Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
Transcript of Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
1/35
F o r P e e r R
e v i e w
Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts: A Selection Model
of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
Journal: Journal of African Economies
Manuscript ID: JAE-2009-013
Manuscript Type: Article
Keyword: climate change, agriculture, irrigation, household, adaptation,cross-sectional
http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/jafeco
Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
2/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts:
A Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
Abstract
Although there is now an extensive literature on the economic impacts of climate change,
there are surprisingly few studies that have examined adaptation. This paper examines
whether irrigation can be an effective adaptation strategy against climate change in Africa.
The paper develops a selection model of irrigation choice and conditional income. Using
data from farmers across eleven African countries, the paper demonstrates that the choice of
irrigation is sensitive to both temperature and precipitation. Rainfed and irrigated farm
income both respond to climate but not in a similar fashion. We demonstrate that it is
important to anticipate that irrigation will change in some climate scenarios. Even with the
endogenous irrigation model, however, African agriculture is very sensitive to climate change
scenarios. The results suggest that irrigation is an important adaptation strategy in climate
scenarios if there is sufficient water.
e 1 of 34 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
3/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
1. Introduction
Many researchers have now developed methods to measure the economic impacts of climate
change on especially agriculture. Agroeconomic models have made predictions of climate
impacts in the United States based on the results of crop simulation models (Adams et al
1999). The Ricardian model estimates the relationship between farmland values and climate
(Mendelsohn et al. 1994) and has been applied to measure climate sensitivity in the United
States (Mendelsohn et al. 1994; Mendelsohn and Dinar 2003), Sri Lanka (Seo et al. 2005;
Kurukulasuriya and Ajwad 2007), Israel (Fleischer et al. 2008), Africa (Kurukulasuriya et al
2006), and Latin America (Seo and Mendelsohn 2008). A consistent criticism that has been
leveled against Ricardian studies, however, concerns whether or not the studies properly take
into account irrigation (Cline 1996; Darwin 1999; Schlenker et al. 2005). One suggestedcorrection is to estimate a separate response function for rainfed farms alone (Schlenker at al.
2005) or to estimate separate Ricardian regressions for rainfed and irrigated farms
(Kurukulasuriya and Mendelsohn 2007; Seo and Mendelsohn 2008). A final approach to
measuring climate change impacts on farms is to use panel data and examine how farm net
revenues fluctuate with weather using fixed effects to control for cross sectional variation
(Greenstone and Deschenes 2006).
The agroeconomic models have an advantage by building from the ground up so that they
contain enormous farm detail. However, it is difficult in practice to observe and capture the
adaptations that farmers are actually making to climate. The current models do a good job of
capturing crop switching but they have no good way of capturing changes farmers are making
to raise specific crops. The traditional Ricardian approach does do a good job of capturing
long run adaptation, but it treats adaptation as a black box. It is not at all clear what changes
farmers have made to adapt to climate using this model. The Schlenker et al. model identifies
irrigation as being important but it treats the choice to irrigate as though it is exogenous even
though it is sensitive to climate. The panel fixed effects model does not include adaptation at
all and treats climate change as a continual surprise.
In this paper, we try to explicitly model irrigation in order to begin to understand what
specific adaptations will help farmers adapt to climate change. We build on the extensive
irrigation literature that recognizes irrigation is a choice (see Caswel and Zilberman 1986;
Page 2 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
4/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
Dinar and Yaron 1990; Negri and Brooks 1990; Dinar and Zilberman 1991; Dinar, Campbell,
and Zilberman 1992) but, in this paper, we develop the role that climate plays. We build an
endogenous irrigation model that recognizes the potential of sample selection bias (Heckman
1979). In the first stage, we estimate the probability of irrigation including climate, district
flows, and other exogenous variables. In the second stage, we estimate the conditional
income from rainfed and irrigated farming including a sample selection correction term.
We test this model using a sample of over 10,000 plots across 11 African countries. Studying
the impacts of climate change on Africa is very important. There is a growing body of
evidence that low latitude countries and especially Africa will bear the brunt of climate
change damages (Pearce et al. 1996; Mendelsohn and Williams 2004; Mendelsohn, Dinar,and Williams 2006; Tol 2002; Kurukulasuriya et al, 2006). Low latitude countries are more
vulnerable than mid to high latitude countries because they are hotter, have a larger fraction
of their economy in agriculture, and have less wealth and technology for adaptation.
The empirical results reveal that the choice of irrigation is endogenous. As long as there is a
sufficient flow of water, irrigation is an important adaptation strategy to climate. The
estimation of the net revenue functions, however, does not reveal any evidence of sample
selection bias. The coefficient on the inverse Mills ratio is not significant and there are no
significant changes in any remaining coefficients.
Section 2 develops a formal theoretical model. Section 3 presents the data used in this study
and the empirical cross-sectional results. Section 4 displays the cross sectional results of the
empirical modeling. Section 5 utilizes the empirical model to simulate how irrigation andexpected net revenues might be affected by both a mild and a severe climate scenario. The
predictions of the endogenous irrigation model are compared with predictions from models
that assume irrigation is exogenous. With the mild wet scenario, the exogenous predictions
are biased because they fail to account for the large increase in irrigation. With the more
severe and dry scenarios, however, there is very little change in irrigation and so the bias is
small. The paper concludes by summarizing the results and discussing some policy
implications.
e 3 of 34 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
5/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
2. Model
The underlying theoretical structure of this model assumes that each farm maximizes profits:
WX E X Q P i = ),(max* (1)
where is profit, P i is output prices, Q* is output, X are chosen inputs, E is environmental
factors such as climate and soils, and W is the price of inputs. In this paper, we assume that
the amount of cropland is fixed, in order to focus on the issue of irrigation. 1 Profit is defined
broadly to include not only sold goods but also goods consumed by the household.
We develop a sample selection model (Heckman 1979). However, there is an important
difference between this case and the labor selection model. In the labor example, people who
did not work had no observed income. In this model, farmers who choose not to irrigate, still
have observed income from rainfed farming.
We assume that a farmer irrigates if irrigation is more profitable than rainfed farming.
Clearly the cost of irrigation lies largely in expensive capital. The farmer must weigh
whether the present value of the additional annual returns from irrigation is worth the cost.
The higher the additional net revenue each year, the more attractive irrigation becomes. In
the first stage, we estimate a dichotomous choice model of irrigation, Y , where Y=1 is
irrigation (1) and Y=0 is rainfed farming:
11 += X Y i (2)
We identify the choice equation with altitude, district surface water flow, and a dummy for
access to capital. It is easier to irrigate at high altitudes probably because there is more
potential slope to the land allowing farmers to direct water at low cost. Once one controls for
climate, altitude has little effect on conditional net revenues. Higher water flows also make it
easier to irrigate. Water flows are not expected to affect conditional earnings because
farmers with access to water generally use as much as they want (quantities are not
restricted). We introduce a dummy variable for countries with well developed capital
markets (Egypt and South Africa). Note that this dummy variable could just have easily
1 Land uses themselves are influenced by climate and other variables (Mendelsohn et al. 1996). However, thistopic is beyond the scope of this paper.
