 Intercropping is a relatively inexpensive technology that improves soils while minimizing fertilizer costs (Snapp and Silim,

2002).
2 Contour ploughing is a practice of ploughing and/or planting across a slope following its elevation contour lines to prevent

soil erosion. Other crucial inputs such as chemical fertilizers, irrigation, and minimum tillage are excluded from this study due to
their limited use in our sample (less than 3 percent).
3 Leguminous trees include Calliandra callothyrsus, Leucaena leucocephala, Morus alba, Sesebania sesban, and Casuarina

equisetifolia and are grown in different management systems with maize.

4It is worth noting that self-reported data on improved cultivars can be prone to measurement error.

2
 2. DATA AND DESCRIPTIVE SUMMARY

Primary data for this study was collected from Tanzania as part of an agricultural research program called

Africa Research In Sustainable Intensification for the Next Generation (Africa RISING). This cross-

country program was started in 2011 and covers Mali, Ghana, Malawi, Tanzania, Zambia, and Ethiopia.

Through participatory action research, the program tests alternative innovations to identify successful and

scalable options for sustainable intensification of core farming systems in SSA. The program is funded by

the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) as part of the U.S. government’s global

hunger and food security initiative‒Feed the Future.

As of 2014, the Tanzania program was being implemented in three districts– Babati and Kiteto

districts in Manyara region and Kongwa district in Dodoma region. Africa RISING Baseline Evaluation

Survey (ARBES) was implemented between February and March of 2014 to collect baseline data from 25

villages and 810 households (IFPRI, 2015).5 The ARBES sample includes four study groups: 1) all Africa

RISING beneficiary households (as of January 2014) in seven villages, selected by program implementers

to test various improved maize and groundnut cultivars as well as intercropping (maize‒legume and

legume‒legume) (Group 1), 2) households from three villages of Babati district who attended a

demonstration day in June 2013 and got recruited into a study on the willingness to pay for improved

agricultural technologies (Group 2); 3) a random sample of households from program villages who were

not direct program beneficiaries (Group 3); and 4) a random sample of households from 18 non-program

villages with similar agro-ecological condition as program villages (Group 4).

This unique design was motivated by the need to collect data for measuring both the impact of

program technologies (through the comparison of agro-economic outcomes of Groups 1 and 4) and

possible program spillovers (through comparison of Groups 3 and 4). While the non-random selection of

households in Groups 1 and 2 can potentially compromise the internal and external validity of impact

estimates, the focus here is to characterize the observed differences within and across groups versus

5 Additional details about Africa RISING program can be found here (http://africa-rising.wikispaces.com/).

3
establishing attribution. ARBES contains detailed socioeconomic and agricultural data, the latter referring

to the growing period October 2012 to September 2013. Data on input use and agricultural practices were

collected at the plot level, while information on soil characteristics, ownership rights, and proximity to the

homestead were collected at the parcel level. Here, a parcel represents a contiguous piece of land, while a

plot represents a portion of a parcel with potentially unique agricultural practices and crop(s).

Households often manage fragmented plots with varying proximity to the homestead and

heterogenous management responsibility by household members. As such, household’s adoption

decisions can vary across plots (Ndiritu et al., 2014). In order to capture this, and given the importance of

maize, our analysis is restricted to 1365 maize plots owned by 771 households. Our cross-sectional data

reflect a snapshot of the application of SIPs (versus their adoption) and we do not know the history,

timeline, or extent to which the SIPs of interest have been applied at different times (before and after data

collection). But we wittingly use the terms adoption and use interchangeably throughout the paper.

As summarized in Figure 2.1, 15 unique combinations of crops were grown at maize growing

households during the reference period, representing diverse farming systems. In terms of the most

common combinations, about 27 percent reported combining maize with bean and pigeon pea, followed

by 16 percent combining maize with bean, and 12 percent growing sole maize. Table 2.1 summarizes

provides a summary of the SIPs we study. Organic fertilizer was the most common SIP applied on 46

percent of the plots, followed by cereal-legume intercropping (37 percent) and contour ploughing (22

percent). Livestock manure provides the bulk of organic fertilizer. Adoption rate of leguminous trees is

the smallest, although they not only help improve poor soils and prevent erosion, but also provide shade

and fodder for livestock and biomass for fertilizer.

4
Figure 2.1 Farming systems

maize, bean, pigeonpea 26.8

maize, bean 15.8
maize 12.3
maize, bean, irish potato 7.2
maize, pigeonpea, bean,sunflower 6.8
maize, sunflower 4.9
maize, pigeonpea, sunflower 3.7
maize, pigeonpea 3.6
maize, sorghum 2.7
maize, sunflower, groundnut 2.6
maize, groundnut 1.8
maize, irish potato 1.8
maize, bean, sunflower 1.4
maize, bean, pigeonpea, sorghum 1.2
maize, bean, sorghum 1.0

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28
Percent of households

Source: Authors’ calculation based on IFPRI (2015).

Note: Crops grown by less than one percent of the sample are not shown.

Table 2.1 Plot-level adoption of SIPs

Mean Standard deviation

Used improved cultivars (%) 0.12 (0.33)
Practiced cereal-legume intercropping (%) 0.37 (0.48)
Practiced rotation (%) 0.15 (0.36)
Practiced contour ploughing (%) 0.22 (0.41)
Applied organic fertilizer (%) 0.46 (0.50)
Owned leguminous trees (%) 0.12 (0.33)
Number of plots 1365
Number of households 771
Source: Authors’ calculation based on IFPRI (2015).

Figure 2.2 shows a plot-level summary of the six SIPs of interest. Organic fertilizer with

intercropping, organic fertilizer, intercropping, and contour ploughing are the four most commonly

5
adopted SIPs, with adoption rate ranging between 5.5 and 12 percent. Improved cultivars, crop rotation

and various bundles of contouring, organic fertilizer, and leguminous trees make up relatively low and

near-equal percentages.

Figure 2.2 Most commonly adopted SIPs

organic, inter. 12.2

organic 12.1
inter. 10.3
contour 5.5
imp. cult. 3.8
organic, imp. cult. 2.9
contour, inter. 2.8
rotation 2.7
leg. trees, organic 2.3
leg. trees, organic, inter. 2.1
organic, contour 2.1
organic, contour, inter. 1.8
organic, rotation 1.7
contour, rotation 1.6
leg. trees 1.5
leg. trees, inter. 1.2
organic, rotation, inter. 1.2
organic, contour, rotation, inte 1.1
organic, contour, rotation 1.1
rotation, inter. 1.1
contour, imp. cult. 1.0

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Percent of plots
Source: Authors’ calculation based on IFPRI (2015).
Note: Organic = organic fertilizer, inter. = cereal-legume intercropping, imp. cult. = improved cultivars, contour = contour
ploughing, leg. trees = leguminous tress. SIPs adopted on less than one percent of the plots not shown.

