




































Asian Review of Environmental 

and Earth Sciences 
ISSN: 2313-8173 
Vol. 1, No. 3, 56-60, 2014 

http://www.asianonlinejournals.com/index.php/AREES 

 
 

 

* Corresponding Author 

 

 

56 

 

Determinants of Land Holding Size among Rice Farmers in  

Southeast, Nigeria 
 

Ben-Chendo G.N.
1*

 --- O.C. Korie
2
 --- U.A. Essien

3
 --- I.J. Uhuegbulem

4 

 
1,2,3,4 

Department of Agricultural Economics Federal University of Technology Owerri Imo State, Nigeria. 

 

Abstract 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License 

Asian Online Journal Publishing Group 

 

Contents 
1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 57 

2. Methodology .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 57 

3. Results and Discussion.................................................................................................................................................................................... 58 

4. Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60 

References ........................................................................................................................................................................................................... 60 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This study identified determinants of land holding size of rice farmers in Anambra state, southeast 

Nigeria. A multistage sampling technique was used in sample selection. Six autonomous 

communities were chosen purposively based on the consideration of rice farming activities in these 

rural communities. The sample frame was 182 rice farmers. From this sample frame, twenty rice 

farmers were randomly selected from 6 rice farming communities giving a sample size of 120 but 99 

were valid. Data were collected with structured questionnaire from 120 randomly selected rice 

farmers. Data were collected on the socio- economic variables, land sizes, land amendment 

practices.. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics; ordinary least squares multiple regression 

techniques. The results showed that rice farmers in the study area were predominantly male 

(78.79%) with a mean age of 44.2years and household size of 8persons.Their major method of land 

acquisition is through communal followed by inheritance, lease and purchase. The average land size 

cultivated on was 1.66ha.The multiple regression analysis showed that factors such as sex, farming 

experience, method of land acquisition, annual off farm income and lease price of rice farmers 

influenced their landholding size.  It is therefore concluded that with government intervention 

farmers can have access to increased land sizes which will invariably improve technology use and 

the level of profit would increase. 

 
       Keywords: Land ownership, Amendment, Practices, Size, Rice, Determinants 

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/


Asian Review of Environmental and Earth Sciences, 2014, 1(3): 56-60 

 

 

 

 

57 

 

1. Introduction 
Although rice grows well in all the six geo-political zones of Nigeria, the demand for polished long grain, stone 

free and odorless rice by the urban dwellers has fueled the demand for imported rice. Total demand for rice in 

Nigeria is put at about 5million MT a year out which about 3.2 million MT are produced locally. Erenstein, et al. [1] 

observed that the demand and supply gap in rice production is widening, resulting in huge import bill on rice. The 

high cost of importation in recent years has highlighted the desire by the government to encourage import 

substitution by encouraging increased local production. Locally produced rice at present is uncompetitive in the 

market because its value chain is fragmented and cannot offer a standard. It is fraught with poor quality-presence of 

extraneous materials such as stones and debris. Most farmers in Nigeria keep on operating patches of small holdings; 

as a result rice production is mostly dominated by small holder producers who employ traditional practices and 

primitive technology resulting to a negligible quantity in production and supply of the commodity which result to a 

meager income which could not provide decent existence for farm family. Secondly because all operations are 

manual with limited farm sizes, cost of production is also high. This is in spite of the fact that Nigeria has very 

favorable ecologies for rain fed lowland, irrigated lowland as well as upland rice production. Total potential land for 

irrigated rice production is estimated at 1.6 million hectares out of which only 47, 798ha is available. 

There had been reported decrease in farm size and consequently fallow length which has adversely affected the 

resource base due to increasing population pressure on the available land [2]. In the absence of sound management 

practices or the economic use of fertilizer and other additives, declining fallow periods results to accelerated periods 

of leaching of nutrients, increased weed population, erosion and decreased moisture retention [3, 4]. Manure, 

whether organic or inorganic helps to enhance plant development. The major purpose of manure or fertilizer 

application is to improve soil fertility and increase yield of crops. In crop production, proper and adequate plant 

nutrients are required for an enhanced crop establishment, growth and yield. Nakkiran and Karthikeyan [5] opined 