Page 4 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
6/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
measured good governance. In the second stage, we estimate a conditional profit function for
each type of farming based on the available exogenous variables, Z :
1Yif 211 =+= Z i (3)
0Yif 3 =+= D D
D Z (4)
where Y 1 is a latent variable explaining the choice of irrigation, I is the net profit of farms
that have chosen irrigation, and D is the net profit of farms that have chosen rainfed
farming, X is a k -vector of regressors, Z I is an m-vector of regressors for irrigation, Z D is an
n-vector of regressors for rainfed, and the error terms 1 and 2 and 1 and 3 are jointly
normally distributed, independently of X and Z , with zero expectations.
1 ~ N(0,1)
2 ~ N(0, 2)
3 ~ N(0, 3)
corr( 1 , 2 ) = 2
corr( 1 , 3 ) = 3
Irrigation is observed only if it is more profitable than rainfed farming. Thus, the observed
dependent variable Y is:
Y=1 if I > D
Y=0 if D > I
When 2 = 0 , an Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression could provide unbiased estimates
of the coefficients for the conditional irrigation equation, but when 0 the OLS estimates are biased. A parallel result holds for 3 and the rainfed regression coefficients. We
consequently employ the inverse Mills ratio from the selection model in both the irrigated
and rainfed conditional regressions in order to control for selection (Heckman 1979). We
expect the signs on the coefficient of the inverse Mills ratio to be the opposite in each
regression.
e 5 of 34 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
7/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
The availability of water is often not just a farmers decision. In the United States, there are
examples of extensive canal systems that bring water long distances to farmers. The choice
to irrigate, in this case, is a combination of what the farmer chooses and what the irrigation
district provides. In Africa, such extensive canal systems are not so common. Irrigation is
often just the choice of a farmer. However, even when the choice involves both a farmer and
irrigation district, the question is still the same. Is it worthwhile to irrigate given the cost?
The decision, even if it is a joint one, will still be sensitive to cost benefit criteria. Even if the
decision is a joint one, it is sensitive to climate. In this paper, we use the water flows in a
political district to identify the availability of water. This is an exogenous measure of natural
flows, not an endogenous choice.
3. Data
The empirical analysis is based on a household survey of farms conducted in 11 countries
across Africa: Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Ghana, Niger, Senegal,
South Africa, Zambia and Zimbabwe. 2 The sample was chosen to select farms across a wide
range of climates within each country. The sample across the 11 countries is has
approximately the same mean characteristics as farms in the continent have.
As many African countries do not have formal land markets, collecting land values is
difficult. Instead, we rely on measurements of net revenue per hectare. Net revenues are
appropriate measurements of the annual net productivity of the land. However, compared to
land values, net revenues are a more volatile measure since they reflect factors that change
year by year. Net revenue is defined as gross revenue minus the cost of transport, packaging
and marketing, storage, post-harvest losses, hired labor (valued at the median market wage
rate), light farm tools (such as files, axes, machetes, etc.), rental on heavy machinery
(tractors, ploughs, threshers and others), fertilizer and pesticide. Median district prices from
the survey were used in estimating the values of both input and crop prices. Household labor
costs are not included as a cost in net revenues because it was not clear what value to assign
to wages. We controlled for household labor by using household size as a proxy.
2
We are deeply grateful to the country teams from each of these countries for designing, collecting, andcleaning this data and making this project a success. For more information about the entire study, see Dinar etal 2006.
Page 6 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
8/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
In each country, districts were chosen in order to sample farms across a wide range of agro-
climatic conditions in each country. In each chosen district, a random but clustered sample of
farms was selected. After data cleaning, removing farms that did not grow crops, and surveyswith field errors and missing information, the final number of useable surveys was 8463. We
conducted the analysis at the plot level of each farm as the dataset was sufficiently detailed to
extract and utilize information about whether or not a particular plot (from a set of three) was
irrigated or not. There are 10,915 plots in the data set. Each farm provided plot specific data
on whether or not irrigation was used, crop production (including crop type, amount
harvested, quantity sold, quantity consumed and amount of sales receipt) and crop costs
(fertilizer, pesticide and seed data). Using this data, prices per crop and yields per hectare of farmland and cropland were estimated, as well as plot specific crop revenues and farm level
gross and net revenues. The estimated prices and yields were validated based on official
records of district and national level prices and yields per hectare. Net revenue estimates are
at the farm level because the input data, including labor (both hired and household) and
machinery, were available only at that unit of measurement. It was not possible to allocate
most inputs to specific plots as much of it was applied to several plots at a time. The dataset
we used contains 1750 irrigated plots and 9183 rainfed plots. The distribution of surveys
irrigated and rainfed plots by country is shown in Table 1. The farm plots reflect a
representative sample of African agro-ecological zones.
Because the analysis collects net revenue data for only one year but we are interested in the
impact of climate, the survey inquired whether the weather was average or atypical in the
year of the survey. The large majority of the farmers reported the weather was typical.
Because the size of the weather aberrations is small in this particular survey, it is notexpected that they will bias the results. The fact that there is only one year of revenue data
for each site, however, does make this data unsuitable for studying climate variance.
This study relies on climate normals (mean long term weather) of both precipitation and
temperature for each district. The monthly temperature data comes from US Department of
Defense satellite measurements between 1988 and 2003 (Basist et al. 2001). This set of polar
orbiting satellites takes measurements at every location on earth at 6am and 6pm every day.
e 7 of 34 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
9/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
The satellites are equipped with sensors that measure surface temperature by detecting
microwaves that pass through clouds (Weng & Grody 1998). The monthly precipitation data
comes from the Africa Rainfall and Temperature Evaluation System (ARTES) (World Bank
2003). This dataset, created by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Associations Climate
Prediction Center, is interpolated from ground station measurements of precipitation over the
period 19482001. This combination of using temperature measurements from satellites and
precipitation data from ground stations provides the best available climate measures for
agricultural analysis (Mendelsohn et al 2006). The average temperatures and precipitation
for each country in the sample are shown in Appendix A. Note that there is a wide range of
climates across the 11 countries in the sample.
It is not possible to use every month of climate in a Ricardian regression because of the high
correlation between one month and the next. Consequently, we clustered the monthly data
into three month seasons. We explored several alternatives but finally selected November,
December, and January as winter, February through April as spring, May through July as
summer, and August through October as fall. These seasonal definitions provide the best
fit with the data. We adjusted for the fact that seasons in the southern and northern
hemispheres occur at exactly the opposite months of the year. Note that although Egyptianand South African climates resemble mid latitude seasonal climates, that the distribution of
temperatures in countries near the equator is quite different with very warm springs and
summers. Rainfall depended on monsoons which tended to come in fall and winter.
Soil data from FAO (2003) is included in this analysis. The FAO data provides information
about the major soil, soil texture, and slope in each location. Data concerning the hydrology
is based on the predicted output from a hydrological model for Africa developed for this
study (IWMI & University of Colorado 2003). The model calculated the water flow through
each district in the surveyed countries in each season. Data on elevation at the centroid of
each district is from the United States Geological Survey (USGS, 2004). The USGS data
derives from a global digital elevation model with a horizontal grid spacing of 30 arc seconds
(approximately one kilometer).
