environment that should affect input use decisions is soil quality since, for example, it is well known that the responsiveness of crops to fertilizer application depends on the quality and fertility of the soil (e.g., Zingore et al. 2010; Zingore 2011). Even within a given farm, evidence suggests that productivity can differ immensely between plots (Tittonell et al. 2005), so too, then we would expect soil fertility status also to vary. Moreover, household perceptions of soil quality may influence fertilizer application rates (Marenya and Barrett 2009) and be influenced, in turn, by previously observed crop yields (Marenya, Barrett, Gulick 2008).

We can test these claims in three countries where the LSMS-ISA surveys elicited farmer perceptions of soil quality by plot: Malawi, Tanzania, and Uganda. Table 22 shows the input use differences between plots perceived to be of good, average, and bad quality.<sup>17</sup> Unexpectedly, modern input use and rates – particularly for inorganic fertilizer, agro-chemicals, and irrigation – are virtually identical among the categories. Farmers do not appear to adjust input application rates to accommodate their perceptions of plot quality.

Table 22: Differences in input use between plots by household-reported soil quality

||No. of plots<br>(weighted)|% using<br>organic<br>fertilizer|% using<br>inorganic<br>fertilizer|Avg total<br>inorganic<br>fertilizer<br>(kg/ha)|% using agro-<br>chemicals|% using<br>irrigation|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Malawi(ra|inyseason andpe|rmanent crop plots)|||||
|Good|8,686|12|65|130|3|<1|
|Fair|7,940|13|70|125|1|<1|
|Poor|1,967|19|70|117|1|<1|
|Tanzania(|longrainyseason|andpermanent crop|plots)||||
|Good|2,276|10|15|10|12|2|
|Average|2,189|12|14|11|12|2|
|Bad|315|23|25|11|13|1|
|Uganda(fi|rst season)||||||
|Good|2,635|11|4|2|12|3|
|Fair|1,496|9|1|1|8|5|
|Poor|141|11|2|<1|11|3|

Note: Households do not report soil characteristics in Ethiopia and Nigeria; households in Niger do not report soil quality. Inorganic fertilizer application rates are unconditional and represent total, not nutrient, values.

Erosion is seen as one of the avenues through which soils degrade and lose their inherent productivity levels. Moreover, erosion is also the consequence of soil fertility depletion; it can act as a proxy for poor soil quality. Erosion control (e.g., through contour ridges, rock lines, vegetative bands, living hedges), then, is seen as a vehicle for maintaining soil fertility, particularly when paired with fertilizer use and legume intercropping (Morris et al. 2007).

In Table 23 we show the difference between inputs applied to plots characterized by the respondent as eroded or not, as observed in four of the LSMS-ISA countries. Analogous to the soil quality story, farmers do not appear to make tremendously different input use decisions across eroded and non-eroded plots. Only in Niger and Uganda, the two countries with the lowest inorganic fertilizer use rates, do we observe higher unconditional fertilizer application

> 17 One, perhaps unsurprising, side finding is the relatively low number of plots currently under cultivation that are characterized as “poor” or “bad” by the respondents. This implies that households are only cultivating plots that they consider of higher quality.

32