Does infrastructure and resource access matter for technical efficiency? An empirical analysis of fishing and fuelwood collection in Mozambique

  • Olli-Pekka KuuselaEmail author
  • Maria S. Bowman
  • Gregory S. Amacher
  • Richard B. Howarth
  • Nadine T. Laporte


We use an extensive location-stratified survey of rural households in the Sofala Province (Mozambique) to evaluate the importance of location relative to the Gorongosa National Park (and associated resource stocks) and access to infrastructure in determining household technical inefficiency of fuelwood collection and fish catch activities. The stochastic frontier econometric model corrects for unobserved household level inefficiency shocks and stochastic shocks to these production systems, as well as household time endogeneity. We find important differences in natural resource versus infrastructure access in terms of buffering efficiency-related shocks. For fuelwood collection, inefficiencies depend more on the proximity to roads than to the Gorongosa National Park, although both are important factors in explaining production outcomes. Our estimation results furthermore reveal the presence of a considerable level of inefficiency in both production activities. Overall, our results suggest that sustainable management of resources in and around the park is important for ensuring household well-being in the long run, particularly in the case of open access resources such as fuelwood and fish stocks.


Inefficiency Stochastic frontier model Shocks Subsistence Household production 



We thank the reviewers for helpful comments. We also thank Heidi Gengenbach for comments on an earlier version. All remaining errors are our own. The findings and conclusions in this preliminary publication have not been formally disseminated by the U. S. Department of Agriculture and should not be construed to represent any agency determination or policy. Funding for this research was provided by the National Science Foundation (Grant No. 0624168).


