Title of page subject By Abraham Zakaria Land tenure security, climate adaptation, and household welfare outcomes nexus in northern Ghana Status Seminar 2025 Introduction 2 Source: Acheampong et al. (2020) Tenure security incentivize investment in sustainable land management (SLM) (Brassele et al., 2002; Akram et al., 2019). Insecure land tenure deter investment (Huntington & Shenoy, 2021). Source: Author (2024) farm investment productivity food security (Holden & Ghebru, 2016). Strengthening tenure security has become a global priority for enhancing: Research Questions 3 1. Do risk tolerance, time patience, and secure land tenure influence adoption of climate adaptation strategies? Research Questions: 2. What is the individual and interaction effects on household food security? 3. Does land property right influences land fragmentation, crop diversification, productivity, and household welfare? Materials and Methods 4 The study was conducted in the:  Northern, Northeast, Savannah, Upper West, and Upper East regions  52 districts and 198 Enumeration Areas (EAs)  Sample size 2,970 households Types of land tenure systems:  Customary land tenure (80%)  State land (Ghana Land Act, 2020)  These systems coexist, often leading to complexities in land management and disputes. Figure 1. Study area map  Number of parcel 6,227 Data Analytical Approcah 5 Methods of data analysis: • Descriptive statistics • Multinomial Endogenous Switching model  Accounts for Selection Bias  Handles Multiple Choices  Improves Causal Inference (Bourguignon et al., 2007) • Endogenous Switching Regression (ESR) (Lokshin & Sajaia, 2004) • Multivariate Probit and Poisson models Major Findings 6 High land tenure insecurity – a call for action 7 Figure 2. Land certification status 0 20 40 60 80 100 Register farm plots Unregistered farm plot 0.26 99.74 Pe rc en ta ge (% ) Land certification Table 1. Reasons for unregistered farmland Reason for unregistering plots % There is no need 63.62 Too expensive 20.48 Process is too complicated 8.10 Do not know where or how to get it 3.62 Land is owned by chiefs 2.89 Land registration office is too far away 1.08 Not trust the land registration office 0.08 Perceived land tenure security 8Figure 3. Perceived land tenure security status 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 53.2 31.4 4.4 11.02 Pe rc en ta ge (% ) Perceived land tenure security why worried about losing the right to use a plot Percen t The owner/renter may ask me to leave 33.88 Issues with local/customary authorities 30.92 Difficulty of reclaiming land if I had to leave due to a natural disaster 29.28 Lack of money or other resources needed to live on this parcel 28.29 Disagreements with family or relatives 9.21 Death of a household member 5.59 Conflict over land 5.59 Other people or groups may seize this parcel 2.96 Government may seize this parcel 2.96 Missing or inaccurate land records 0.66 Table 2. Why worried for loosing land Risk tolerance and climate adaptation strategies-1/2 9 Figure 4. Risk tolerance and climate adaptation strategies 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Adjusting planting date Improved seeds Cereal-legume rotation Intercropping Zero tillage Row planting Organic fertilizer 55.5% 16.2% 48.0% 18.8% 21.0% 22.7% 46.3% 21.8% 29.5% 44.9% 26.9% 37.2% 16.7% 62.8% Pe rc en ta ge (% ) Risk tolerance Risk averse Risk tolerance and climate adaptation strategies-2/2 10 Table 3. Behavioural drivers for climate adaptation strategies Variable Coef. Std. Err. t-value p-value Risk tolerance (1. Yes) 0.062** 0.029 -2.10 0.035 Time impatient (1. Yes) -0.278*** 0.088 -3.17 0.002 Financially viable (1. Yes) 0.376*** 0.092 4.07 0.000 Control factor Yes Yes Yes Yes Fixed effects Yes Yes Yes Yes Constant 0.869** 0.242 3.59 0.000 Model summary Chi-square 152.414 Prob > chi2 0.000 Pseudo R-squared 0.131 Deviance goodness-of-fit = 294.6135; Prob > chi2(290) =0.4136 Note: *** and ** represents 1% and 5% significance levels respectively Climate adaptation strategies and tenure security-1/2 11Figure 5. Climate adaptation and land tenure security 19.4 13.7 81.6 9.1 48.9 16 13.1 23.5 19.8 45.2 4.5 43.5 8.2 8.6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 crop-switching Improved seeds Intercropping Agroforestry Fertilizer Manure Irrigation Insecure tenure Secure tenure Climate adaptation strategies and tenure security-2/2 12 Variable Crop-switching Manure Fertiliser Agroforestr y Impr. seeds Intercrop. Irrigation Perceived tenure security 0.276*** 0.305*** 0.127 0.605*** 0.216** -0.066 0.639*** (0.094) (0.108) (0.092) (0.110) (0.096) (0.093) (0.108) Land use right 0.036 -0.029 0.009 0.013 0.039 0.185*** 0.117 (0.050) (0.062) (0.050) (0.074) (0.050) (0.055) (0.085) Exclusion land right 0.133*** -0.089*** 0.087*** -0.056 0.154*** -0.023 0.069* (0.022) (0.027) (0.021) (0.040) (0.024) (0.021) (0.037) Transfer land right -0.050** 0.050* -0.035* 0.124*** -0.080*** 0.020 0.049* (0.020) (0.028) (0.020) (0.031) (0.022) (0.020) (0.028) Land ownership duration 0.142* -0.009 0.142* 0.304** 0.503*** -0.069 0.088 (0.075) (0.104) (0.073) (0.142) (0.089) (0.077) (0.139) Socioeconomic factors Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Fixe