Food Security

, Volume 9, Issue 5, pp 929–944 | Cite as

The impact of new Rice for Africa (NERICA) adoption on household food security and health in the Gambia

  • Lamin DibbaEmail author
  • Manfred Zeller
  • Aliou Diagne
Original Paper


This paper investigates the impact of NERICA rice adoption on household food security and human health, using country-wide cross-sectional data of 502 rice farming households in The Gambia. We used food consumption scores and the number of household sick days per capita as outcome indicators of food security and health, respectively. The instrumental variable approach was used to identify causal effects of NERICA adoption on food security and health. We found significant differences in some key socio-economic and demographic characteristics between adopters and non-adopters of NERICA. To control for such differences and allow a causal interpretation of the impact of NERICA adoption, we estimated the Local Average Treatment Effect (LATE). Our analyses indicated that adoption of NERICA significantly increased household food security by 14 percentage points. This helps severely food insecure households to achieve acceptable food security status by enabling them to acquire cereals and tubers, pulses, vegetables and fruits on a daily basis. However, there was no significant impact of NERICA adoption on human health. Our findings indicate that NERICA can play an important role in fighting against food insecurity in The Gambia.


Counterfactual Food security Health Instrumental variables NERICA The Gambia 



The authors are grateful to the Global Rice Scholarship programme for financial assistance for the implementation of this study, as well as to the Africa Rice Center and University of Hohenheim for their technical assistance. We thank two anonymous reviewers and the editors of this journal for very useful comments.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

We declare that there is no conflict of interest.