Page 8 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
10/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
During pre-testing of the survey instrument 3, it was clear that some farmers cultivated at least
two plots of land. Subsequently, the survey data collected crop data, including production
quantities, amount sold, and sale receipts from crops for the largest single plot of cultivated
land (referred to hereafter as the main plot) and all others (referred to as the secondary plot).
The following analysis is based on this plot data.
We tested whether clustering affected the significance of the reported results. Clustering is
not expected to bias the coefficients but it is expected to reduce the significance of the
coefficients. We find that a comparison of the marginal climate effects when clustering is
controlled with the analysis presented in this paper suggests that the results remain significant
and robust 4. The predictive ability of the model is not compromised by clustering.
4. Empirical results
Table 2 presents the first stage of the analysis, a probit model of whether a plot is irrigated or
not. There are 10915 plots with complete information for the regression. The explanatory
variables in the first stage include seasonal climate variables, farm characteristics, soils, and
seasonal water flow. Both linear and quadratic climate and flow variables are introduced inthe probit to capture nonlinearities in climate responses. The quadratic temperature,
precipitation, and flow variables are significant. The reported standard errors in the paper are
based on the Huber-White estimator of variance which is robust against many types of
misspecification of the model (Heltberg & Tarp 2002).
The seasonal district surface water flow variables and altitude identify choice. The
coefficients on most of these variables are significant. Higher altitudes imply rougher terrain
that makes trapping water easier. Higher water flows make irrigation a more attractive
(possible) alternative for each season except winter. Note that this is not the water available
to a specific farmer but rather the exogenous water flow in a district.
3 Available upon request from the authors.4 The results of the marginal analysis with clustering can be obtained from the authors.
e 9 of 34 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
11/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
In the selection model, we also control for soils and other farm characteristics. The soil
variables reflect the proportion of a district with a particular soil type. Soils can increase or
decrease the probability of irrigation depending on whether they are hilly or undulating
(positive) or steep (negative). Often, fine soils are negatively associated with irrigation and
medium is positively associated. The effects of types of soils vary depending on slope and
soil texture. Electricity is positively associated with irrigation. This may reflect the role of
electricity in pumping or just access to markets. Plot size is not related to irrigation choice.
Larger households are more likely to irrigate which suggests that irrigation is labor intensive
on a per hectare basis. Other household variables such as education, age, and experience
were not significant.
The climate and flow coefficients are highly significant. However, with the quadratic
functional form, they are hard to interpret. Using the coefficients in Table 2, we present the
mean marginal impact of temperature, precipitation, and flow in Table 4. The probability of
adopting irrigation increases with higher temperatures in each season except in spring. The
annual effect of higher temperatures reduces the probability of adopting irrigation. Irrigation
allows crops to withstand higher temperatures and the combination of irrigation and higher
temperatures allows for multiple seasons. The probability of adopting irrigation falls withmore precipitation in every season except summer. With more rain, farmers can grow crops
without irrigation, making the cost of irrigation unnecessary. The probability of adopting
irrigation falls if there is a uniform annual increase in flow across all seasons. However, this
is because flow during the winter season is very harmful, probably causing damage to
irrigated systems. Flow during the spring and fall seasons substantially increase the
probability of irrigation. In general, farmers favor irrigation in warmer and drier African
climates with good flow in the spring and fall.
The second stage model of net revenue conditional on irrigation choice in shown in Table 3.
The dependent variable is annual net income per hectare and the independent variables
include climate, soils, and other control variables. We present two sets of regressions.
Columns (b) and (d) are estimated with OLS. Following the standard selection model
(Heckman 1979), we include the inverse Mills ratio in columns (a) and (c) to control for self-
selection bias in the second stage OLS model. In both cases, there is one regression for
Page 10 oManuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
12/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
rainfed plots and one for irrigated plots. The coefficient on the estimated Mills ratio is not
significant but it has the negative sign expected in the rainfed regression. Comparing the
regression coefficients in the OLS and corrected models reveals that they are not significantly
different. There is little evidence of selection bias.
Farm size is significant and negative for both irrigated and rainfed plots. Larger plots have
lower net revenue per hectare. This may partially be due to our omission of household labor
as a cost in net revenue (a measurement bias). Household labor per hectare will tend to be
greater in smaller plots. The result may also be due to higher management intensity on
smaller plots (a real effect). We also include a dummy variable that denotes whether or not a
farm has electricity. Electrified farms outperform farms that do not have electricity in boththe irrigated and rainfed models. Electrification might directly enhance productivity and
earnings or it may simply be a proxy for farms that are closer to markets or more modern.
Farms with larger households have higher net revenue in both samples but the coefficient is
significant in only the irrigated sample.
The second stage regressions also give important insights into the climate sensitivity of
farms. The results show that rainfed and irrigated farms are both sensitive to climate but
have different climate responses. In order to interpret the climate coefficients, the mean
marginal impact is presented in Table 4. Annual warmer temperatures have no effect on
irrigated farm income as seasonal effects are offsetting. Annual precipitation does not have a
significant effect in irrigated farm income either, though wetter summers are beneficial and
wetter falls are harmful. Warmer annual temperatures reduce the income from rainfed plots
with harmful effects from warmer springs and falls but offsetting beneficial effects from
warmer winters and summers. Although these seasonal results are quite different from
temperate climate findings (Mendelsohn et al 1994; Mendelsohn and Dinar 2003), one must
remember that spring is often the hottest season in Africa. More annual precipitation
increases rainfed plot income. Precipitation is especially beneficial in the spring and harmful
only in the winter. The standard deviations in Table 4 were calculated using bootstrapping.
Although the analysis above makes a strong attempt to adjust for some unwanted variation by
introducing available control measures, there are many variables affecting farm income that
e 11 of 34 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
13/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
cannot be measured. In particular, there may be a number of variables that vary at the
national level including agricultural policy, taxes, credit availability, trade, and technology.
In the next analysis, we control for these effects by using country fixed effects. Of course,
using country fixed effects is not a perfect solution as it removes a lot of desired variation in
climate as well. However, by comparing the fixed effects results with the uncontrolled
results, the reader can get a sense of the potential importance of national scale effects. Egypt
and South Africa are omitted in the fixed effect model.
The country fixed effect results of both the probit and the conditional income regressions are
presented in Table 5. The functional form and independent variables are identical to the
earlier regression except that country dummy variables have been added to both regressions.The temperature coefficients remain significant but several of the precipitation and flow
coefficients are less significant with the country fixed effects. With the fixed effects model,
the identifying variables in the probit equation are generally less significant than in Table 2.
The remaining coefficients are generally quite similar. Examining the country coefficients,
we find that farmers in Cameroon and Kenya are more likely to irrigate, controlling for the
rest of the independent variables.
The country fixed effect conditional income equations are also presented in Table 5. The
fixed effect precipitation and temperature coefficients for the irrigated regression are similar
to those in Table 3. However, the climate coefficients for the fixed effect rainfed regression
are quite different. Household, farm control, and soil variables are very similar in Tables 3
and 5. Controlling for other factors, irrigated farmers in all the included countries earn less
than Egyptian and South African irrigated farmers. This is because of the high level of
capital and technology applied to irrigated farms in those two countries. Rainfed farmers in
most of the remaining countries earn less than rainfed farmers in South Africa (there are no
rainfed farms in Egypt), but the difference is significant only in Kenya and Zambia.