Figure 2.3 summarizes the intensity of adoption, measured by the count of SIPs applied per plot.

None of the six SIPs were applied on about 20 percent of the plots; about a third of the plots had at most

two SIPs; four or five SIPs were applied on about 3 percent of the plots; and no plot had all six SIPs. In a

study in Tanzania, Kassie et al. (2015) find the probability of adopting three or more SIPs, including

maize-legume diversification, minimum tillage, improved maize cultivars, to be about 5 percent. When

measuring the intensity of adoption in the subsequent analysis, the values of the ordered outcome variable

range between zero (no SIP) and four (four or five SIPs).

6
Figure 2.3 Number of SIPs applied per plot

3.4%
10.5% 19.9%

30.9%

35.3%

None One Two Three Four or five

Source: Authors’ calculation based on IFPRI (2015).

For the multivariate analysis, we construct a number of conditioning variables guided by recent

empirical findings (e.g., Asfaw et al., 2012; Kassie et al., 2015, 2013; Ndiritu et al., 2014; Teklewold et

al., 2013). The plot- and parcel-specific characteristics we control include land tenure, soil erosion status,

soil fertility, and travel time between the parcel and the homestead. Soil fertility is measured by self-

reported soil type (clay/loam versus coarser soils, the former having higher water holding capacity) and

soil color (black/brown—indicating higher organic matter and fertility as well as less weathering—versus

red/grey). Tenure security can encourage long-term investments, including on trees (Gebremedhin and

Swinton, 2003). Relative to fields near the homestead, those farther away could not only receive less

attention and monitoring but may end up benefiting less from (bulky) products such as manure and other

organic fertilizers due to transportation challenges.

Women often have less access to critical production factors, face liquidity constraints and are

often discriminated against in terms of information and land tenure (Ndiritu et al., 2014). Plots managed

by women may be less likely to have certain technologies if, for example, the technologies are more labor

intensive and require the ownership of other and often male-dominated assets (e.g., large ruminants).

Ndiritu et al. (2014) find that women-managed plots in Kenya are less likely to use minimum tillage and

7
animal manure. While older household heads may lack the energy and long-term planning and be more

risk adverse than their younger counterparts, they may have more physical and social capital, as well as

farming experience. Better educated households are generally more poised to adopt new technologies than

less educated ones, presumably due to better access to and ability to process information. To capture these

aspects, we control for age and gender of the household head, average adult education, and whether the

plot was partly managed by females.

In general, wealthier households may have more liquidity for timely purchase of inputs while

poorer farmers may rely more on formal and informal sources of credit and other incentives such as

subsidies (Kassie et al., 2015; Lee, 2005). We measure household wealth using the following variables‒

per capita land holding, livestock ownership (in Tropical Livestock Units‒TLU), durable assets-based

wealth index6, and access to credit, the latter measured using an indicator for whether the household has

applied for and received a loan of at least 10,000 shillings in the preceding year.

Another potential determinant of technology adoption is market access, as famers rely on

informational trade flows and transaction costs, as well as time-sensitive agricultural inputs and outlets

for their products (Guo and Cox, 2014). Potentially important for technology adoption is also access to

information about agricultural technologies and practices and other extension services (Ragasa, 2012). To

capture these dimensions, we control for two variables ‒ market access, measured using an index of self-

reported travel time to various basic services (including motorable road, primary and secondary schools,

and daily and weekly markets) through the usual mode of transport, and whether the household has

received advice in the preceding year from various sources (e.g., friends and neighbors, model farmers,

farmers’ groups, as well as extension agents).

Production risks, such as extreme weather events or pests and diseases, are relatively neglected in

the adoption literature (Kassie et al., 2015). It has long been argued that food insecure subsistence farmers

may tend to minimize exposure to risks by avoiding new technologies and practices, especially in the face

6 This index is constructed using factor analysis (principal-component factor method) following Filmer and Pritchett (2001),

based on household’s ownership of various agricultural and household durable assets as well as the quality of dwelling condition.

8
of imperfect insurance markets (Dercon and Christiaensen, 2011; Kurosaki and Fafchamps, 2002). In this

study, we control for whether the household was concerned about food shortage during the week before

the survey and the number of negative shocks experienced in the preceding year. Negative shocks include

both agricultural (e.g., drought or flooding, crop pests and livestock diseases, spikes in input prices) and

non-agricultural (e.g., death or chronic illness of family member or conflicts).

A descriptive summary of the conditioning variables is summarized in Table 2.2. Most of the

study parcels are characterized by relatively nutrient-poor, clay/loam soils, with relatively high share of

households owning land (86 percent); two-third of the plots are partly managed by females. Travel time to

about 22 percent of the plots is more than 30 minutes. About 12 percent of the households are headed by

females with the average household having six years of adult education and three working age (15‒65

years old) members. About 90 percent of study households own livestock, with an average TLU of 3.7. A

quarter and a third of the sample report receiving a loan and agricultural extension services, respectively,

with 15 percent reportedly concerned about food shortage during the reference period.

9
Table 2.2 Descriptive summary of conditioning variables

Mean Standard deviation

Plot-level characteristics
Plot size (hectare) 1.04 (1.55)
Plot affected by soil erosion (%) 0.12 (0.33)
Plot partly under female responsibility (%) 0.63 (0.48)
Parcel-level characteristics
Parcel size (hectare) 1.12 (1.73)
Parcel has clay/loam soil (%) 0.67 (0.47)
Parcel has black/brown soil (%) 0.25 (0.43)
Household owns the parcel (%) 0.86 (0.34)
Travel time to parcel >30 minutes (%) 0.22 (0.41)
Household-level characteristics
Household size 6.41 (2.79)
Female household head (%) 0.12 (0.33)
Age of the head (years) 47.0 (14.14)
Mean years of education in the household 6.24 (2.57)
Number of working age members (15-65) 3.19 (1.64)
Received a loan (last year) (%) 0.26 (0.44)
Received agricultural extension services (last year) (%) 0.32 (0.46)
Per capita land holding (hectare) 0.57 (1.25)
Owns livestock (%) 0.90 (0.30)
Total Tropical Livestock Units (TLU) 4.15 (4.18)
Asset-based wealth (index) -1.2e-09 (1.00)
Distance to basic services (index) -2.4e-09 (1.00)
Concerned about food shortage (7-days) (%) 0.15 (0.35)
Number of negative shocks (last year) 0.62 (0.82)
Districts
Babati (%) 0.79 (0.41)
Kongwa (%) 0.16 (0.37)
Kiteto (%) 0.052 (0.22)
Number of plots 1365
Number of households 771
Source: Authors’ calculation based on IFPRI (2015).