  1. Ahmed, M. H., & Melesse, K. A. (2018). Impact of off-farm activities on technical efficiency: Evidence from maize producers of eastern Ethiopia. Agricultural and Food Economics, 6(1), 3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aigner, D. J., Lovell, C. K., & Schmidt, P. (1977). Formulation and estimation of stochastic frontier production function models. Journal of Econometrics, 6, 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amacher, G., Hyde, W., & Joshee, B. (1993). Joint production and consumption in traditional households: Fuelwood and crop residues in two districts of Nepal. Journal of Development Studies, 30(1), 206–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Amacher, G., Hyde, W., & Kanel, K. (1996). Household fuelwood demand and supply in Nepal’s Tarai and mid-hills: Choice between cash outlays and labor opportunity. World Development, 24(11), 1725–1736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Amaza, P. S., & Olayemi, J. K. (2002). Analysis of technical efficiency in food crop production in Gombe State, Nigeria. Applied Economics Letters, 9, 51–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Angelsen, A., Jagger, P., Babigumira, R., Belcher, B., Hogarth, N. J., Bauch, S., et al. (2014). Environmental income and rural livelihoods: A global-comparative analysis. World Development, 64, S12–S28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Battese, G. E. (1992). Frontier production functions and technical efficiency: A survey of empirical applications in agricultural economics. Agricultural Economics, 7(3–4), 185–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Battese, G. E., & Coelli, T. J. (1988). Prediction of firm-level technical efficiencies with generalized frontier production function and panel data. Journal of Econometrics, 38, 387–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Battese, G. E., & Coelli, T. (1995). A model for technical efficiency effects in a stochastic frontier production function for panel data. Empirical Economics, 20, 325–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Belcher, B., Achdiawan, R., & Dewi, S. (2015). Forest-based livelihoods strategies conditioned by market remoteness and forest proximity in Jharkhand, India. World Development, 66, 269–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Benjamin, D. (1992). Household composition, labor markets, and labor demand: Testing for separation in agricultural household models. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 60(2), 287–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Binam, N., Tonye, J., Wandji, N., Nyambi, G., & Akoa, M. (2004). Factors affecting the technical efficiency among smallholder farmers in the slash and burn agriculture zone of Cameroon. Food Policy, 29, 531–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bluffstone, R. A. (1995). The effect of labor market performance on deforestation in developing countries under open access: An example from rural Nepal. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 29, 43–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Cavendish, W. (2000). Empirical regularities in the poverty-environment relationship of rural households: Evidence from Zimbabwe. World Development, 28(11), 1979–2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chand, N., Kerr, G. N., & Bigsby, H. (2015). Production efficiency of community forest management in Nepal. Forest Policy and Economics, 50, 172–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Clements, T., Suon, S., Wilkie, D. S., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2014). Impacts of protected areas on local livelihoods in Cambodia. World Development, 64, S125–S134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coelli, T. (1995). Estimators and hypothesis tests for a stochastic frontier function: A Monte Carlo analysis. Journal of Productivity Analysis, 6, 247–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cooke, P. A. (1998). Intrahousehold labor allocation responses to environmental good scarcity. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 46(4), 807–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cooke, P., Kohlin, G., & Hyde, W. (2008). Fuelwood, forests, and community management—Evidence from household studies. Environment and Development Economics, 13, 103–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dey, M. M., Paraguas, F. J., Kambewa, P., & Pemsl, D. E. (2010). The impact of integrated aquaculture–agriculture on small-scale farms in Southern Malawi. Agricultural Economics, 41(1), 67–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fisher, M. (2004). Household welfare and forest dependence in Southern Malawi. Environment and Development Economics, 9(2), 135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gebregziabher, G., Namara, R. E., & Holden, S. (2012). Technical efficiency of irrigated and rain-fed smallholder agriculture in Tigray, Ethiopia: A comparative stochastic frontier production function analysis. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 51, 203–226.Google Scholar
  23. Hadri, K. (1999). Estimation of doubly heteroscedastic stochastic frontier cost function. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 17, 359–363.Google Scholar
  24. Hadri, K., Guermat, C., & Whittaker, J. (2003). Estimation of technical inefficiency effects using panel data and doubly heteroscedastic stochastic production frontiers. Empirical Economics, 28, 203–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Howard Hughes Medical Institute. (2014). Gorongosa: Restoring Mozambique’s national treasure. Accessed 1 Sept 2018.
  26. Jacoby, H. G. (1993). Shadow wages and peasant family labour supply: An econometric application to the Peruvian Sierra. The Review of Economic Studies, 60(4), 903–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jondrow, J., Lovell, C. K., Materov, I. S., & Schmidt, P. (1982). On the estimation of technical inefficiency in the stochastic frontier production function model. Journal of Econometrics, 19, 233–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kohlin, G., & Amacher, G. (2005). Welfare implications of social forestry projects: The case of Orissa India. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 87(4), 855–869.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kohlin, G., & Parks, P. (2001). Spatial variability and incentives to harvest: Deforestation and fuelwood collection in South Asia. Land Economics, 77, 206–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Koirala, K. H., Mishra, A., & Mohanty, S. (2016). Impact of land ownership on productivity and efficiency of rice farmers: The case of the Philippines. Land Use Policy, 50, 371–378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kumbhakar, S. C. (1990). Production frontiers, panel data and time-varying technical inefficiency. Journal of Econometrics, 46, 201–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kumbhakar, S. C., Gosh, S. C., & McGuckin, T. (1991). A generalized production frontier approach for estimating determinants of inefficiency in U.S. dairy farms. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 9, 279–286.Google Scholar
  33. Kumbhakar, S. C., & Lovell, C. K. (2003). Stochastic frontier analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Macdonald, D., Adamowicz, W., & Luckert, M. (2001). Fuelwood collection in northeastern Zimbabwe: Valuation and caloric expenditures. Journal of Forest Economics, 7, 29–51.Google Scholar
  35. Meeusen, W., & Van den Broeck, J. (1977). Efficiency estimation from Cobb–Douglas production functions with composite error. International Economic Review, 18, 435–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mochebelele, M. T., & Winter-Nelson, A. (2000). Migrant labor and farm technical efficiency in Lesotho. World Development, 28, 143–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Nguyen, T. T., Do, T. L., Bühler, D., Hartje, R., & Grote, U. U. (2015). Rural livelihoods and environmental resource dependence in Cambodia. Ecological Economics, 120, 282–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Nguyen, T. T., Do, T. L., Parvathi, P., Wossink, A., & Grote, U. (2018). Farm production efficiency and natural forest extraction: Evidence from Cambodia. Land Use Policy, 71, 480–493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ogundari, K. (2014). The paradigm of agricultural efficiency and its implication on food security in Africa: What does meta-analysis reveal? World Development, 64, 690–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Parvathi, P., & Nguyen, T. T. (2018). Is environmental income reporting evasive in household surveys? Evidence from rural poor in Laos. Ecological Economics, 143, 218–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pascual, U. (2005). Land use intensification potential in slash-and-burn farming through improvements in technical efficiency. Ecological Economics, 52, 497–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Pfaff, A. S. (1999). What drives deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon? Evidence from satellite and socioeconomic data. Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 37(1), 26–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pfaff, A., Robalino, J., Walker, R., Aldrich, S., Caldas, M., Reis, E., et al. (2007). Road investments, spatial spillovers, and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon. Journal of Regional Science, 47(1), 109–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sesabo, J. K., & Tol, R. S. (2007). Technical efficiency of small-scale fishing households in Tanzanian coastal villages: An empirical analysis. African Journal of Aquatic Science, 32(1), 51–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Seymour, G. (2017). Women’s empowerment in agriculture: Implications for technical efficiency in rural Bangladesh. Agricultural Economics, 48(4), 513–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Seyoum, E. T., Battese, G. E., & Fleming, E. M. (1998). Technical efficiency and productivity of maize producers in eastern Ethiopia: A study of farmers within and outside the Sasakawa-Global 2000 project. Agricultural Economics, 19, 341–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sherlund, S., Barrett, C., & Adesina, A. (2002). Smallholder technical efficiency controlling for environmental production conditions. Journal of Development Economics, 69, 85–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Sills, E., & Abt, K. (Eds.). (2003). Forests in a market economy. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  49. Tilahun, M., Maertens, M., Deckers, J., Muys, B., & Mathijs, E. (2016). Impact of membership in frankincense cooperative firms on rural income and poverty in Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Forest Policy and Economics, 62, 95–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wadud, A., & White, B. (2000). Farm household efficiency in Bangladesh: A comparison of stochastic frontier and DEA methods. Applied Economics, 32, 1665–1673.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wunder, S., Börner, J., Shively, G., & Wyman, M. (2014). Safety nets, gap filling and forests: A global-comparative perspective. World Development, 64, S29–S42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Forest Resources, Engineering and ManagementOregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  2. 2.USDA Economic Research ServiceWashingtonUSA
  3. 3.BlacksburgUSA
  4. 4.Dartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA
  5. 5.School of ForestryNorthern Arizona UniversityFlagstaffUSA

Personalised recommendations