Rainfed farmers in Cameroon earn the most income of every country, controlling for other
variables. The coefficients of the inverse Mills ratios are insignificant in Table 5 suggesting
again that there is not a serious sample selection bias problem.
Page 12 oManuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
14/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
Table 6 presents the climate marginals for the fixed effect model. Most of the results are
similar to Table 4. Higher temperatures continue to encourage farmers to adopt irrigation.
The annual temperature and precipitation continue to have an insignificant effect on
conditional income in the irrigated equation and annual precipitation continues to be positive
and significant in the rainfed equation. Higher annual flow continues to reduce the
probability of irrigation but again this is because of a large negative impact from winter flow.
However, some of the results have changed. With fixed effects, annual precipitation no
longer has a significant effect on the choice of irrigation and annual temperature no longer
has a significant impact on the income from rainfed plots. It is difficult to determine whether
the choice of irrigation is a country effect (e.g. Egypt) or an annual precipitation effect. The
impact of annual temperature on rainfed income may also be caused by country level
variables. For example, most of the countries with temperate climates also have more
productive and modern agriculture (Egypt, South Africa, and highland Kenya).
5. Climate change simulation
In this section, we calculate the welfare effect of a changing climate. In the previous
analyses, the comparisons were cross sectional in nature, reflecting the performance of one
farm in one climate against another farm in a different climate. In the analysis in this section,
we use these empirical cross sectional results to project impacts over time. It must be
understood that this exercise is trying to measure long term impacts and adaptations as
farmers fully adapt to a new climate. The projections are not intended to trace dynamic
adjustments from year to year.
We examine how alternative future climate scenarios may affect the choice of irrigation and
net revenue per hectare. We rely on three climate models to provide a range of plausible
predictions: the Parallel Climate Model (PCM) (Washington et al. 2001), the Center for
Climate System Research (CCSR) model (Emori et al. 1999) and the Canadian Climate
Centre model (CCC) (Boer et al. 2000). We look at predicted climate changes in each
African country in 2100 5. On average, PCM predicts a relatively small increase in
temperature (2.3C), CCSR is between (4.5C), and the CCC model predicts a very large
5 The choice of 2100 as a scenario is for exposition purposes. The analysis can easily projectimpacts for other scenarios.
e 13 of 34 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
15/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
increase (6.5C) in temperature for Africa. The PCM predicts a slight increase in
precipitation, especially in winter, whereas the CCC and CCSR predict slight reductions in
precipitation.
For all the comparisons, we assume that African agriculture remains otherwise unchanged.
That is, we examine the impact of a future climate change scenario on current farms. In
practice, farms will change over time. They are likely to have more variable inputs, more
capital, new technology, and better access to markets. All of these changes would likely have
a large influence on future outcomes. In their absence, it is important to recognize that the
predictions in this paper are not good forecasts of future outcomes. The predictions are
intended simply to provide a sense of the role that climate might play.
Nonmarginal changes in climate may induce other changes, for example, in prices. Exactly
how prices will change is hard to predict because prices will likely depend on global
production and demand. Although it is likely that African crop production will be reduced by
warming, it is not at all clear that global production will be affected (Gitay et al. 2001). If
market access in 100 years is good, the local price will be equal to the global price and there
may be no price effects. If prices increase (decrease), farmers will gain (lose) and consumers
will lose (gain). In this paper, we assume that there will be no price effects so we might
overestimate the impacts to African farmers.
Using the probit coefficients for irrigation, we first examine what happens to the probability
of selecting irrigation in the two scenarios. In the PCM scenario, the seasonal temperature
effects are largely offsetting. However, the large increase in winter precipitation encouragesmany farms to switch to irrigation. Ignoring the effects on flow, the probability of irrigation
in the sample rises dramatically to 56% (see Table 7). However, the big increase in winter
flow actually has a negative effect on irrigation. When the change in flow is taken into
account, the increase in irrigation in the PCM scenario is smaller (44%). Note that new water
storage facilities which could hold back winter flows and make them available in the spring
and summer might convert harmful winter flows into beneficial spring and summer flows.
We do not take different water management techniques into account in this analysis but they
Page 14 oManuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
16/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
are potentially very promising. With the CCC and CCSR scenario, the seasonal temperature,
precipitation, and flow effects are offsetting and the probability of irrigation falls slightly.
Multiplying through the probability of selecting irrigation times the conditional income from
irrigation and the probability of selecting rainfed agriculture times the conditional income of
rainfed farming yields an expected income for each farm. The welfare effect per hectare is
the average impact across the sample. Repeating this process in each climate scenario
provides an estimate of the expected income in each scenario. The change in expected
income is an estimate of the annual welfare effects of each scenario.
We compare three estimates of welfare effects for each climate scenario in Table 7. The first
column presents the welfare effects assuming that rainfed and irrigated farms stay as they are
now. That is, the probability of irrigation does not change and there is no sample selection
bias. The second model again assumes that the probability of irrigation does not change but it
uses the corrected regression for sample selection bias. The third estimate allows the
probability of irrigation to adjust and it uses the corrected regression estimates. Standard
deviations were computed using bootstrapping (350 repetitions).
The first two measures of welfare are virtually identical. There is no evidence of sample
selection bias in the data. However, the exogenous estimates grossly underestimate the
benefits of the PCM scenario because they do not take into account the large increase in
irrigation permitted by PCM. The PCM scenario predicts a huge increase in irrigation along
with the wetter and mildly warmer climate. The exogenous models consequently predict that
PCM would lead to only a small benefit of 9% whereas the endogenous model predicts a benefit of 35%. Adjusting for the harmful effect of winter flows, the endogenous model still
predicts that the PCM scenario would lead to a welfare benefit of 24%.
Comparing the welfare results with the two dry climate scenarios, reveals that they are all
quite similar. There is not a large change in irrigation, so the exogenous welfare estimates
are quite similar to the endogenous estimates. It is interesting to note that although the PCM
scenario actually predicts gains for African farmers, the other two climate scenarios predict
e 15 of 34 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
17/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
large losses. Without additional water, irrigation will not help farmers escape the very high
temperatures of these scenarios.
6. Conclusions
This paper provides a modeling framework to explicitly capture irrigation in the Ricardian
model. We control for the endogeneity of irrigation by building a two stage selection model.
Our results indicate that there is little evidence of sample selection bias between African
rainfed and irrigated farms. However, it is important to treat irrigation as though it is
endogenous because the choice is sensitive to at least some climate scenarios. In particular,
with a dry continent that relies on rainfed agriculture, irrigation can increase substantially
with a wetter climate. Similarly, it is important to model irrigation in places that currently
rely on irrigation but which might become dry in the future. Impact studies will be biased if
they fail to take into account the substantial changes in irrigation that climate change might
cause. In Africa, models that did not account for the endogeneity of irrigation seriously
underestimated the benefits of the PCM wetter scenario. However, with the dry CCSR and
CCC scenarios, irrigation did not change very much. All the models predicted similar
damages from these climate scenarios.