that fragmentation of scattered pieces of land contributes to the difficulties of getting effective soil conservation 

measures implemented and increases the labour and time required in agriculture.  However, crop production can be 

influenced by the source of nutrient involved in its production [6]. Reduced portion of arable land have led to the 

abandonment of the traditional methods of land use and over- exploitation of the land have resulted to land 

degradation. It means that if over- crowding on the arable land leads to less efficient methods of production, then 

food production would actually decrease as population increase. For instance, Nweke [7] pointed out that average 

holding on farm land is less than 1.5 hectares per family in addition to another 0.2 hectares of compound land. This 

implies that the farmers may have small plots of land scattered some distance from his home. Even the size of 

holdings and of individual plots according to Eboh [8] is further reduced by fragmentation due to division of farm 

land among heirs. Therefore, some scholars [2, 9, 10] are of the view that farm size is to a large extent a reflection of 

pressure on land. This work is set to achieve the following objectives 

-analyse the socio-economic characteristics of the farmers 

-isolate the determining factors to land size holding 

-determine the land amendment practice  

 

2. Methodology 
The southeast is made up of five states; Anambra, Imo, Abia, Ebonyi and Enugu and rice is being produced in all 

these states. The zone is located at the tropical rain forest with thick vegetation. Demographically the zone has a 

population of sixteen million three hundred and eighty on thousand seven hundred and twenty nine (16,381,729) 

which is approximately 12% of the entire population of Nigeria [11]. 
The multistage sampling technique was used in sample selection. This was used in order to enable the researcher 

capture a significant position of the characteristics of the farmers at different stages and to ensure a good spread of 

the data. In the first stage, two states were randomly selected and Three local government areas and six autonomous 

communities were purposively selected (3 each) from the twenty- two autonomous communities on the consideration 

of rice farming activities in these rural communities. Ten informants from each of the six sampled communities were 

selected to aid generation of the list of rice farmers. The sampling frame was 182 (list of rice farmers in each village 

within the selected autonomous rural communities involve in rice farmers). From this sampling frame, twenty rice 

farmers were randomly selected giving a sample size of 120. Data were collected from primary and secondary 

information sources. The study made use of a well-structured questionnaire and journals, bulletins and textbooks. 

Twenty one questionnaires were invalid and just 99 questionnaires were used for further analysis. Data were 

analyzed using descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentages and mean, and multiple regression analysis. 
A multiple linear regression model was employed and is expressed as  

Y = f ( X1, X2, X3, X4, X5, X6, X7, X8, X9, e)  ……………………………(1) 

Where, 

Y = land holding size in hectares  

X1 = sex (Dummy, 1 for male;  0 for female). 

X2 = age of farmer (years). 

X3 = marital status (Dummy 1 for married; 0 for otherwise) 

X4 = household size (number of persons). 

X5 = level of education (years) 

X6 = farming experience (years). 

X7 = method of land acquisition (Dummy, 1 for communal; 0 for otherwise). 

X8 = off - farm income of farmer per annum (Naira). 

X9 = lease price per hectare (Naira). 

e = error term. 



Asian Review of Environmental and Earth Sciences, 2014, 1(3): 56-60 

 

 

 

 

58 

 

Four functional forms were fitted to the data. These include the linear, semi – log, double- log and the 

exponential functions. The function that gives the best fit was selected based on the magnitude of the coefficient of 

the multiple determination (R
2
) and the size and signs of the estimated coefficients and the statistical significance of 

the parameter estimates. 

 

3. Results and Discussion 
Table 1 showed that 78.78% of rice farmers were male while 21.21% were female. This shows that majority of 

the respondents were male. This fact goes a long way to show the domination of the male sex in rice farming due to 

the nature of the job which is mostly strenuous for their female counterpart and also the pattern of land ownership in 

the study area. This agrees with the findings of Olaleye [12] that small scale farming are being carried out mostly by 

males, while the females involve in light farm operations such as harvesting, processing and marketing. 