10
 3. MULTIVARIATE ANALYSES

Farming systems in SSA are highly heterogenous and smallholders facing diverse set of opportunities and

challenges (Dixon et al., 2001) that may shape their adoption decisions. One approach to get better

insights about these diversities and help identify potential entry points for improving the effectiveness of

innovations and policies is through farm typologies (Alvarez et al., 2014). To examine potential

heterogeneity in SIF adoption and subsequent agronomic and development outcomes, we follow Smith et

al., (2016) and develop a farm typology that encompasses five SI domains‒ productivity, economic

sustainability, environmental sustainability, social sustainability and human wellbeing.

While the idea of SI has gained increased prominence in recent years, there is no consensus on

how best to measure it and some SI domains (e.g., productivity) are relatively easier to measure others

(e.g., social sustainability). The mapping between specific indicators and SI domains can also be

ambiguous, since an indicator can be relevant for multiple SI domains, especially indirectly or in a

dynamic setting. Since we would like to examine SIP adoption rate by farm types, the six SIPs of focus

are excluded from the set of variables used for the typology. We combine factor and cluster analyses

(Cunningham and Maloney, 1999; Harman, 1976) to construct farm types based of rich micro data in

ARBES.

Factor analysis (principal-component factors method) is first used to select the most important

variables that explain the largest portion of ARBES data variation per SI domain. Factors with eigenvalue

values greater than one are retained and, for each retained factor, all variables with a factor load of at least

0.5 (in absolute value) are selected. Next, principal component analysis (PCA) is used to further reduce

the dimensionality of the data by identifying the (continuous) principal components (PCs) that jointly

explain 90 percent of the total variation. Finally, the K-medians clustering algorithm is applied on the

selected PCs to generate four farm types. It is worth noting that unlike the variables summarized in Table

2.2, the reference period for the data used to construct the typologies covers both before adoption

11
decisions were made (e.g., plot characteristics) and afterwards (e.g., yields and household dietary

diversity).

To examine the correlates of SIP adoption, two complementary estimators are used. The first is

based on the latent variable model described in Equation (1).

∗
𝑌𝑝𝑗 = 𝚽𝑗 ′ 𝑿𝑝𝑗 + 𝜀𝑝𝑗 (1)

∗
where 𝑗 (𝑗 = 1, …, J) and 𝑝 (𝑝 = 1, …, N) are indices for SIP and plot; 𝑌𝑝𝑗 is the underlying

latent propensity to apply 𝑗 on 𝑝; 𝑿 is a matrix of plot-, parcel- and household-level socioeconomic and

biophysical variables summarized in Table 2.2. Adoption decision is allowed to be correlated across j,

with the model’s error terms – 𝜀𝑝𝑗 –assumed to have a multivariate normal distribution with mean zero

and variance-covariance 𝚺. The constituents of 𝚺 are given by 𝜌𝑗𝑘 (∀ j, k ∈ J) such that 𝜌𝑗𝑗 measures the

error variance of model 𝑗 (constrained to one) and 𝜌𝑗𝑘 (= 𝜌𝑘𝑗 ) is the covariance between 𝜀𝑘 and 𝜀𝑗 so that

−1 ≤ 𝜌𝑗𝑘 < 0 if 𝑘 and 𝑗 are substitutes, 0 < 𝜌𝑗𝑘 ≤ 1 if they are complements, and 𝜌𝑗𝑘 = 0 if they are

independent.

The multivariate model for the observed SIP outcomes is given by Equation (2) (omitting plot

subscripts).

1 𝑖𝑓 𝑌𝑗∗ > 0
𝑌𝑗 = { (∀ j=1, …, J) (2)
0 𝑖𝑓 𝑌𝑗∗ ≤ 0

Given the six SIPs, there are 32 joint probabilities corresponding to the possible combinations of

successes (𝑌𝑗 = 1) and failures (𝑌𝑗 = 0), which form the basis for the log-likelihood function shown in

Equation (3) (see Greene, 2017 for a general discussion) assuming the same parameter vectors across

models.

𝐿𝑝 = Φ𝐽 (𝑘𝑝1 𝚽1 ′ 𝑿, … , 𝑘𝑝𝐽 𝚽𝐽 ′ 𝑿; 𝚺 ′ ) (3)

′
where 𝑘𝑝𝑗 = 2𝑌𝑝𝑗 − 1 and 𝚺𝑗𝑘 = 𝑘𝑝𝑗 𝑘𝑝𝑘 𝜌𝑗𝑘

12
 Equation (3) is estimated using simulated maximum likelihood (SML) through the Geweke–

Hajivassiliou–Keane (GHK) smooth recursive conditioning simulator (Cappellari and Jenkins, 2003,

2006; Green, 2003). The J-dimensional normal integrals of the log likelihood function are solved based

on 50 replications, a little above the square root of the sample size to minimize simulation bias

(Hajivassiliou and McFadden1998).

The second estimator identifies the correlates of adoption intensity‒measured by the number of

SIPs applied per plot – 𝐾 (K=0, 1, 2, …, J) based on the ordered index model shown in Equation (4)

(omitting plot subscripts).

𝐾 ∗ = 𝚲′ 𝑿 + 𝜉 (4)

where the latent variable 𝐾 ∗ and the series of thresholds (𝜃) determine the observed intensity of

adoption as shown in Equation (5); the other variables are as defined before; and 𝜉𝑝 is assumed to be

normally distributed across observations.

0 𝑖𝑓 − ∞ < 𝐾 ∗ ≤ 𝜃0
𝐾 = { 𝐾 𝑖𝑓 𝜃𝑘−1 < 𝐾 ∗ ≤ 𝜃𝑘 ∀ (𝐾 = 1, … , 𝐽 − 1) (5)
𝐽 𝑖𝑓 𝜃𝐽−1 < 𝐾 ∗ < +∞

The model parameters (𝚲′s and 𝜃’s) are estimated using maximum likelihood (ML) (Greene,

2017) and we report marginal effects on the predicted probabilities given by Equation (6).

− 𝜙(𝚲′𝑿)𝚲 𝑖𝑓 𝐾 = 0
∂Pr[𝐾=𝑘|.]
∂𝑿
= {{𝜙(−𝚲′𝑿) − 𝜙(𝜃𝑘 − 𝚲′𝑿)}𝚲 𝑖𝑓 𝐾 = 1, … , 𝐽 − 1 (6)
𝜙(𝜃𝑘 − 𝚲′𝑿)𝚲 𝑖𝑓 𝐾 = 𝐽

where Pr[𝐾 = 𝑘|. ] (∀ 𝑘) are conditional probabilities, 𝑿 contains continuous conditioning

∂Pr[𝐾=𝑘]
variables such that ∑𝑘 { ∂𝑿
} equals zero; 𝜙(. ) is the standard normal density function. For each

dichotomous variable 𝑘, the marginal effect is given by the differences in the predicted probabilities of

success and failure. Robust standard errors from all regression are clustered at the household level to

account for intra-household correlations.

