000			02721nab|a22003257a|4500
999			_c64255 _d64247
001			64255
003			MX-TxCIM
005			20211006081211.0
008			200423s2021||||xxk|||p|op||||00||0|eng|d
022			_a0306-9192
024	8		_ahttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.102022
040			_aMX-TxCIM
041			_aeng
100	1		_aHörner, D. _923264
245	1	0	_aIntegrated soil fertility management and household welfare in Ethiopia
260			_aLondon (United Kingdom) : _bElsevier, _c2021.
500			_aPeer review
500			_aOpen Access
520			_aIntegrated Soil Fertility Management (ISFM) is a set of locally adapted soil fertility technologies and improved agronomic practices promoted to enhance soil fertility, crop productivity and incomes of smallholder farmers. While the suite of practices is site-specific, the use of improved seeds, organic and inorganic fertilizers constitute core ISFM technologies. ISFM is mostly related to higher input and labor demand, but there is little evidence whether these investments pay off at the household level. Using data from maize, wheat and teff growing farmers in two agroecological zones in Ethiopia, we assess whether the adoption of core ISFM technologies is associated with changes in household welfare, measured by total household income, food security and education. In addition, we look into resource allocation decisions within the household as potential drivers of welfare outcomes. We use the inverse probability weighting regression adjustment method. Results show that adopting ISFM core components for maize, wheat or teff is associated with higher labor demand as well as income obtained from these crops in both agroecological zones. Yet, only in one agroecological region, it also goes along with enhanced household income, food security and school enrollment. By contrast, in the other region, we find that technology adoption for at least one of the three crops is related to a reduced likelihood of engaging in other economic activities, pointing towards labor reallocation effects. We conclude that welfare outcomes of agricultural innovations can be heterogeneous depending on farmers’ income diversification strategies.
546			_aText in English
650		0	_aTechnology _gAGROVOC _91988
650		7	_2AGROVOC _99861 _aHousehold income
650		7	_aFood security _gAGROVOC _2 _91118
650		7	_2AGROVOC _96260 _aEducation
650		7	_2AGROVOC _96610 _aLabour
700	1		_aWollni, M. _911686
773	0		_tFood Policy _gv. 100, art. 102022 _dLondon (United Kingdom) : Elsevier, 2021. _x0306-9192 _w444320
856	4		_uhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2020.102022 _yClick here to access online
942			_cJA _n0 _2ddc