MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092585033 · doi:10.5539/ijef.v4n6p32

Investments in Land Conservation in the Ethiopian Highlands: A Household Plot-level Analysis of the Roles of Poverty, Tenure Security, and Market Incentives

2012· article· en· W2092585033 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Genanew Bekele Worku, Alemu Mekonnen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Economics and Finance · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicLand Rights and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveLand tenureInvestment (military)PovertyLand titlingLeverage (statistics)ProductivityEconomicsPanel dataLand degradationBusinessNatural resource economicsGovernment (linguistics)Public economicsLand useEconomic growthGeographyAgricultureMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Land degradation is a major problem undermining land productivity in the highlands of Ethiopia. This paper analyses the decisions made by individual household to adopt and intensify land conservation investment. The paper used a Box-Cox Double Hurdle specification and offers the advantage of exploiting panel data collected in a household survey of 6,408 plots in Ethiopia. The results suggest that adoption and intensification decisions appear to be explained by different processes, justifying the use of Box-Cox double hurdle approach over more restrictive models. Poverty-related factors seem to have mixed effect on both adoption and intensification decisions. While farmer's adoption decision is affected by expectation of the certainty of cultivating the land for the next five years (risk for long term), intensification of land conservation investment is determined by whether or not the plot is owner-operated (risk for immediate period) and plot-home distance. A lesson for policymakers is that major changes in land conservation investments will require attention to many factors because no single factor can be used as a major policy leverage instrument. Some of these factors (such as land tenure security, plot size, and total farm holdings) can be directly influenced by government policies and programs.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.190 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Economics and FinanceSame topicLand Rights and ReformsFrench-language works237,207