The mean household size was 8 persons. This shows that most of the respondents have a larger family size that 

assists them in their farming activities; also it will continue to reduce land area available for individual farmers in the 

future. This disagrees with the findings of Ogungbile and Olukosi [13] that in Nigeria the average family size is 

about 6- 7 persons per family. The method of land acquisition was mainly communalThe mean level of education of 

rice farmers is 8.1 years. This implies that most of the farmers obtained at least primary education. This feature 

makes them capable of understanding and adopting available innovations that encourages rice production. The mean 

level of experience of rice farmers was 7.95 years. This implies that most of the farmers interviewed have been in the 

business for a reasonable number of years. This period would have exposed them to various challenges associated 

with rice production and therefore would have found adaptive strategies to those challenges hence better 

productivity. Rice farmers acquire land through communal land tenure system. The mean farm size available to each 

farmer was 1.66 hectares. It could be deduced that large expanse of land was not available to majority of the farmers; 

thus extremely limiting commercialization and productivity in agriculture in the study area. The mean lease price per 

hectare was N12,676 which was high considering that farmers in the rural areas are pro-poor. 
 

Table-1.Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents  n=99 

Characteristics Frequency Percentage 

Sex 

Male 

Female 

Age (Mean=44.2years) 

30-39  

40-49 

50-59 

60-69 

Marital Status 

Married 

Single 

Household size (Mean-8persons) 

2-7 

8-13 

14-19 

Method of Land acquisition 

Communal 

Inherited 

Lease 

Purchase 

Farming Exp. (Mean-7.95years) 

1-5 

6-10 

11-15 

Educational attainment 

(Mean=8.1yrs) 

1-6 

7-12  

13-18 

Lease Price/ ha (Mean=N12,676) 

10.000- 15,000 

16,000-20,000 

Off farm income sources 

Trading 

Artisan 

Hairdressing 

Civil Servant 

Land holding size (Ha) 

(Mean=1.66ha) 

0.5 – 0.9  

1.0 – 1.4 

1.5 – 1.9 

2.0 – 2.4 

2.5 – 2.9 

Total 

 

78 

21 

 

48 

22 

13 

16 

 

93 

6 

 

45 

50 

4 

 

56 

32 

8 

3 

 

31 

64 

14 

 

29 

55 

15 

 

34 

65 

 

62 

22 

 6 

9 

 

1 

26 

57 

10 

5 

 

 

99 

 

78.79 

21.21 

 

48.48 

22.22 

13.14 

16.16 

 

93.94 

6.06 

 

45.45 

50.51 

4.04 

 

56.57 

32-23 

8.08 

3.03 

 

31.31 

64.65 

14.14 

 

29.29 

55.56 

15.15 

 

34.34 

65.66 

 

62.63 

22.22 

6.06 

9.09 

 

1.01 

26.26 

57.58 

10.10 

5.05 

 

 

100 
                                                   Source: Field survey, 2013 



Asian Review of Environmental and Earth Sciences, 2014, 1(3): 56-60 

 

 

 

 

59 

 

Isolate the Factors Influencing Landholding Size in the Study Area 

 
Table-2. Factors Influencing Land Holding Size in the Area 

Explanatory Variable Linear          

Form 

Semi-log       

Form  

Double-log    

Form  

Exponential  

Form 

Sex(X1)  0.623993    

(1.799542)*                    

0.94809           

(1.625663)               

0.189584     

(1.921738)* 

0.23917      

(1.946059)* 

Age (X2)  -0.00558                      

(-0.36003) 

-0.92589                      

(-0.81704) 

0.065396         

(0.34115) 

-0.00056                     

(-0.10109) 

Marital Status(X3) -0.11319                     

(-0.35323) 

-1.05554                     

(-1.61889) 

-0.00038                     

(-0.00342) 

0.15808         

(1.391828) 

Household Size (X4) -0.04064                      

(-0.74812) 

0.45164         

(0.930798) 

-0.04402                      

(-0.5363)                  

-0.02101                      

(-1.09114) 

Levelof Education (X5) 0.017495       

(0.669746) 

-0.09631                     

(-0.35798) 

0.05746         

(1.262645) 

0.014442       

(1.559893)                           

Farming Experience(X6) 0.041813  

(2.591611)** 

1.03859     

(2.059167)**            

0.066407       

(0.778349) 

0.003393       

(0.593372) 

Method of Land 

Acquisition(X7) 