13
 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

SIP adoption by farm types

Table 4.1 describes the characteristics of the four farm types we created that range from relatively the

most disadvantaged (Type I, 30 percent of the sample) to the most well-off (Type IV, 21 percent of the

sample). Type IV households have a better standing along the five SI domains while the opposite is true

for Type I household. For example, maize yield for Type IV is about three tons per hectare, twice that of

Type I. In terms of human wellbeing, about 30 percent of Type I households report worrying about food

shortage in the preceding week, five times more than that for Type IV households. Similarly, the average

household dietary diversity score, constructed based on the 12 food groups from the Food and Nutrition

Technical Assistance III Project (FANTA)7, is 6.6 and 8.9 for Types I and IV households, respectively.

Household-level dietary diversity is found to be positively correlated with the macro- and micro-nutrient

adequacy of children and adolescents (Kennedy et al., 2013). Some of the distinguishing features of

Types II and III include better market access (Type II) and higher likelihood of having female and older

household heads (Type III).

7 The 12 food groups are based on FANTA food groups (Swindale and Bilinsky, 2006).

14
Table 4.1 Description of farm types

Farm types Farm characteristics

Low endowment (livestock and education); poor quality dwelling condition; least likely
Type I to use communal or hired labor, high share of woman-managed plots; the youngest
(30 percent) household heads; least likely to own fertile (clay/loam soil) plots; faces soil erosion;
least productive and market-oriented; least food and nutrition secure
Low endowment (land and livestock); average education; the most access to markets;
Type II most likely to use communal or hired labor; own fertile (clay/loam soil) plots; practice
(22 percent) intercropping; average productivity; high market orientation; average food and nutrition
security
Average endowment (land and livestock); low quality dwelling condition; the least
Type III educated; low ownership of fertile (clay/loam soil) plots; low productivity, the least
(27 perecent) access to markets; more likely to be headed by females and older heads; above-average
food and nutrition security

Highest endowment (land, livestock, and education); better quality dwelling condition;
more likely to combine farming with livestock and practice intercropping as well as to
Type IV
purchase improve seeds; highest share of woman-managed livestock; more likely to own
(21 percent)
fertile (clay/loam soil) plots; the most productive, high market-orientation; the most
food and nutrition secure

The radar chart in Figure 4.1 summarizes the five SI domains by farm type using the following

indicators ‒maize yield (productivity), per capita household consumption expenditure (economic), share

of parcels with clay/loam soil (versus sand/silt) (environmental), membership in farmers’ research groups

(social), and household dietary diversity score (human). The farm types, especially Types III and IV,

distinctly differ from each other across all the domains, while the difference between Types I and II

appear to depend on the domain of focus suggesting possible trade-offs.

15
Figure 4.1 Summary of selected SI indicators by farm types

productivity

human economic
sustainablity sustainablity

-1.2

-.6

.6

1.2

1.8
social environmental
sustainability sustainability

Type I Type II Type III Type IV

Source: Authors’ calculation based on IFPRI (2015).

Note: Productivity measured by maize yield; economic sustainability measured by per capita total household consumption
expenditure (proxy for agricultural income); environmental sustainability measured share of parcels with clay/loam soil; social
sustainability measured by indicator for being a member of farmers’ research group; human sustainability measured by household
dietary diversity score based on FANTA 12 food groups.

When examining SIP adoption across farm types, we observe a pecking order in adoption rate,

from the highest (Type IV) to the lowest (Type I) (Figure 4.2). The polygon for Type I covers a smaller

area, suggesting the lowest adoption. As summarized in Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1, Type I farms are worse

of along several SI indictors, including endowments (landholdings and livestock), cereal yields,

agricultural income (proxied by per capita household expenditure), and market orientation (measured by

the share of harvest that was sold). On the other hand, Type IV farms have the highest adoption rate,

represented by the outermost polygon, especially for cereal-legume intercropping and organic fertilizer

(about 50 percent adoption rate each). Adoption of improved cultivars is relatively limited across the

board.

16
Figure 4.2 Adoption of individual SIPs by farm type

improved cultivars

leguminous crop
trees rotation

.1

.2

.3
cereal-legume contour
intercropping .4
ploughing

.5

.6
organic fertilizer
Type I Type II Type III Type IV
Center is at 0

Source: Authors’ calculation based on IFPRI (2015).

When examining adoption intensity by type, Types I and II are more likely to be non-adopters or

adopt just one SIP while Types III and IV are far more likely to adopt two or three SIPs (Figure 4.3).

17
Figure 4.3 Intensity of SIP adoption by farm type (out of six SIPs)

None

Four One
or five

.1

.2

.3

.4

.5
Three Two
Type I Type II Type III Type IV
Center is at 0

Regression results
Coefficient estimates from the multivariate probit model are shown in Table 4.2, along with estimates of

the pair-wise error correlation coefficients. A likelihood ratio test rejects the null hypothesis that the 15

cross-equation error correlations are jointly equal to zero, justifying the multivariate model. Compared to

SIPs in columns 4-6 (contour ploughing, organic fertilizer, and leguminous trees), SIPs in columns 1-3

(improved cultivars, cereal-legume intercropping, and rotation) have fewer covariates significantly

correlated with adoption.