The analysis reveals that rainfed and irrigated plots in Africa do not have similar responses to
temperature. Net revenues from rainfed plots tend to fall with higher temperatures whereas
net revenues on irrigated plots are less affected. However, both rainfed and irrigated plots
appear to have similar positive responses to higher precipitation levels except in places with
high rainfall. These results suggest one must be careful not to extrapolate from results on
just rainfed plots or results using just rainfed crops to agriculture as a whole.
The results indicate that current African agriculture is sensitive to climate change. A mild
increase in temperature with an increase in precipitation may be beneficial to African
farmers, but a severe increase in temperature without any increase in precipitation will be
very harmful. Warming and reductions in precipitation will be especially deleterious to
rainfed farmers, generally the poorest segment of the agriculture community. In contrast,
many of the current farms in temperate places or who practice irrigation may actually benefitfrom climate change.
Page 16 oManuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
18/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
The projected impacts of future climate scenarios for African agriculture in this paper are
merely suggestive. The paper assumes that African farms remain as they are now. In
practice, future farms are likely to be quite different from what is there today. These changesmay have a large impact on climate sensitivity. Further research exploring how farms in
Africa might evolve and how this might affect future climate sensitivity is needed.
Finally, the paper hints that water management is likely to be an important issue for Africa.
The results suggest that flows of rivers in the winter are actually harmful to farms, probably
because they are associated with flooding. If these flows could be delayed into spring and
summer, the model suggests they would turn from being harmful into being beneficial.Systems of dams that would store water for a season or two could both reduce the harms of
floods and increase the value of irrigation water. This is an immediate benefit that could be
enjoyed today. However, in a future warmer world, water will be even more scarce and such
adaptations even more important.
e 17 of 34 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
19/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
REFERENCES
Basist, A., C. Williams, N. Grody, T. Ross, S. Shen, A. Chang, R. Ferraro, and M. Menne.
2001. Using the Special Sensor Microwave Imager to monitor surface wetness. Journal of
Hydrometeorology 2: 297308.
Boer, G., G. Flato, and D. Ramsden. 2000. A transient climate change simulation with
greenhouse gas and aerosol forcing: projected climate for the 21 st century, Climate
Dynamics 16 , 427-450.
Caswell, M. and D. Zilberman. 1986. The Effect of Well Depth and Land Quality On the
Choice of Irrigation Technology. American J. of Agricultural Economics 68 : 798-11.
Cline, W. 1996. The impact of global warming on agriculture: Comment. American
Economic Review 86 : 13091312.
Darwin, R. 1999. The impacts of global warming on agriculture: A Ricardian analysis:
Comment. American Economic Review 89 : 10491052.
Dinar, A. and D. Yaron. 1990. Influence of Quality and Scarcity of Inputs on the Adoption
of Modern Irrigation Technologies. Western J. of Agricultural Economics 15 (2): 224-33.
Dinar, A. and D. Zilberman. 1991. The Economics of Resource-Conservation, Pollution-
Reduction Technology Selection, The Case of Irrigation Water. Resources and Energy 13 :
323-48.
Dinar, A., M. B. Campbell, and D. Zilberman. 1992. Adoption of Improved Irrigation and
Drainage Reduction Technologies Under Limiting Environmental Conditions.
Environmental & Resource Economics 2: 373-98.
Emori, S. T. Nozawa, A. Abe-Ouchi, A. Namaguti, and M. Kimoto, (1999). Coupled ocean-
atmospheric model experiments of future climate change with an explicit representation of
sulfate aerosol scattering. Journal of Meteorological Society, 77, 12991307, Japan.
Page 18 oManuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
20/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
FAO (Food And Agriculture Organization). 1997. Irrigation Potential in Africa: A basin
approach . FAO Land and Water Bulletin, 4, FAO Land and Water Development Division,
Rome.
FAO (Food And Agriculture Organization). 2003. The Digital Soil Map of the World :
Version 3.6 (January), Rome, Italy.
Gitay, H., S. Brown, W. Easterling, B. Jallow. 2001. in McCarthy, J., O. Canziani, N. Leary,
D. Dokken, and K. White (eds.) Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and
Vulnerability , Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Cambridge University Press:
Cambridge, pp 235-342.
Heckman, J. 1979. Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica 47: 153
161.
Heltberg, R and F. Tarp. 2002. Agricultural supply response and poverty in Mozambique.
Food Policy 27: 103124.
IMWI (International Water Management Institute) and The University of Colorado. 2003.
Hydroclimatic Data. GEF/CEEPA/World Bank Project on Climate, water and agriculture:
Impacts and adaptation of agro-ecological systems in Africa.
Kurukulasuriya, P., R. Mendelsohn, R. Hassan, J. Benhin, M. Diop, H. M. Eid, K.Y. Fosu, G.
Gbetibouo, S. Jain, , A. Mahamadou, S. El-Marsafawy, S. Ouda, M. Ouedraogo, I. Sne, N.
Seo, D. Maddison and A. Dinar, 2006. Will African Agriculture Survive Climate Change?
World Bank Economic Review 20: 367-388 .
Kurukulasuriya, P.,and M. I. Ajwad. 2007. Application of the Ricardian Technique to
Estimate the Impact of Climate Change on Smallholder Farming in Sri Lanka Climatic
Change 81 : 39-59.
Mendelsohn R., W. Nordhaus, and D. Shaw. 1994. The impact of global warming onagriculture: A Ricardian analysis. American Economic Review 84 : 753771.
e 19 of 34 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
http://www.ceepa.co.za/Climate_Change/climate-about.htmlhttp://www.ceepa.co.za/Climate_Change/climate-about.htmlhttp://www.ceepa.co.za/Climate_Change/climate-about.htmlhttp://www.ceepa.co.za/Climate_Change/climate-about.htmlhttp://www.ceepa.co.za/Climate_Change/climate-about.html -
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
21/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
Mendelsohn, R. and A. Dinar, 2003. Climate, water, and agriculture. Land Economics 79 :
328341.
Mendelsohn, R. and L. Williams. 2004. Comparing Forecasts of the Global Impacts of
Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change 9: 315-333.
Mendelsohn, R., A. Dinar, and L. Williams. 2006. The Distributional Impact of Climate
Change On Rich and Poor Countries Environment and Development Economics 11 : 1-20.
Mendelsohn, R., A. Basist, A. Dinar, F. Kogan, P. Kurukulasuriya, and C. Williams. 2006.
Climate Analysis with Satellites Versus Weather Station Data Climatic Change 81: 71-83.
.
Negri, D. H., and D. H. Brooks. 1990. Determinants of Irrigation Technology Choice.
Western Journal of Agricultural Economics 15: 213-23.
Nordhaus, W. 2006. Geography and Macroeconomics: New Data and New Findings
Proceedings of the National Academy Sciences 103: 3510-3517.
Schlenker, W., M. Hanemann, and A. Fischer. 2005. Will US Agriculture really benefit
from global warming? Accounting for irrigation in the hedonic approach. American
Economic Review , 95(1): 395406.
Sen, A. 1962. An aspect of Indian agriculture, Economics Weekly , Annual
Number, 243-66.
Seo, S. N., R. Mendelsohn, and M. Munasinghe. 2005. Climate Change Impacts on
Agriculture in Sri Lanka Environment and Development Economics 10: 581-596.
Seo, N. and R. Mendelsohn. 2008. A Ricardian Analysis of the Impact of Climate Change
on South American Farms Agricultura Technica (forthcoming).
USGS (United States Geological Survey). 2004. Global 30 Arc Second Elevation Data ,USGS National Mapping Division, EROS Data Centre.
Page 20 oManuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
22/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
Washington, W., J. Weatherly, G. Meehl, A.Semtner, B. Bettge, A Craig, W. Strand, J.
Arblaster, V. Wayland, R. James, and Y. Zhang. 2000. Parallel Climate Model (PCM):
Control and Transient Scenarios. Climate Dynamics , 16: 755-774.
Weng F. and Grody N. 1998. Physical retrieval of land surface temperature using the
Special Sensor Microwave Imager. Journal of Geophysical Research 103: 88398848.
World Bank. 2003. Africa Rainfall and Temperature Evaluation System , World Bank,
Washington, DC.
e 21 of 34 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
23/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
Tables and Figures
Table 1: Sample of farms
Country No. of plots
Irrigatedplots
Rainfedplots
Burkina Faso 1141 59 1082
Cameroon 1013 145 868
Egypt 1030 1030 0
Ethiopia 932 67 865
Ghana 1210 49 1161Kenya 862 95 767
Niger 1133 52 1081
Senegal 1362 34 1328
South Africa 283 83 200
Zambia 1009 13 996
Zimbabwe 958 123 835
Total 10933 1750 9183
Page 22 oManuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
24/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
Table 2: Probit model of whether to irrigate
Variable CoefficientsTemp - winter 0.45*
(3.00)Temp - winter sq -0.003(-0.67)
Temp - spring -0.95**(-6.03)
Temp - spring sq 0.01*(2.48)
Temp - summer 1.25**(9.42)
Temp - summer sq -0.02**(-9.43)
Temp - fall -0.71**(-4.25)
Temp - fall sq 0.02**(5.54)
Precip - winter -0.01(-1.89)
Precip - winter sq 0.00**(5.06)
Precip - spring -0.01*(-2.20)
Precip - spring sq 0.0000025(0.10)Precip - summer 0.02**
(6.37)Precip - summer sq -0.000067**
(-5.48)Precip - fall -0.01**
(-3.25)Precip - fall sq 0.000036**
(4.00)Plot area (HA) 0.000067
(0.59)Log(elevation) 0.26**
(8.13)Log(Household size) 0.09*
(2.03)Household withelectricity (1/0) 0.23**
(4.33)Gleyic Luvisols - Fine,Undulating -7.34*
(-1.98)Eutric Gleysols -2.54**
(-6.57)
Variable CoefficientsChromic Cambisols -
Medium, Steep-1.54*
(-2.51)Lithsols - Coarse,Medium, Fine, Steep -5.20*
(-1.99)Ferric Luvisols - Coarse,Undulating 1.09**
(8.69)Gleyic Luvisols 0.84*
(2.60)Gleyic Luvisols -
Medium, Undulating0.78*
(2.96)Chromic Luvisols -Medium,Undulating,Hilly
0.53
(1.00)Luvic Arenosols -Coarse, Undulating -4.70**
(-3.76)Lithosols and EutricGleysols - Hilly 7.25*
(2.54)Calcic Yermosols -Coarse, Medium,Undulating, Hilly
2.74**
(5.28)
Eutric Gleysols - Coarse,Undulating -2.71
(-1.51)Chromic Vertisols -Fine, Undulating 0.6
(1.06)Chromic Luvisols -Medium, Fine,Undulating
-0.27
(-0.61)Chromic Luvisols -Medium, Steep -0.52
(-0.31)
Dystric Nitosols -1.02*
(-2.06)
Lithosolus - Hilly, Steep -0.06
e 23 of 34 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
25/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
Variable Coefficients(-0.09)
Orthic Luvisols -Medium, Hilly -1.5
(-1.21)Flow- winter -1.67(-1.73)
Flow - winter sq -0.8(-1.17)
Flow - spring -0.05(-0.06)
Flow - spring sq 2.12*(3.20)
Flow - summer -1.24**
Variable Coefficients(-4.83)
Flow - summer sq 0.11**(4.55)
Flow - fall 1.22**
(5.58)Flow - fall sq -0.08*
(-3.28)Constant -4.18**
(-3.73)
N 10915 Log pseudolikelihood -2122.1R 2 0.56
Dependent variable is whether or not irrigation is utilized in a plot. * p
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
26/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
Table 3: Conditional income regressions
Model Irrigated Model Rainfed ModelVariables Corrected OLS Corrected OLSTemp - winter 97.0 142.4 -128.2* -123.4*
(0.60) (1.05) (-2.51) (-2.43)Temp - winter sq -1.69 -2.65 4.33** 4.25*(-0.44) (-0.74) (3.31) (3.25)
Temp - spring -93.2 -165.4 4.3 -4.7(-0.47) (-1.07) (0.05) (-0.05)
Temp - spring sq -0.60 0.68 -1.98 -1.84(-0.15) (0.19) (-1.09) (-1.03)
Temp - summer 1188.1** 1287.9** 214.2* 224.7**
(3.42) (4.74) (3.24) (3.51)Temp - summer
sq-18.16* -20.16** -2.99* -3.19*
(-3.02) (-4.48) (-2.36) (-2.60)Temp - fall -1580.4** -1653.8** -82.6 -92.4
(-3.63) (-4.31) (-1.47) (-1.70)Temp - fall sq 29.43** 31.28** 1.13 1.37
(3.47) (4.35) (0.95) (1.20)Precip - winter 12.03 10.47 -2.60* -2.74*
(1.80) (1.75) (-2.20) (-2.33)Precip - winter sq -0.06 -0.05 0.02* 0.02*
(-1.44) (-1.42) (2.75) (3.01)Precip - spring -10.31 -9.71 3.71** 3.78**
(-1.61) (-1.53) (3.41) (3.50)Precip - spring sq 0.09* 0.09* -0.01 -0.01
(2.30) (2.27) (-1.44) (-1.59)Precip - summer 26.25** 27.87** 4.09** 4.21**
(4.98) (6.46) (6.08) (6.27)Precip - summer sq -0.10** -0.10** -0.02** -0.02**
(-4.88) (-5.82) -(5.29) (-5.39)Precip - fall -25.35** -26.85** -1.21* -1.28*
(-5.00) (-6.25) (-2.15) (-2.32)
Precip - fall sq 0.08** 0.09** 0.01** 0.01**(4.98) (5.92) (5.53) (5.65)Plot area (HA) -0.15* -0.14* -0.29** -0.29**
(-2.39) (-2.31) (-4.54) (-4.53)Log(Householdsize) 41.68 44.28 22.46* 23.25*
(.74) (.79) (2.05) (2.12)With electricity(1/0) 387.4** 412.9** 124.1** 125.5**
(3.66) (4.36) (7.84) (8.03)Gleyic Luvisols -111.2* -103.2*
(-2.89) (-2.70)
e 25 of 34 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
27/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
Luvic Arenosols-CoarseUndulating -357.0** -397.0**
(-4.60) (-5.56)Eutric Gleysols-Coarse
Undulating
-1554.0* -2045.5** -405.4** -423.7**
(-2.25) (-3.81) (-4.54) (-4.75)ChromicVertisols-FineUndulating
-1910.2* -1857.5* -708.3** -711.4**
(-2.81) (-2.80) (-3.51) (-3.53)ChromicLuvisols-MediumFine Undulating
-315.1** -304.9**
(-8.79) (-8.72)ChromicLuvisols-MediumSteep
-6510.5* -6495.5*
(-2.94) (-2.92)
Dystric Nitosols 7528.3** 7410.2**
(5.39) (5.28)Lithosolus HillySteep -877.9* -922.4** -352.7** -369.5**
(-3.29) (-3.51) (-8.40) (-8.96)
Orthic Luvisols
Medium Hilly-1885.7** -1907.0**
(-3.81) (-3.86)Inverse MillsRatio -102.2 -7.8
(-0.80) (-1.35)
Constant 4361.7* 4141.1* -295.6 -276.1
(2.72) (2.48) (-0.66) (-0.62)
N 1787 1787 9128 9128 R-squared 0.25 0.25 0.16 0.16F-stat 68.47 53.6 49.41 51.11
Note: Dependent variable is net revenue per hectare. * p
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
28/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
Table 4: Marginal Climate Impacts
Marginal effects calculated from coefficients in Table 2.