-1.21663                      

(-3.01443)***           

-1.40679      

(1.82925)* 

-0.38953                      

(-2.99432)***      

-0.59006                      

(-4.12489)***           

Off- farm Income of 

Farmer (X8)  

0.00000331  

(2.646787)**             

2.222085 

(3.303207)***          

0.322954 

(2.838112)*** 

0.000000445 

(1.002659)                   

Lease price (X9) 0.000518  

(8.890965)***              

2.126741  

(4.179953)***        

0.4745     

(5.513241)***        

0.00000736 

(3.564822)***

  

Constant 0.791164 -39.3209  -7.06033  0.718748 

R
2
 0.969815 0.913886 0.940657 0.908676 

F- Value 142.7958 47.16693 70.44972 44.22252                               

Degree of Freedom 90 90 90 90 

No of Observation(n) 99 99 99 99 

 Source,FieldSurvey,2013                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             

**Significantat5%level                                                                                                                                                                            

*Significantat10%level                                                                                                                                                                                                                             
***Significantat1%level.                                                                                                                            

 

Figures in parenthesis are t-ratios. 

Table 2 shows that four functional forms of the multiple regression analysis models were tried, out of the four 

functional forms estimated, the linear functional form provided the best fit and hence chosen as the lead equation. 

This choice was based on the premise that it has the highest number of t-values that were statistically significant at 

1%, 5% and 10% level. It also showed a relatively higher R
2
and F-value of 0.97 and 142.8 respectively. The R

2
 value 

implies that 97% of the variation in the farmers land holding size is explained by the variations in the independent 

variables included in the model, while the remaining 3% of variation in farmers land holding size is explained by 

other variables not included in the model. The F-value of 142.8 shows that the proportion of the explained variation 

on the dependent variables is statistically significant at 0.01 levels which implies that the model is adequate for use 

for further analysis. The result showed that factors such as Sex(X1), Farming Experience(X6), Method of Land 

Acquisition(X7), Income of Farmers(X8) and Lease Price(X9) significantly influence the land holding size in the 

study area. 

Sex(X1) which showed a positive relationship with land holding size and significant at 10% level of probability. 

This could be that the workload involved in rice production makes men in the enterprise more productive than the 

women; this therefore implies that landholding size is increased as the productive sex increase. 

Age(X2) of farmers showed an inverse relationship with landholding size but not significant. This implies that as 

the age of rice farmers increases the landholding size decreases. 

Marital status(X3) showed an inverse relationship with landholding size but not significant. This implies that 

marital status of respondents in the study does not influence landholding size.  

Household size(X4) also showed an inverse relationship with landholding size but not significant. This implies 

that as the household size increases the landholding size decreased. This may be due to sharing of farmlands among 

households as a result each individual would be entitled to small portion of land to cultivate.  

Level of education(X5) of farmers showed a direct relationship with landholding size but not significant. This 

implies that as the farmers level of education increased the landholding size increase as well.  

Farming Experience(X6) showed a positive relationship with landholding size and significant at 5% level of 

probability. This implies that as the years of farming experience of respondents increased the land holding size also 

increased because farmers with highest number of years of experience in farming will have good skill and better 

approaches to farming operations and would want to obtain more farmlands inorder to expand production which 

leads to increased productivity. 

Method of land acquisition(X7) showed a negative relationship with landholding size and significant at 1% 

level of probability. This implies that as method of land acquisition decreases the landholding size decreases. The 

decrease in land acquisition was due to the prevalence of communal landholding system in the area resulting to 

fragmentation of land among members of the community, this is so because the land belongs to the entire 

community, as a result no member of the community is permitted to use the land without permission from leaders of 

the community and individuals are given small portion of land on which they could cultivate. 



Asian Review of Environmental and Earth Sciences, 2014, 1(3): 56-60 

 

 

 

 

60 

 

Income of farmers(X8) showed a positive relationship with landholding size and significant at 5% level of 

probability. This implies that as the income of farmers increased the landholding size also increase. This implies that 

farmers with higher equity is capable of purchasing or obtaining larger size of farm in order to expand production 

and also enjoy the economies of scale thereby leading to higher productivity. 