18
Table 4.2 Correlates of SIP adoption (multivariate probit)
Improved Cereal-legume Rotation Contour Organic Leguminous
cultivars intercropping ploughing fertilizers trees
coef se coef se coef se coef se coef se coef se
1 2 3 4 5 6
Female household head -0.380* 0.207 0.115 0.120 0.168 0.163 -0.113 0.170 -0.071 0.137 -0.172 0.166
Age of the head 0.015 0.024 0.011 0.016 -0.013 0.026 0.011 0.023 0.005 0.021 0.041* 0.025
Age of the head squared -0.000 0.000 -0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.000 0.000 -0.000 0.000 -0.000 0.000
Average years of education 0.018 0.026 0.002 0.019 0.007 0.027 0.002 0.024 0.052*** 0.020 0.027 0.025
Number of working age members (15-
-0.022 0.041 0.017 0.028 -0.011 0.046 0.010 0.037 0.009 0.030 -0.032 0.037
65)
Parcel has clay/loam soil -0.235** 0.115 0.062 0.086 -0.159 0.118 0.348*** 0.121 0.048 0.094 -0.146 0.111
Parcel has black/brown soil 0.150 0.105 -0.171* 0.089 0.059 0.106 -0.214** 0.103 -0.209** 0.093 0.103 0.112
Plot affected by soil erosion 0.046 0.135 -0.023 0.109 -0.081 0.143 0.163 0.128 0.283** 0.113 0.120 0.142
Received a loan (last year) -0.150 0.136 0.012 0.093 0.420*** 0.126 0.250* 0.129 -0.085 0.098 -0.018 0.119
Received agricultural extension
0.101 0.121 0.086 0.085 -0.166 0.132 0.099 0.134 0.176* 0.093 0.252** 0.105
services (last year)
Household owns the parcel -0.184 0.148 0.169 0.126 -0.028 0.159 -0.073 0.124 0.745*** 0.152 0.373** 0.180
Plot only under female responsibility 0.046 0.115 -0.023 0.083 -0.005 0.119 -0.295** 0.115 0.270*** 0.088 -0.048 0.102
Concerned about food shortage (last
0.166 0.162 0.004 0.123 -0.471*** 0.175 -0.203 0.149 -0.084 0.134 0.427*** 0.139
week)
Number of negative shocks (last year) -0.088 0.076 0.008 0.050 -0.103 0.074 0.072 0.077 0.053 0.057 -0.056 0.064
Per capita land holding (hectare) 0.124* 0.065 -0.066 0.052 0.053 0.072 -0.066 0.068 -0.066 0.054 -0.248 0.165
Tropical Livestock Units: total -0.002 0.015 0.002 0.010 0.009 0.014 -0.037** 0.017 0.018 0.011 -0.026 0.019
Top tercile of durable assets-based
0.137 0.138 0.094 0.100 -0.089 0.162 0.029 0.143 -0.056 0.108 0.249** 0.122
wealth (index)
Travel time to parcel >30 minutes 0.039 0.116 0.190* 0.098 -0.180 0.116 -0.155 0.116 -0.437*** 0.100 -0.461*** 0.134
Distance to basic services (index) -0.385*** 0.135 0.087 0.085 -0.065 0.133 0.062 0.123 -0.000 0.091 -0.384*** 0.123
Kongwa district -0.420** 0.192 -1.336*** 0.153 -0.417** 0.191 0.241 0.168 -0.628*** 0.140 -0.603*** 0.196
Kiteto district 0.114 0.295 -0.755*** 0.202 -0.674** 0.328 0.386 0.241 -0.680** 0.278 -0.216 0.359
_cons -1.211** 0.586 -0.689* 0.410 -0.458 0.608 -1.006* 0.581 -1.156** 0.520 -2.462*** 0.633
Number of observations 1,365
Number of clusters (households) 771
Log-Likelihood -3,709.86
Likelihood ratio test (Chi2) 132.807
Wald chi2 640.681
Wald chi2 p-value 0.000
Note: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Omitted category is Babati district. Robust standard errors clustered at the household level. Top tercile of
assets-based wealth has the richest households in terms of durable asset ownership. The higher the value of the distance to basic services (index), the
farther away the household is from daily/weekly markets and other basic services.
Technology type Model
Improved cultivars 1
Cereal-legume intercropping 2
Rotation 3
Contour ploughing 4
Organic fertilizer 5
Leguminous trees 6
/rho21 = -0.526 *** /rho32 = -0.078 /rho43 = 0.320 *** /rho54 = -0.172 *** /rho65 = 0.132 **
/rho31 = 0.048 /rho42 = -0.042 /rho53 = -0.015 /rho64 = 0.084
/rho41 = -0.010 /rho52 = 0.090 * /rho63 = 0.029
/rho51 = 0.054 /rho62 = -0.012
/rho61= -0.112
Note: rhojk measures the correlation coefficient of the errors in models j and k.
*** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1

19
 None of the household head characteristics are significantly correlated with adoption, except the

gender of the head that is marginally and negatively correlated with adoption of improved cultivars. Not

surprisingly, soil characteristics are correlates of adoption of soil conservative technologies such as

contour ploughing, organic fertilizer, and leguminous trees. Parcels with good quality soils that are rich in

organic matter (black/brown) were strongly and negatively associated with contouring and organic

fertilizers, while plots affected by soil erosion were positively associated with the application of organic

fertilizers. These findings suggest that farmers are more apt to apply intensive soil management practices

on visibly poorer soils. The farther the plot is away from the homestead, the less likely for households to

apply organic fertilizer and to plant leguminous trees. Organic fertilizers (composed mostly of manure)

are bulky and hard to transport. Likewise, leguminous trees provide multiple household benefits beyond

soil conservation, including fuel wood, mulch, shade and recreation, and cut and carry animal fodder, so it

makes sense for such trees to be planted closer to the homestead (Covarrubias et al., 2012).

Contour ploughing, organic fertilizer, and leguminous trees are also more knowledge and labor

intensive, requiring longer-term investment compared to poly-cropping with grain legumes. Indeed, land

tenure and agricultural extension services were important determinants of the adoption of organic

fertilizer and leguminous trees, whereas rotation (and to some extent contouring) seems to be positively

correlated with access to loans. Waithaka et al. (2007) showed the amount of manure used on-farm

increases significantly with the education of the head and the availability of family labor, but declines

with increasing incomes. Education is indeed positively correlated with the use of organic fertilizers in the

present study. District fixed effects are significant in all but one of the models (for contour ploughing)

with households in Konwa and Kiteto districts less likely to adopt than their counterparts in Babati

district, an area that has mostly a tropic-cool/sub-humid agroecology.

None of the three wealth measures has a strong significant effect on adoption, except livestock

wealth that is negatively correlated with contour ploughing (Table 4.2, column 4). Previous studies have

shown that although technology adoption by wealthier households may be less constrained by liquidity,

20
off-farm employment may compete for time and effort with agricultural activities (Kassie et al., 2015;

Lee, 2005).

In terms of plot management, contour ploughing was less likely on plots that were at least

partially managed by female farmers, whereas organic fertilizer was more likely to be applied on such

plots. As mentioned previously, contour ploughing is expensive and laborious, while women often have

less access to household finances and are often discriminated against in terms of information and land

tenure. Indeed, women often have access to different quality of land as men, while men dominate in the

management of good fertile soil, women are often left to manage plots with poor quality soil (Ndiritu et

al., 2014). This may explain the association between female plot mangers and organic fertilizer, although

a previous study in Kenya (Ndiritu et al., 2014) showed sole-female plot mangers were less likely to

adopt manure.

When technologies are complementary, the productivity of one technology is enhanced by the

adoption of other technologies thereby providing an incentive for the adoption of multiple technologies,

ceteris paribus. On the other hand, some technologies may substitute (or inhibit) uptake of other

technologies. For example, in maize-legume farming systems in Tanzania, Ethiopia, Kenya, and Malawi,

Kassie et al. (2015) showed some SIPs were complementary (e.g., chemical fertilizer and improved crop

varieties), while others substituted, such as those that offer similar benefits (e.g., manure/chemical

fertilizer or legume diversification/manure on same plot).

In our case, four of the 15 pair-wise error correlations are significant at the 5 percent level or less

(bottom of 4.2). Improved cultivars and cereal-legume intercropping appear to be substitutes. Instead, and

as supported by Figure 2.2, households mono-crop improved cultivars, either with and without organic

fertilizers, and only occasionally with contouring. While contour ploughing appears to complement

rotation, its correlation with organic fertilizer use is negative. This likely indicates a preference for

rotation on contoured farmland for nutrient management, perhaps because contoured plots are not always

proximal to organic fertilizer production (livestock) or the practice is less compatible with sloping terrain.

Indeed, contouring is most effective when used with other soil conservation methods, such as legume

21
crops in rotation (ACT IIRR, 2005). Moreover, contour ploughing is expensive and laborious to initiative

and maintain. Finally, leguminous trees and organic fertilizer also appear to complement one another.

Such trees not only fix soil nitrogen and conserve soil, but are used as forage and fodder for livestock, as

well as green manure and biomass for organic fertilizers. In turn, livestock generate organic fertilizer for

crops in the form of manure. This creates a double adoption incentive and improves on-farm resource

efficiency (Matata and Ajay, 2010).

Finally, Table 4.3 reports the correlates of intensity of SIP adoption. Reported are coefficient

estimates from the ordered probit model in Equation (4) (column 1), along with marginal effects on the

predicted probabilities of adopting different intensity of SIPs (K) (∀ K = 0, 1, …, 4) from Equation (5)

(columns 2‒6). The likelihood of non-adoption or weaker intensity of adoption is higher for plots that

already have high organic matter (black/brown color); for plots farther away from the homestead; and for

households with limited market access. On the other hand, education, access to agricultural extension

services, soil erosion, and land ownership all increase adoption intensity. As before, district fixed effects

are the strongest predictors of adoption intensity with drier agro-ecologies of Kongowa and Kiteto

districts associated with no or weak intensity of adoption (columns 2 and 3, respectively), ceteris paribus.

22
Table 4.3 Correlates of intensity of SIP adoption (ordered probit)
Intensity (K=0-4) Pro [K=0|.] Pro [K=1|.] Pro [K=2|.] Pro [K=3|.] Pro [K=4|.]
1 2 3 4 5 6
coef se mfx se mfx se mfx se mfx se mfx se
Female household head -0.087 0.107 0.020 0.025 0.011 0.013 -0.013 0.015 -0.012 0.015 -0.006 0.007
Age of the head 0.018 0.015 -0.004 0.004 -0.002 0.002 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001
Age of the head squared -0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 -0.000 0.000 -0.000 0.000 -0.000 0.000

Mean years of education in the household 0.031* 0.017 -0.007* 0.004 -0.004* 0.002 0.004* 0.002 0.004* 0.002 0.002* 0.001

Number of working age members (15-65) 0.004 0.023 -0.001 0.005 -0.000 0.003 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.003 0.000 0.002

Parcel has clay/loam soil 0.067 0.084 -0.015 0.019 -0.008 0.010 0.010 0.012 0.009 0.012 0.005 0.006
Parcel has black/brown soil -0.143* 0.076 0.033* 0.017 0.018* 0.009 -0.021* 0.011 -0.020* 0.011 -0.010* 0.006
Plot affected by soil erosion 0.161* 0.085 -0.037* 0.020 -0.020* 0.010 0.023* 0.012 0.022* 0.012 0.011* 0.006
Received a loan (last year) 0.140 0.090 -0.032 0.021 -0.017 0.011 0.020 0.013 0.020 0.013 0.010 0.006
Received agricultural extension services
0.184** 0.088 -0.042** 0.020 -0.022** 0.011 0.026** 0.013 0.026** 0.012 0.013** 0.006
(last year)
Household owns the parcel 0.309*** 0.099 -0.071*** 0.023 -0.038*** 0.012 0.044*** 0.014 0.043*** 0.014 0.021*** 0.007
Plot only under female responsibility 0.038 0.078 -0.009 0.018 -0.005 0.010 0.005 0.011 0.005 0.011 0.003 0.005
Concerned about food shortage (last
-0.056 0.094 0.013 0.022 0.007 0.012 -0.008 0.013 -0.008 0.013 -0.004 0.007
week)
Number of negative shocks (last year) -0.007 0.048 0.002 0.011 0.001 0.006 -0.001 0.007 -0.001 0.007 -0.000 0.003
Per capita land holding (hectare) -0.022 0.031 0.005 0.007 0.003 0.004 -0.003 0.004 -0.003 0.004 -0.001 0.002
Tropical Livestock Units: total -0.007 0.010 0.002 0.002 0.001 0.001 -0.001 0.001 -0.001 0.001 -0.000 0.001
Top tercile of durable assets-based wealth
0.075 0.099 -0.017 0.023 -0.009 0.012 0.011 0.014 0.010 0.014 0.005 0.007
(index)
Travel time to parcel >30 minutes -0.246*** 0.081 0.057*** 0.018 0.030*** 0.010 -0.035*** 0.012 -0.034*** 0.012 -0.017*** 0.006
Has the least access to basic services -0.095 0.082 0.022 0.019 0.012 0.010 -0.014 0.012 -0.013 0.012 -0.007 0.006
Kongwa district -0.939*** 0.125 0.216*** 0.027 0.115*** 0.018 -0.135*** 0.018 -0.131*** 0.019 -0.065*** 0.012
Kiteto district -0.664*** 0.162 0.153*** 0.037 0.081*** 0.021 -0.095*** 0.023 -0.093*** 0.024 -0.046*** 0.013
/cut1 -0.302 0.399
/cut2 0.845** 0.396
/cut3 1.889*** 0.398
/cut4 2.720*** 0.398
Number of observations 1,365
Number of clusters (households) 771
Log-Likelihood -1,768.67
Wald chi2(24) 221.210
p-value 0.000
Pseudo R2 0.077
note: *** p<0.01, ** p<0.05, * p<0.1. Omitted category is Babati district. Mfx = Marginal effects on the predicted probability of adopting a given intensity - Pro
[K=k|.]. Robust standard errors clustered at the household level. Top tercile of assets-based wealth has the richest households in terms of durable asset ownership.

23
 5. CONCLUSIONS

Sustainable intensification offers an integral approach for achieving several of the Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs) in Africa south of the Sahara (SSA), from zero hunger and poverty to

reversing land degradation and combating climate change. Increased adoption of improved agricultural

technologies and practices, referred here as sustainable intensification practices (SIPs), is an important

element in the global effort to achieving these Goals. Using primary data from Tanzania, this study

examines the correlates of adoption of six SIPs—improved cultivars, cereal‒legume intercropping, crop

rotation, organic fertilizers, contour ploughing, and leguminous trees. Adoption is examined among

different farm types we have constructed addressing five dimensions of sustainability‒productivity,

environmental sustainability, social sustainability, economic sustainability, and human wellbeing.

Descriptive summaries show the adoption of organic fertilizer with intercropping, organic

fertilizer, intercropping, and contour ploughing to be the most commonly applied SIPs in the study area.

Farm households that fare well along the five SI dimensions are associated with higher adoption rates,

especially of cereal-legume intercropping and organic fertilizer. In contrast, farm households that

performed poorly along the five dimensions have the lowest SIP adoption rate. Multivariate analysis

shows several plot-, parcel-, and household-level characteristics to be correlated with adoption of one or

more of the SIPs, with the direction of correlation varying by SIP. These include soil characteristics;

access to agricultural extension services, proximity to the plot and various basic services (e.g., weekly

markets and motorable road); land tenure; food security; and gender of the plot manager. The decision to

adopt contour ploughing, organic fertilizers, and leguminous trees is seemingly more complex than the

other SIPs we considered, affected by a bigger set of socioeconomic and environmental factors.

The intensity of adoption‒measured by the count of SIPs adopted per plot‒ is positively

correlated with average household education (marginally), land tenure, access to agricultural extension

services, soil erosion (marginally) while the correlation is negative with soil fertility (marginally), travel

time between the homestead and the plot, and drier agro-ecologies.

24
 We document adoption complementarity between (1) the use of organic fertilizers and

leguminous trees and (2) crop rotation and contour ploughing and substitutability between (1) improved

cultivar and cereal‒legume intercropping and (2) contour ploughing and organic fertilizer. Leguminous

trees not only fix nitrogen and conserve soil, but their biomass can be used as forage and fodder for

livestock (Covarrubias et al., 2012). Even the poorest smallholder farmers may use improved cultivars,

since seed is relatively low cost and easy to transport, and farmers can recycle seeds (Snapp and Silim,

2002). While the benefits of nitrogen on soil fertility tend to increase overtime without the use of

improved crop varieties, the benefits of the latter tend to decrease overtime without nitrogen (Hurley et

al., 2016). Thus, securing both is crucial for sustainable intensification. Smart technology bundling, such

as fertilizers with intercropping and improved cultivars as well as better on-farm integration of mixed

crops, agroforestry, and livestock could help promote sustainable intensification and food security.

25
 REFERENCES

ACT (African Conservation Tillage Network) and IIRR (International Institute of Rural Reconstruction). 2005.
"Conserving Soil and Water." In Conservation Agriculture: A Manual for Farmers and Extension Workers in
Africa, 132–45. Nairobi, Kenya: International Institute of Rural Reconstruction.
Alvarez, Stephanie, Wim Paas, Katrien Descheemaeker, Pablo Tittonell, and Jeroen Groot. 2014. Typology
Construction, a Way of Dealing with Farm Diversity: General Guidelines for Humidtropics. Wageningen,
Netherlands: Humidtropics.
Asfaw, Soloman, Bekele Shiferaw, Franklin Simtowe, and Leslie Lipper. 2012. "Impact of Modern Agricultural
Technologies on Smallholder Welfare: Evidence from Tanzania and Ethiopia." Food Policy 37: 283–95.
Campbell, Bruce, Philip Thornton, Robert Zougmoré , Piet van Asten , and Leslie Lipper. 2014. "Sustainable
Intensification: What Is its Role in Climate Smart Agriculture?" Current Opinion in Environmental
Sustainability 8: 39–43.
Cappellari, Lorenzo, and Stephen Jenkins. 2003. "Multivariate Probit Regression Using Simulated Maximum
Likelihood." Stata Journal 3: 278–94.
——. 2006. "Calculation of Multivariate Normal Probabilities by Simulation, with Applications to Maximum
Simulated Likelihood Estimation." Stata Journal 6: 156–89.
Covarrubias, Katia, Longin Nsiima L, and Alberto Zezza. 2012. Livestock and Livelihoods in Rural Tanzania: A
Descriptive Analysis of the 2009 National Panel Survey. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Cunningham, Wendy, and William Maloney. 1999. "Heterogeneity among Mexico's Micro-Enterprises: An
Application of Factor and Cluster Analysis." Policy, Research Working Paper, no. WPS 1999. Washington,
DC: World Bank.
——. 2001. "Heterogeneity among Mexico’s Microenterprises: An Application of Factor and Cluster Analysis."
Economic Development and Cultural Change 50: 131–56.
Dercon, Stefan, and Luc Christiaensen. 2011. "Consumption Risk, Technology Adoption and Poverty Traps:
Evidence from Ethiopia." Journal of Development Economics 96, no. 2: 159–73.
Dixon, John, Aidan Gulliver, and David Gibbon. 2001. "Summary—Farming Systems and Poverty: Improving
Farmers’ Livelihoods in a Changing World." In Farming Systems and Poverty: Improving Farmers'
Livelihoods in a Changing World, edited by Malcolm Hall. Rome: FAO and World Bank.
D’Souza, Gerard, Douglas Cyphers, and Tim Phipps. 1993. "Factors Affecting the Adoption of Sustainable
Agricultural Practices." Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 22: 159–65.
Filmer, Deon, and Lant H. Pritchett. 2001. "Estimating Wealth Effects without Expenditure Data—or Tears: An
Application to Educational Enrollments in States of India." Demography 38: 115–32.
Foster, Andrew, and Mark Rosenzweig. 2004. "Agricultural Productivity Growth, Rural Economic Diversity, and
Economic Reforms: India, 1970–2000." Economic Development and Cultural Change 52: 509–42.
——. 2010. "Microeconomics of Technology Adoption." Annual Review of Economics 2: 395–424.

