Using A Nerlovian Model Approach to Estimate Rice Productivity in Sierra Leone.

Rice grain is Sierra Leone’s staple food, the country imports over 415,000 metric tons annually due to inadequate domestic production. Thus, the low level of rice cultivation in Sierra Leone is evident in persistent imbalance between domestic supply and demand. Consequently, the government spends substantial financial resources on rice imports that can otherwise be saved through increase domestic production.
This study examines the response of rice supply to changes in demand in Sierra Leone over the period 1996 to July 2026.
The Nerlovian adjustment model was employed to analyze the Sierra Leone rice dataset for the study period. The estimated trend equations revealed that time had a statistically significant effect on output, productivity (yield) and cultivated area (acreage) during the study period, generally at the 1 % level of significance.
The results tend to recommend that virtually the entire growth in output was due to an increase in area cultivated to the crop. The time trend variable that has been involved for government policy intrusion shows that there is no significant effect on the variables under contemplation in this research. Consequently, both the short-run and long-run price response are inelastic, as their estimated values were less than one.
Based on the above findings, instant policy actions are required to promote efficient growth in rice production.
To achieve this objective, the relevant government agencies should strengthen agricultural extension services and encourage farmers to adopt improved rice varieties, modern production technologies, and better cultivation practices to enhance rice production in Sierra Leone.

Price elasticities, Trend Equations, Nerlovian Adjustment Technique, Rice supply response, Sierra Leone.

1. Zubaidi, H.A., J.C. Anderson, and S. Hernandez, Understanding roundabout safety through the application of advanced econometric techniques. International journal of transportation science and technology, 2020. 9(4): p. 309–321. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Zoramawa, L.B., M.P. Ezekiel, and A.T. Kiru, Exchange rate and economic growth nexus: An impact analysis of the Nigerian economy. Journal of Research in Emerging Markets, 2020. 2(4): p. 58–67. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Zhu, Y. and C. Huo, The impact of agricultural production efficiency on agricultural carbon emissions in China. Energies, 2022. 15(12): p. 4464. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Zhou, X., T. Chen, and B. Zhang, Research on the Impact of Digital Agriculture Development on Agricultural Green Total Factor Productivity. Land, 2023. 12(1): p. 195. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Zhong, Y., et al., Gut health benefit and application of postbiotics in animal production. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 2022. 13(1): p. 1–12. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Zheng, H., et al., Does internet use improve technical efficiency of banana production in China? Evidence from a selectivity-corrected analysis. Food Policy, 2021. 102: p. 102044. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Su, Y. and X. Wang, Innovation of agricultural economic management in the process of constructing smart agriculture by big data. Sustainable Computing: Informatics and Systems, 2021. 31: p. 100579. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Swinnen, J. and R. Vos, COVID‐19 and impacts on global food systems and household welfare: Introduction to a special issue. Agricultural Economics, 2021. 52(3): p. 365–374. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Rehman, A., et al., Carbonization and agricultural productivity in Bhutan: Investigating the impact of crops production, fertilizer usage, and employment on CO2 emissions. Journal of Cleaner Production, 2022. 375: p. 134178. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Rault, J.-L., R. Binder, and H. Grimm, Rethink farm animal production: The 3Rs. Science, 2022. 378(6622): p. 842–842. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Li, M., et al., Agricultural greenhouses detection in high-resolution satellite images based on convolutional neural networks: Comparison of faster R-CNN, YOLO v3 and SSD. Sensors, 2020. 20(17): p. 4938. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Li, C., et al., The productive performance of intercropping. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2023. 120(2): p. e2201886120. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Leroy, F., et al., Nutritionism in a food policy context: the case of ‘animal protein’. Animal Production Science, 2022. 62(8): p. 712–720. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Hodjo, M., T. Dalton, and E. Nakelse, Does Public Spending Trigger Agricultural Productivity Growth in Africa? Journal of African Development, 2023. 24(1): p. 65–104. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Drebee, H.A. and N.A. Abdul-Razak. The Impact of Corruption on Agriculture Sector in Iraq: Econometrics Approach. in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2020. IOP Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Deng, X., et al., Does outsourcing affect agricultural productivity of farmer households? Evidence from China. China Agricultural Economic Review, 2020. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Conteh, A.M., X. Yan, and A.V. Gborie, Assessing the Effect of the Shift of Rural Labor towards Non-Agricultural Sectors on Rice Cultivation in the African Environment: Evidence from Sierra Leone. International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering, 2013. 7(8): p. 2455–2460. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Conteh, A.M., X. Yan, and A.V. Gborie, Evaluating the Effect of Domestic Price on Rice Production in an African Setting: A Typical Evidence of the Sierra Leone Case. International Journal of Economics and Management Engineering, 2013. 7(8): p. 2359–2364. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Coderoni, S. and F. Pagliacci, The impact of climate change on land productivity. A micro-level assessment for Italian farms. Agricultural Systems, 2023. 205: p. 103565. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Bo, H., et al., Monitoring and classifying cropland productivity degradation to support implementing land degradation neutrality: The case of China. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 2023. 99: p. 107000. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

23. Bjornlund, V., H. Bjornlund, and A.F. Van Rooyen, Why agricultural production in sub-Saharan Africa remains low compared to the rest of the world–a historical perspective. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 2020. 36(sup1): p. S20–S53. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

24. Bibi, Z., D. Khan, and I.u. Haq, Technical and environmental efficiency of agriculture sector in South Asia: A stochastic frontier analysis approach. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2021. 23: p. 9260–9279. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