Conditional Income Conditional IncomeIrrigated Farms Rainfed Farms
TemperatureC
Precipitation
mm/mo
TemperatureC
Precipitation
mm/mo
Winter 45
(128)
8
(9)
55
(14)
-2
(1)
Spring -108
(140)
-6.0
(6)
-97
(16)
3
(1)
Summer 314
(130)
17
(5)
68
(14)
1
(0.3)
Fall -249
(130)
-18
(5)
-33
(15)
1
(0.4)
Annual 1
(25)
1
(10)
-7
(4)
3
(0.6)
Marginal effects calculated from corrected coefficients in Table 3 columns (a) and (c).Marginal effects estimated using the climate of each observation. The mean and standarddeviations calculated using bootstrapping (350 repetitions).
Selection Model (Irrigation Choice)
TemperatureC
Precipitationmm/mo
Flowmillion m 3/mo
Winter 0.34(0.062)
-0.002(0.005)
-2.49
(0.83)
Spring -0.52(0.068)
-0.01
(0.004)
1.47
(0.85)
Summer 0.08
(0.58)
0.01
(0.002)
-0.9
(0.28)
Fall 0.15
(0.059) -0.002(0.002)
0.91
(0.20)
Annual 0.06
(0.016)
-0.01
(0.004)
-1.06
(0.58)
e 27 of 34 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
29/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
Table 5: Country Fixed Effects Regressions
ChoiceModel
CorrectedIrrigated
Farms
CorrectedRainfed
FarmsTemp - winter 0.18 2.8 -56.4(0.98) (0.01) (-0.90)
Temp - winter sq 0.0015 8.68 2.21(0.31) (1.55) (1.48)
Temp - spring -0.89** 68.0 -73.8(-4.35) (0.29) (-0.72)
Temp - spring sq 0.01* -8.26 0.47(2.03) (-1.57) (0.23)
Temp - summer 1.10** 946.1* 99.1(5.80 (2.34) (1.38)
Temp - summer sq -0.02** -11.79 -2(-5.94) (-1.73) (-1.47)
Temp - fall -0.57* -1528.7* -59.8(-2.59) (-3.19) (-1.01)
Temp - fall sq 0.02** 25.07* 1.59(3.93) (2.76) (1.31)
Precip - winter -0.01 -1.42 1.34(-1.28) (-0.14) (0.97)
Precip - winter sq 0.00012** 0.01 -.004(3.92) (0.27) (-0.68)
Precip - spring -0.01* -8.55 0.43(-2.23) (-0.89) (0.35)
Precip - spring sq -0.000005 0.08 -.0009(-0.17) (1.62) (-0.17)
Precip - summer 0.01* 23.12* 2.31*(2.33) (2.62) (2.75)
Precip - summer sq -.00002 -0.09* -0.01*(-1.57) (-3.08) (-2.09)
Precip - fall -0.00002 -22.88* 0.17(0.42) (-2.58) -(0.22)
Precip - fall sq -0.000007 0.08* .0006(-0.65) (3.11) (0.25)
Plot area (HA) 0.00008 -0.16* -0.21**-(0.73) (-2.53) (-3.39)
Log(elevation) 0.13*(2.86)
Log(Householdsize) 0.10* 79.6 28.24*
(2.23) (1.35) (2.55)Household withelectricity (1/0) 0.10 244.5* 33.1*
(1.62) (2.46) (2.04)
Gleyic Luvisols -Fine, Undulating -7.08
Page 28 oManuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
30/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
(-1.76)Eutric Gleysols -2.04**
(-4.35)Chromic Cambisols- Medium, Steep -1.35*
(-2.31)Lithsols - Coarse,Medium, Fine, Steep -5.63*
(-2.11)Ferric Luvisols -Coarse, Undulating 1.09**
(8.64)Gleyic Luvisols 1.23** -86.70*
(3.57) (-2.01)Gleyic Luvisols -Medium, Undulating 1.17**
(4.15)Chromic Luvisols -Medium,Undulating,Hilly
1.58*
(2.52)Luvic Arenosols -Coarse, Undulating -4.76** -359.0**
(-3.83) (-3.64)Lithosols and EutricGleysols - Hilly 7.46*
(2.44)Calcic Yermosols -Coarse, Medium,Undulating, Hilly
2.70**
(5.22)Eutric Gleysols -Coarse, Undulating -2.22 273.5 95.9
(-1.25) -(0.30) -(1.15)Chromic Vertisols -Fine, Undulating 0.88 -2648.0* -634.0*
(1.41) (-3.27) (-2.99)
Chromic Luvisols -Medium, Fine,Undulating
0.51 -35.4
(1.17) (-0.93)Chromic Luvisols -Medium, Steep -0.03 -8109.0**
(-0.02) (-3.64)Dystric Nitosols -1.27* 7383.8**
(-2.07) -(5.1)Lithosolus - Hilly,Steep 0.91 -244.7 -58.1
(1.23) (-0.68) (-1.08)
e 29 of 34 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
31/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
Orthic Luvisols -Medium, Hilly -1.97 -1995.6**
(-1.72) (-3.85)Flow- winter -1.97
(-1.71)
Flow - winter sq -0.97
(-1.21)Flow - spring -0.21
(-0.19)Flow - spring sq 2.07*
(2.61)Flow - summer -0.76
(-1.73)Flow - summer sq 0.04
(1.32)
Flow - fall 0.83*(2.98)
Flow - fall sq -0.02(-0.68)
Inverse Mills Ratio 100.98 8.26(0.85) (0.65)
Constant -1.65 6754.5** 1202.8*(-1.30) (3.59) (2.41)
Burkina Faso 0.02 -1608.8* -9.6(0.05) (-3.24) (-0.06)
Ghana 0.37 -1599.7* -55.7(0.98) (-3.08) (-0.37)
Cameroon 1.77*** -1469.0* 345.8*(4.70) (-2.85) -(2.36)
Ethiopia 0.62 -1776.2** -265.3(1.61) (-3.75) (-1.78)
Kenya 1.03* -1431.6* -318.0*(2.69) (-2.96) (-2.34)
Niger -0.11 -2398.6** -183.8(-0.25) (-4.62) (-1.23)
Senegal -0.36 -1840.3* -64.3(-0.84) (-3.26) (-0.43)
Zimbabwe 0.46 -881.0* -25.3(1.58) (-2.77) (-0.21)
Zambia -0.17 -1071.4* -293.4*(-0.45) (-2.68) (-2.37)
R-squared 0.58 0.26 0.20 N 10915 1787 9128 F 41.93 46.59 Wald chi2(55) 1512.13Log pseudolikelihood -2053.96
Notes Pseudo R2
Page 30 oManuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
32/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
Table 6: Marginal Climate Impacts With Fixed Effects
Selection Model (Irrigation Choice)
TemperatureC
Precipitation
mm/mo
Flow
million m 3/mo
Winter 0.26
(0.09)
-0.003
(0.01)
-3.09
(1.1)
Spring -0.46
(0.09)
-0.01
(0.005)
1.4
(1.29)
Summer 0.08
(0.08)
0.01
(0.002)
-0.6
(0.51)
Fall 0.17
(0.09)
-0.00003
(0.002)
0.77
(0.29)
Annual 0.06
(0.02)
-0.01
(0.01)
-1.54
(0.66)
ConditionalIncome ConditionalIncome ConditionalIncome ConditionalIncome
Irrigated Farms Irrigated Farms Rainfed Farms Rainfed Farms
TemperatureC
Precipitation
mm/mo
TemperatureC
Precipitation
mm/mo
Winter 274
(177)
-6
(15)
39
(19)
1
(1.4)
Spring -233
(166)
-2
(12)
-53
(19)
0.3
(1.1)Summer 408
(158)
14
(8)
-1
(16)
0.7
(0.4)
Fall -430
(181)
-16
(9)
10
(19)
0.3
(0.5)
Annual 28
(27)
-9
(11)
-3
(6)
2.4
(0.7)
Note: Marginal effects calculated from coefficients in Table 5. Marginal effects estimated ateach observations climate. Means and standard deviations calculated using bootstrapping(350 repetitions).
e 31 of 34 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
33/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
Table 7: Irrigation and Welfare Results Across Three Climate Change Scenarios
IrrigationExogenousOLS
ExogenousCorrected
Endogenous(with Flowconstant)
Endogenous(with flow
adjusting toclimate)Baseline Income 483 483 483 483
PCM ScenarioProbability of Irrigation 16% 16% 56% 44%
in expectedwelfare ($/ha)*
65(100)
44(119)
169(314)
115.5(299)
in expectedwelfare (%) +13% +9% +35% +24%
CCSR ScenarioProbability of Irrigation 16% 16% 13% 13%
in expectedwelfare ($/ha)*
-196(53)
-206(64)
-211(68)
-216(63)
in expectedwelfare (%) -41% -43% -44% -45%
CCC Scenario
Probability of Irrigation 16% 16% 14% 14%
in expectedwelfare ($/ha)*
-263(70)
-276(75)
-278(75)
-288(68)
in expectedwelfare (%) -54% -57% -58% -60%
Standard deviation in parenthesis calculated from bootstrapping. Exogenous calculation usescurrent irrigation probabilities and OLS or corrected conditional results. Endogenouscalculation uses predicted future irrigation probabilities and corrected conditional results.
Page 32 oManuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
34/35
F o r P e e r R e v i e w
Appendix A: Mean temperature and Precipitation by Countries in SampleTable A1: Temperature (C) Normals (Sample Means)Seasonal climates have been adjusted so that they are consistent regardless of hemisphere. Country Winter Spring Summer FallBurkina Faso 23.6 28.3 28.9 24.5
Cameroon 19.4 21.4 20.0 18.9Egypt 11.7 13.2 24.1 23.4Ethiopia 18.6 21.5 19.7 18.1Ghana 21.8 24.8 22.6 21.2Kenya 18.8 19.7 18.4 19.1Niger 26.3 30.8 33.9 29.2Senegal 24.5 29.1 31.5 26.7South Africa 11.5 15.5 20.7 19.4Zambia 16.7 21.7 21.1 19.6Zimbabwe 16.6 21.3 22.5 20.6Total 19.8 23.4 24.5 22.2
Table A2: Precipitation (mm/mo) Normals (Sample Mean)Seasonal climates have been adjusted so that they are consistent regardless of hemisphere.
Country Winter Spring Summer FallBurkina Faso 2.6 15.8 113.8 133.1Cameroon 60.3 101.9 185.1 228.6Egypt 12.8 7.0 2.3 3.5Ethiopia 19.4 49.2 123.7 117.5Ghana 30.9 59.7 112.4 111.7Kenya 88.4 103.0 84.3 60.0Niger 0.8 3.2 64.1 70.6Senegal 2.2 1.1 47.9 112.7South Africa 1.8 55.0 86.4 68.8Zambia 48.3 57.7 108.6 100.7Zimbabwe 7.5 15.4 138.8 90.0Total 25.9 39.8 96.1 102.4
Table A3: Flow (million mm 3/mo) Normals (Sample Mean)Country Winter Spring Summer FallBurkina Faso 0.03 0.01 0.04 0.11Cameroon 0.32 0.23 0.67 1.21Egypt 3.08 2.66 7.60 11.17Ethiopia 0.11 0.11 0.45 0.63Ghana 0.23 0.13 0.47 0.95Kenya 0.12 0.16 0.21 0.16Niger 0.20 0.07 0.47 1.23Senegal 0.07 0.01 0.15 0.51South Africa 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.06Zambia 0.41 0.16 2.40 2.92Zimbabwe 0.12 0.09 0.52 0.61Total 0.43 0.33 1.18 1.78
e 33 of 34 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies
-
7/27/2019 Adaptation and Climate Change Impacts_ a Selection Model of Irrigation and Farm Income in Africa
35/35
F o r P e e r R
e v i e w
Figure 1: Temperature response functions of irrigated and rainfed farms
0
500
1000
1500
P r e
d i c t e d n e
t r e v e n u e o
f d r y
l a n
d f a r m s
16 18 20 22 24 26Temperature (Celcius)
Irrigated Farms Dryland Farms
Temperature Response Functions
Figure 2: Precipitation response functions of irrigated and rainfed farms
0
250
500
750
1000
1250
1500
1750
2000
2250
P r e
d i c t e d n e
t r e v e n u e o
f d r y
l a n
d f a r m
s
80 130 180 230Precipitation (mm)
Irrigated Farms Dryland Farms
Precipitation Response Functions
Page 34 Manuscripts submitted to Journal of African Economies