26
Garnett, T, M. Appleby, A. Balmford, I. J. Bateman, T. G. Benton, P. Bloomer, B. Burlingame, M. Dawkins, L.
Dolan, D. Frasser, M. Herrero, I. Hoffmann, P. Smith, P. K. Thornton, C. Toulmin, S. J. Vermeulen, and H. C.
J. Godfray. 2013. "Sustainable Intensification in Agriculture: Premises and Policies." Science 341: 33–34.
Gebremedhin, Berhanu, and Scott Swinton. 2003. "Investment in Soil Conservation in Northern Ethiopia: The Role
of Land Tenure Security and Public Programs." Agricultural Economics 29: 69–84.
Greene, William. 2017. Econometric Analysis, 8th ed. New York: Pearson.
Guo, Zhe, and Cindy Cox. 2014. "Market Access." In Atlas of African Agriculture Research and Development:
Revealing Agriculture’s Place in Africa, edited by Kate Sebastian, 66–67. Washington, DC: International
Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Hajivassiliou, Vassilis, and Daniel McFadden. 1998. "The Method of Simulated Scores for the Estimation of LDV
Models." Econometrica 66: 863–96.
Harman, Harry. 1978. Modern Factor Analysis, 3d ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..
Hurley, Terrance, Jawoo Koo, and Kindie Tesfaye. 2016. "Weather Risk: How Does it Change the Yield Benefits of
Nitrogen Fertilizer and Improved Maize Varieties in Sub-Saharan Africa?" HarvestChoice Working Paper,
Project No. MIN-14-034. Washington, DC: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
http://www.ifpri.org/publication/weather-risk-how-does-it-change-yield-benefits-nitrogen-fertilizer-and-
improved-maize.
IFPRI (International Food Policy Research Institute). 2015. Tanzania Africa Research In Sustainable Intensification
for the Next Generation (Africa RISING) Baseline Evaluation Survey. Washington, DC: IFPRI.
doi:10.7910/DVN/PPUL2W
Jack, B. Kelsey. 2013. "Constraints on the Adoption of Agricultural Technologies in Developing Countries." White
Paper. Berkeley, CA and Cambridge, MA: Agricultural Technology Adoption Initiative.
Kassie, Menale, Moti Jaleta, Bekele Shiferaw, Frank Mmbando, and Mulugetta Mekuria. 2013. "Adoption of
Interrelated Sustainable Agricultural Practices in Smallholder Systems: Evidence from Rural Tanzania."
Technological Forecasting and Social Change 80: 525–40.
Kassie, Menale, Hailemariam Teklewold, Moti Jaleta, Paswel Marenya, and Olaf Erenstein. 2015. "Understanding
the Adoption of a Portfolio of Sustainable Intensification Practices in Eastern and Southern Africa." Land Use
Policy 42: 400–411.
Kennedy, Gina, Terri Ballard, and MarieClaude Dop. 2013. Guidelines for Measuring Household and Individual
Dietary Diversity. Rome: Nutrition and Consumer Protection Division, Food and Agriculture Organization..
Kim, Jae-On, and Charles W. Mueller. 1978. Factor Analysis: Statistical Methods and Practical Issues. Beverly
Hills, CA: Sage.
Kurosaki, Takashi, and Marcel Fafchamps. 2002. "Insurance Market Efficiency and Crop Choices in Pakistan."
Journal of Development Economics 67: 419–53.
Lee, David R. 2005. "Agricultural Sustainability and Technology Adoption: Issues and Policies for Developing
Countries." American Journal of Agricultural Economics 87: 1325–34.
Matata, P. Z., and Oluyede Ajay. 2010. "Socio-Economic Factors Influencing Adoption of Improved Fallow

27
 Practices among Smallholder Farmers in Western Tanzania." African Journal of Agricultural Research 5:
818–23.
Meijer, Seline, Delia Catacutan, Oluyede Ajayi, Gudeta Sileshi, and Maarten Nieuwenhuis. 2015. "The Role of
Knowledge, Attitudes, and Perceptions in the Pptake of Agricultural and Agroforestry Innovations among
Smallholder Farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa." International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 13, no. 1:
40‒54.
Moser, Christine, and Christoper Barrett. 2006. "The Complex Dynamics of Smallholder Technology Adoption: The
Case of SRI in Madagascar." Agricultural Economics 35: 373–88.
Ndiritu, S. Wagura, Menale Kassie, and Bekele Shiferaw. 2014. "Are There Systematic Gender Differences in the
Adoption of Sustainable Agricultural Intensification Practices? Evidence from Kenya." Food Policy 49: 117–
27.
Nkonya, Ephraim, Ted Schroeder, and David Norman. 1997. "Factors Affecting Adoption of Improved Maize Seed
and Fertiliser in Northern Tanzania." Journal of Agricultural Economics 48: 1–12.
Pretty, Jules, Camilla Toulmin, and Stella Williams. 2011. "Sustainable Intensification in African Agriculture."
International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability 9: 5–24.
Ragasa, Catherine, Guush Berhane, Fanaye Tadesse, and Alemayehu Seyoum Taffesse. 2012. "Gender Differences
in Access to Extension Services and Agricultural Productivity." ESSP Working Paper 49. Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia: Ethiopia Strategy Support Program II, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Sanginga, P. C., A. A. Adesina, V. M. Manyong, O. Otite, and K. E. Dashiell. 1999. Social Impact of Soybean in
Nigeria’s Southern Guinea Savanna. Ibadan, Nigeria: International Institute of Tripical Agriculture (IITA).
Sheahan, Megan, and Christopher Barrett. 2017. "Ten Striking Facts about Agricultural Input use in Sub-Saharan
Africa." Food Policy 67: 121–25.
Smith, Alex, Sieglinde Snapp, Regis Chikowo, Peter Thorne, Mateete Bekunda, and Jerry Glover. 2016. "Measuring
Sustainable Intensification in Smallholder Agroecosystems: A Review." Global Food Security 12: 127–38.
Snapp, Sieglinde, and S. N. Silim. 2002. Farmer Preferences and Legume Intensification for Low Nutrient
Environments. In Food Security in Nutrient-Stressed Environments: Exploiting Plants’ Genetic Capabilities,
edited by J. J. Adu-Gyamfi, 289–300. Dordrecht, Netherlands.
Snapp, Sieglinde, Malcolm J. Blackie, Robert Gilbert, Rachel Bezner-Kerr, and George Kanyama-Phiri. 2010.
"Biodiversity Can Support a Greener Revolution in Africa." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
107: 20840–45.
Suri, Tavneet. 2011. "Selection and Comparative Advantage in Technology Adoption." Econometrica 79: 159–209.
Swindale, Anne, and Paula Bilinsky. 2006. Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS) for Measurement of
Household Food Access: Indicator Guide (v.2). Washington, DC: Food and Nutrition Technical Assistance III
Project, FHI360.
Teklewold, Hailemariam, Menale Kassie, and Bekele Shiferaw. 2013. "Adoption of Multiple Sustainable
Agricultural Practices in Rural Ethiopia." Journal of Agricultural Economics 64: 597–623.

28
Waithaka, Michael, Philip Thornton, Keith Shepherd, and Nicholas Ndiwa. 2007. "Factors Affecting the Use of
Fertilizers and Manure by Smallholders: The Case of Vihiga, Western Kenya." Nutrient Cycling in
Agroecosystems 78: 211–24.

29
 For earlier Discussion Papers

please click here

All discussion papers can be downloaded

free of charge
INTERNATIONAL FOOD POLICY
RESEARCH INSTITUTE

www.ifpri.org

IFPRI HEADQUARTERS
1201 Eye Street, NW
Washington, DC 20005 USA
Tel.: +1-202-862-5600
Fax: +1-202-862-5606
Email: ifpri@cgiar.org