Lease price(X9) showed a positive relationship and significant at 1% probability. This implies that as 

landholding size increases the lease price increased. This relationship supports the law of supply which says that the 

higher the price the higher the quantity supplied. 

 

Examine the soil amendments practices adopted by the farmers to improve production. 
 

Table-3. Frequency distribution of land amendment practices adopted by the rice farmers 

Land/SoilAmendment Practices *Frequency          Percentage   

Fertilizers          95                           95.96  

Pesticides         58                           58.58  

Herbicides         30                           30,30  

Insecticides         15                           15.15  

Irrigation System         4                              4.04  

Increased fallow length         20                            20.20  

Other amendment practices         31                            31.31  
                      Source: Computed from Field Survey, 2013.*Multiple responses were recorded 

 

The table showed that 95.96% used fertilizers, 58.58% used pesticides, 30.30% used insecticides,  15.15% used 

the irrigation system, 404% practiced increased fallow length,  20.20% increased fallow length  while 31.31% did 

other soil amendment practices. This implies that the soil amendment practices mostly done by farmers are the use of 

fertilizers and other agro- chemicals. Also, farmers do more of the land amendment practices as these practices helps 

in the improvement and sustainability of the farmers’ physical production and hence increased productivity.   

 

4. Conclusion 
This study has brought to the open that the land holding size of the rice farmers is relatively small and can 

discourage the practice of rice farming. There is need for the enhancement of Land holding size so that rice farmers 

would optimize resources used in rice production.  

 

References 
[1] O. Erenstein, L. Frederic, S. O. Akande, S. O. Titilola, G. Akpokodje, and O. O. Ogundele, The Nigerian rice economy in a 

competitive world: Constraints, opportunities and strategic choices. Rice production systems in Nigeria: A survey. Côte d’Ivoire: 

West Africa Rice Development Association (WARDA) Abidjan, 2003. 

[2] I. I. Osugiri, "Effect of population on agricutural productivity in Imo State," An Unpublished Msc. Thesis, University of Nigeria, 

Nsukka, Nigeria, 1996. 

[3] R. Lal, "Erosion caused productivity decline in soils of the humid tropics," Soil Taxonomy News, vol. 5, pp. 4-11, 1983. 

[4] Spore, "Sustainable soil oroductivity in intensive," Agriculture CTA Bi-Monthly Bulletin, vol. 49, pp. 1-2, 1994. 

[5] S. Nakkiran and M. Karthikeyan, Cooperatives and agribusiness. New Delhi-110 002: Discovery Publishing House PVT. LMT, 

2012. 

[6] I. D. Hodge, "Rights to cleared land and the control of dry land-seepage salinity," Australian Journal of Agricultural Resource 

Economic Society, vol. 26, pp. 185-201, 1982. 

[7] F. I. Nweke, "The role of market factors in the small cropping systems of Southern Nigeria," Can J. Agric. Econs., vol. 28, pp. 67-69, 

1980. 

[8] E. C. Eboh, "Agriculture intensification and factor productivity in Anambra State of Nigeria: A case study," PhD Thesis, University 

of Nigeria, Nsukka, Nigeria, 1990. 

[9] B. A. Dattoo, "Relationship between population density and agricultural systems in the Ihuguru Mountains – Tanzania," Journal of 

Tropical Geography, vol. 2, pp. 1-12, 1976. 

[10] W. Allan, The African husbandman. Edinburgh United Kingdom: Oliver and Boyd Publishers, 1965. 

[11] NPC, National population census. National population commission vol. 1. Abuja, Nigeria, 2006. 

[12] R. Olaleye, "Effectiveness of development intervention for economic empowerment on rural women in Ondo Nigeria," An 

Unpublished Ph. D Thesis Submitted  to the Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, University of Ibadan, 

Ibadan. Vol. 1, 2000. 

[13] A. O. Ogungbile and J. O. Olukosi, "An overview of the problems of resource poor farmers in Nigeria agriculture. Appropraite 

agricultural technologies for resource poor farmers," in Proceedings of Nigeria National Farming Systems Research Network 

workshop in Calabar, Cross River State, August 14-16, 1991, pp. 21-31. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 
Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the authors, Asian Review of Environmental and Earth Sciences shall not be 

responsible or answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 

 