location effects Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Constant -1.947*** -2.608*** -1.276*** -5.826*** -2.733*** -0.954*** -3.269*** (0.248) (0.335) (0.220) (0.404) (0.310) (0.217) (0.363) Model summary Wald chi2(154) 1504.63 Prob > Chi2 0.0000 Table 4. Land tenure systems security effects on climate adaptation strategies-MVP model Note: ***, **, and * represent 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels respectively. Effects of climate adaptation and secure tenure on food security 13Note: ***, **, and * represent 1%, 5%, and 10% significance levels respectively. Table 5. Conditional average effects of tenure and adaptation estimates-MESR variable Scenario Treatment Control Treatment effect %Change t-value FCS Adaptation only 57.013 25.580 31.034*** 121.32 11.700 Secure tenure only 30.246 25.937 4.309*** 16.61 13.003 Interaction effect 33.935 32.655 1.279*** 3.92 2.813 HFIAS Adaptation only 7.364 8.111 -0.746** 9.20 -2.280 Secure tenure only 4.332 4.477 -0.145* 3.24 -1.655 Interaction effect 3.671 4.410 -0.739*** 16.78 -9.660 Land property right effects 14Note: *** represents 1% significance level . Table 6. Conditional Average Treatment Effect on land fragmentation and Welfare – ESR Outcome variable Mean outcomes ATT t-value %change Actual Counterfactual Land fragmentation 0.731 (0.002) 1.619(0.003) -0.888***(0.005) -192.0211 -54.849 Crop diversification 1.809(0.003) 0.922(0.002) 0.890***(0.004) 188.420 96.529 Productivity 8.010(0.007) 7.481 (0.005) 0.529***(0.006) 92.2180 7.071 Per capita expend. 8.861 (0.005) 8.064 (0.004) 0.797***(0.005) 152.6289 9.883 Conclusions -1/2 15 • Land certification is very low in Northern Ghana  High tenure insecurity • Land tenure systems security association with climate adaptation strategies is heterogenous. • Adoption of climate adaptation strategies are high among secure land households.  Manure, chemical fertiliser, intercropping, irrigation, and agroforestry • Risk tolerance, time patience, and perception of financial viability have a positive significant association with the adoption of climate adaptation strategies. Conclusions -2/2 16 • Land property right have a positive and significant association with the household welfare outcomes: Reduce land fragmentation increased crop diversification portfolio increased farm productivity enhanced consumption expenditure per capita • The study revealed that climate adaptation and tenure security have a positive significant association with household food security:  Increased food consumption scores  Reduced household food insecurity access score Policy implications 17 Based on the conclusion:  Risk tolerance and time patience are pathway to SLM practices. Governments and non-governmental organisations should encourage SLM practices by offering risk management tools and training to enhance farmers' risk tolerance.  Land tenure systems security is a critical pathway to enhance SLM and household food security outcomes. Governments and non-governmental organisations interventions to enhance land tenure security is essential for stimulating sustainable investments in climate change adaptation and ensuring food security.  Integrated land tenure security and SLM action interventions should be the priority of policymakers.  Experts should develop land tenure index to measure land tenure security as different land tenure systems security have different implication on SLM development. References 18 • Acheampong, E. O., Sayer, J., Macgregor, C., & Sloan, S. (2020). Application of landscape approach principles motivates forest fringe farmers to reforest Ghana’s degraded reserves. Forests, 11(4), 411. • Bourguignon, F., Fournier, M., & Gurgand, M. (2007). Selection bias corrections based on the multinomial logit model: Monte Carlo comparisons. Journal of Economic surveys, 21(1), 174-205. • Brasselle, A. S., Gaspart, F., & Platteau, J. P. (2002). Land tenure security and investment incentives: puzzling evidence from Burkina Faso. Journal of Development Economics, 67(2), 373-418. • Holden, S. T., & Ghebru, H. (2016). Land tenure reforms, tenure security and food security in poor agrarian economies: Causal linkages and research gaps. Global Food Security, 10, 21-28. • Huntington, H., & Shenoy, A. (2021). Does insecure land tenure deter investment? Evidence from a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Development Economics, 150, 102632. • Lokshin, M., & Sajaia, Z. (2004). Maximum likelihood estimation of endogenous switching regression models. The Stata Journal, 4(3), 282-289. • Msangi, H. A., Waized, B., Löhr, K., Sieber, S., & Ndyetabula, D. W. (2022). Development outcomes of land tenure formalization under customary and statutory land tenure systems in Tanzania: a multinomial endogenous switching regression approach. Agriculture & Food Security, 11(1), 66. Thank you for your attention! Foliennummer 1 Foliennummer 2 Foliennummer 3 Foliennummer 4 Foliennummer 5 Foliennummer 6 Foliennummer 7 Foliennummer 8 Foliennummer 9 Foliennummer 10 Foliennummer 11 Foliennummer 12 Foliennummer 13 Foliennummer 14 Foliennummer 15 Foliennummer 16 Foliennummer 17 Foliennummer 18 Foliennummer 19