  1. Abadie, A. (2003). Semiparametric instrumental variable estimation of treatment response models. Journal of Econometrics, 113, 231–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adekambi, S. A., Diagne, A., Simtowe, F. P., & Biaou, G. (2009). The Impact of Agricultural Technology Adoption on Poverty: The Case of NERICA Rice Varieties in Benin. Contributed Paper prepared for presentation at The International Association of Agricultural Economists’ 2009 Conference, 16-22, 2009.Google Scholar
  3. AFIDEP (2012). Population, climate change, and sustainable development in Africa. Available at Accessed November 2014.
  4. Bremner, J. (2012). Population and food security: Africa’s Challenge. Available at Accessed May 2015.
  5. Carney, J.A. (1998). “Women‘s land rights in Gambian irrigated rice schemes: Constraints and opportunities” Agriculture and Human values 15 (4), 325–336.Google Scholar
  6. Caswell, M., Fuglie, K., Ingram, C., Jans, S., & Kascak, C. (2001). Adoption of agricultural production practices: Lessons learned from the US Department of Agriculture area studies project. Washington DC. USA, Department of Agriculture. Resource economics division, Economic Research Service, agriculture economic report no. 792.Google Scholar
  7. Ceesay, M. (2004). Management of rice production systems to increase productivity in the Gambia, West Africa. PhD Dissertation. Cornell University, USA. Available at Accessed July 2017.
  8. DCMI (2014). National Rice Development Strategy, The Gambia. Available at Accessed July 2017.
  9. Dibba, L., Diagne, A., Fialor, S. C., & Nimoh, F. (2012). The impact of NERICA adoption on productivity and poverty of the small-scale rice farmers in the Gambia. Food Security, 4(2), 253–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dibba, L., Zeller, M., Diagne, A., & Nielsen, T. (2015). How accessibility to seeds affects the potential adoption of an improved Rice variety: The case of the new rice for Africa (NERICA) in the Gambia. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 54(1), 33–58.Google Scholar
  11. Dontsop, P., Diagne, A., Okoruwa, V. O., & Ojehomon, V. (2011). Impact of improved rice technology (NERICA varieties) on income and poverty among rice farming households in Nigeria: A local average treatment effect (LATE) approach. Quarterly Journal of International Agriculture, 50(3), 267–291.Google Scholar
  12. El-osta, H. S., & Morehart, M. J. (1999). Technology adoption decisions in dairy production and the role of herd expansion. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, 28, 84–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feder, G., & Slade, R. (1984). The acquisition of information and the adoption of new technology. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 66, 312–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Heckman, J., & Robb, R. (1985). Alternative methods for evaluating the impact of interventions. In J. Heckman & B. Singer (Eds.), Longitudinal analysis of labor market data, econometric society monograph series. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heckman, J., & Vytlacil, E. (2005). Structural equations, treatment effects, and econometric policy evaluation. Econometrica, 73, 669–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Heckman, James J., Urzua, Sergio, Vytlacil, Edward, 2006. Understanding instrumental variables in models with essential heterogeneity. The Review of Economics and Statistics 88, 389–432.Google Scholar
  17. Hoddinott, J. (1999). Choosing outcome indicators of household food security. International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI): Washington.Google Scholar
  18. Imben, G. W. (2004). Nonparametric estimation of average treatment effects under exogeneity: A review. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86(1), 4–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Imbens, G. W., & Angrist, J. D. (1994). Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects. Econometrica, 62, 467–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jones, M. P., Dingkuhn, M., Aluko, G. K., & Semon, M. (1997a). Interspecific Oryza Sativa × O. Glaberrima Steud. Progenies in upland rice improvement. Euphytica, 92, 237–246.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jones, M. P., Dingkuhn, M., Johnson, D. E., & Fagade, S. O. (Eds.). (1997b). Interspecific hybridization: Progress and Prospect WARDA, 01 BP 2551, Bouaké. Cote d’Ivoire. pp., 21–29.Google Scholar
  22. Kabunga, N. S., Dubois, T., & Qaim, M. (2014). Impact of tissue culture banana technology on farm household income and food security in Kenya. Food Policy, 45, 25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karigia, J. M., & Barry, S. P. (2008). Health challenges in Africa and the way forward. BioMed Central, 1(27), 64–69.Google Scholar
  24. Kijima, Y., & Sserunkuuma, D. (2013). The adoption of NERICA rice varieties at the initial stage of the diffusion process in Uganda. African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 8(1), 45–56.Google Scholar
  25. Lee, M. J. (2005). Micro-econometrics for policy, program and treatment effects. Advanced Texts in Econometrics: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Magrini, E., & Vigani, M. (2016). Technology adoption and the multiple dimensions of food security: The case of maize in Tanzania. Food Security, 8(4), 707–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Manda, J., Gardebroek, C., Khonje, M. G., Alene, A. D., et al. (2016). Determinants of child nutritional status in the eastern province of Zambia: The role of improved maize varieties. Food Security, 8(1), 239–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maxwell, S., & Frankenberger, T. (1992). Household food security: Concepts, indicators, measurements. Rome: IFAD and UNICEF.Google Scholar
  29. Miller, R.B., & Hollist, C.S. (2007). “Attrition bias”. Faculty publications, Department of Child Youth, and Family Studies. Paper 45. Available at http;// Accessed January 2015.Google Scholar
  30. Rosenbaum, P. R. (2001). Observational studies (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  31. Rosenbaum, P. R., & Rubin, D. R. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Bometrika, 70, 41–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rubin, D. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and non-randomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ruel, M. T. (2002). Is dietary diversity an indicator of food security or dietary quality? A review of measurement issues and research needs. Available at Accessed March 2015.
  34. Smale, M., Diressie, M. T., & Birol, E. (2016). Understanding the potential for adoption of high-iron varieties of pearl millet in Maharashtra, India: What explains their popularity? Food Security, 8(2), 331–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tanillari, E., Kostandini, E., & Wabbi, J.B. (2014), “Gender impacts on adoption of new technologies: the case of improved groundnut varieties in Uganda,” African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 9(4), 300–308.Google Scholar
  36. The Gambia Population Census (2013). The Gambia housing and population census preliminary results. Available at Accessed November 2014.
  37. WARDA. (2001). NERICA rice for life. Available at Accessed November 2014.
  38. WARDA/FAO/SAA (2008). NERICA®: the New Rice for Africa – a Compendium. EA Somado, RG Guei and SO Keya (eds.). Cotonou, Benin: Africa Rice Center (WARDA); Rome, Italy: FAO; Tokyo, Japan: Sasakawa Africa Association. pp. 119.Google Scholar
  39. Wiesmann, D., Bassett, L., Benson, T, & Hoddinott, J. (2009). Validation of the world food programme’s food consumption score and alternative indicators of household food security. Available at Accessed March 2015.
  40. Wooldridge, J. (2012). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach, 5th edition, chapter 15. Boston: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  41. World Bank (2010). Hand book on impact evaluation. Quantitative methods and Practices. The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank. Available at Accessed December 2014.
  42. World Food Programme (2008). Calculation and use of the food consumption score in food security analysis. Prepared by VAM unit HQ Rome, Italy.Google Scholar
  43. Yokouchi, T., & Saito, K. (2016). Factors affecting farmers’ adoption of NERICA upland rice varieties: The case of a seed producing village in central Benin. Food Security, 8(1), 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. and International Society for Plant Pathology 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of HohenheimStuttgartGermany
  2. 2.Africa Rice CentreCotonouBenin
  3. 3.National Agricultural Research Institute (NARI)BrikamaGambia
  4. 4.HarvestPlusInternational Food and Policy Research Institute (IFPRI)KampalaUganda
  5. 5.Gaston Berger UniversitySaint-LoiusSenegal

Personalised recommendations