25. Abay, K.A., Measurement errors in agricultural data and their implications on marginal returns to modern agricultural inputs. Agricultural Economics, 2020. 51(3): p. 323–341. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

26. Abbott, P.C., Estimating US Agricultural Export Demand Elasticities: Econometric and Economic Issues1, in Elasticities in International Agricultural Trade. 2019, CRC Press. p. 53–85. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

27. Conteh, A.M., X. Yan, and M. Mvodo, Evaluating the Effect of Farmers’ Training on Rice Production in Sierra Leone: A Case Study of Rice Cultivation in Lowland Ecology. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 2013. 7(7): p. 1926–1933. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

28. Conteh, A.M., X. Yan, and A.V. Gborie, Using the Nerlovian adjustment model to assess the response of farmers to price and other related factors: Evidence from Sierra Leone rice cultivation. International Journal of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, 2014. 8(3): p. 687–693. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

29. Cao, X., et al., Agricultural water use efficiency and driving force assessment to improve regional productivity and effectiveness. Water Resources Management, 2021. 35(8): p. 2519–2535. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

30. Awad, I.M. and W. Alazzeh, Using currency demand to estimate the Palestine underground economy: An econometric analysis. Palgrave Communications, 2020. 6(1): p. 1–11. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

31. Issa, I.T., A.M.H. Conteh, and M.J. Turay, Binary Logistic Regression Analysis of Livelihood Strategies of the Protected Gola Forest Edge communities in Tunkia Chiefdom. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

32. Iwegbu, O. and L.B. de Mattos, Financial development, trade globalisation and agricultural output performance among BRICS and WAMZ member countries. SN Business & Economics, 2022. 2(8): p. 1–27. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

33. Heady, E.O., C. CF, and L.D. John, Agricultural production funcitons. Agricultural production funcitons., 1960. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

34. Conteh, A.M., et al., An estimation of rice output supply response in Sierra Leone: A Nerlovian model approach. International Journal of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, 2014. 8(3): p. 225–233. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

35. Calonaci, F., A Financial Analysis of New Econometric Techniques. 2020, Queen Mary University of London. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

36. Kumar, A. and P. Sharma, Impact of climate variation on agricultural productivity and food security in rural India. Available at SSRN 4144089, 2022. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

37. Leone, S., Alhaji MH Conteh, Juana P. Moiwo & Xiangbin Yan. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

38. Nathaniel, S.P. and F.V. Bekun, Electricity consumption, urbanization, and economic growth in Nigeria: New insights from combined cointegration amidst structural breaks. Journal of Public Affairs, 2021. 21(1): p. e2102. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

39. Mwaura, F., M. Ngigi, and G. Obare, Agricultural Productivity and Labour Allocation Trade-Off Crises for Agriculture, Cooking Energy Sourcing and Off-Farm Employment in Developing Countries: Evidence from Western Kenya. African Journal of Education, Science and Technology, 2022. 7(1): p. 277–293. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

40. Pata, U.K., Linking renewable energy, globalization, agriculture, CO2 emissions and ecological footprint in BRIC countries: A sustainability perspective. Renewable Energy, 2021. 173: p. 197–208. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

41. Oyekale, S., Determinants of agricultural land expansion in Nigeria: Application of Error Correction Modeling (ECM). Journal of Central European Agriculture, 2007. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

42. Ouyang, H., X. Wei, and Q. Wu, Agricultural commodity futures prices prediction via long-and short-term time series network. Journal of Applied Economics, 2019. 22(1): p. 468–483. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

43. Shikur, Z.H., Agricultural policies, agricultural production and rural households’ welfare in Ethiopia. Journal of Economic Structures, 2020. 9(1): p. 1–21. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

44. Kremer, M., R. Kiesel, and F. Paraschiv, An econometric model for intraday electricity trading. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 2021. 379(2202): p. 20190624. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

45. Khanal, A.R., et al., Modeling post adoption decision in precision agriculture: A Bayesian approach. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture, 2019. 162: p. 466–474. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

46. Kelejian, H.H. and I.R. Prucha, Spatial models with spatially lagged dependent variables and incomplete data. Journal of geographical systems, 2010. 12(3): p. 241–257. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

47. Jayne, T.S. and P.A. Sanchez, Agricultural productivity must improve in sub-Saharan Africa. Science, 2021. 372(6546): p. 1045–1047. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

48. Hu, J., et al., Animal production predominantly contributes to antibiotic profiles in the Yangtze River. Water Research, 2023: p. 120214. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

49. Hamory, J., et al., Reevaluating agricultural productivity gaps with longitudinal microdata. Journal of the European Economic Association, 2021. 19(3): p. 1522–1555. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

50. Gusev, A.Y. and I.G. Koshkina. Labour productivity in the agricultural sector of the national economy is a key factor in the rise of production efficiency. in IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. 2022. IOP Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

51. Gusev, A. Estimation of the efficiency of synthetic fertilizers in intensifying agricultural production. in E3S Web of Conferences. 2020. EDP Sciences. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Breeding for a Greener Future: Selective Breeding and Crossbreeding Approaches to Minimize Methane Emissions in Ruminant Livestock
• Determinants of Adoption of Post-Harvest Losses Prevention Techniques among Banana/Plantain Marketers in Lagos State, Nigeria
• Enhancing Rice Yield Prediction Using UAV-Based Multispectral Imaging and Machine Learning Algorithms
• Seed-Borne Fungi of Groundnuts (Arachis Hypogaea) and Their Management with Ginger (Zingiber Officinale) Extract In Makurdi, Nigeria
• The Influence of Landforms and Slope on Agricultural Cropping Patterns in Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar District