IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/afjare/208927.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Farmer preferences for attributes of conservation agriculture in Uganda

Author

Listed:
  • Vaiknoras, Kate
  • Norton, George
  • Alwang, Jeffrey

Abstract

Conservation agriculture has many potential benefits for small-scale farmers in developing countries; however, adoption remains low. This study estimates the value that farmers in the Tororo and Kapchorwa districts of Uganda place on some potential benefits of conservation agriculture. Data from a choice experiment study were analysed with a mixed logit model to determine how reductions in erosion, reductions in labour requirements for land preparation, increases in yield and increases in input costs influence farmers’ choices of production methods. Willingness-to-pay estimates for increases in maize yield, reductions in erosion and reductions in labour requirements for land preparation are all positive and statistically significant. Preferences for these attributes vary by district, gender and prior farming practices. Male farmers are less sensitive to cost increases than female farmers. Kapchorwa farmers are less sensitive to cost increases than Tororo farmers and also value erosion control and labour reductions more highly.

Suggested Citation

  • Vaiknoras, Kate & Norton, George & Alwang, Jeffrey, 2015. "Farmer preferences for attributes of conservation agriculture in Uganda," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 10(2), pages 1-16.
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:afjare:208927
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.208927
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/208927/files/6%20%20Vaiknoras%20et%20al.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.208927?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "A comparison of approaches to estimating confidence intervals for willingness to pay measures," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(8), pages 827-840, August.
    2. David Revelt and Kenneth Train., 2000. "Customer-Specific Taste Parameters and Mixed Logit: Households' Choice of Electricity Supplier," Economics Working Papers E00-274, University of California at Berkeley.
    3. Marit E. Kragt & J.W. Bennett, 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 159-179, April.
    4. Wiktor Adamowicz & Peter Boxall & Michael Williams & Jordan Louviere, 1998. "Stated Preference Approaches for Measuring Passive Use Values: Choice Experiments and Contingent Valuation," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 80(1), pages 64-75.
    5. Carson, Richard T. & Czajkowski, Mikołaj, 2019. "A new baseline model for estimating willingness to pay from discrete choice models," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 95(C), pages 57-61.
    6. Paswel Marenya & Vincent H. Smith & Ephraim Nkonya, 2014. "Relative Preferences for Soil Conservation Incentives among Smallholder Farmers: Evidence from Malawi," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 96(3), pages 690-710.
    7. Mélanie Jaeck & Robert Lifran, 2014. "Farmers’ Preferences for Production Practices: A Choice Experiment Study in the Rhone River Delta," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 65(1), pages 112-130, January.
    8. Yu, Bingxin & Nin Pratt, Alejandro, 2011. "Agricultural Productivity and Policies in Sub-Saharan Africa," 2011 Annual Meeting, July 24-26, 2011, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 105400, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Mazvimavi, Kizito & Ndlovu, Patrick V. & Nyathi, Putso & Minde, Isaac J., 2010. "Conservation Agriculture Practices and Adoption by Smallholder Farmers in Zimbabwe," 2010 AAAE Third Conference/AEASA 48th Conference, September 19-23, 2010, Cape Town, South Africa 96822, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    10. Birungi, Patrick & Hassan, Rashid M., 2007. "Impact of Alternative Land Management Options on Soil Fertility and Erosion in Uganda," Agrekon, Agricultural Economics Association of South Africa (AEASA), vol. 46(3), pages 1-15, September.
    11. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521747387.
    12. Mickael Bech & Dorte Gyrd‐Hansen, 2005. "Effects coding in discrete choice experiments," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(10), pages 1079-1083, October.
    13. Knowler, Duncan & Bradshaw, Ben, 2007. "Farmers' adoption of conservation agriculture: A review and synthesis of recent research," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 25-48, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ngoma, Hambulo & Mulenga, Brian P. & Jayne, Thomas S., 2016. "Minimum tillage uptake and uptake intensity by smallholder farmers in Zambia," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 11(4), pages 1-14, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    2. Hotaling, Chelsea & Bird, Stephen & Heintzelman, Martin D., 2021. "Willingness to pay for microgrids to enhance community resilience," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    3. Damian Clarke & Sonia Oreffice & Climent Quintana‐Domeque, 2021. "On the Value of Birth Weight," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 83(5), pages 1130-1159, October.
    4. Susaeta, Andres & Lal, Pankaj & Alavalapati, Janaki & Mercer, Evan, 2011. "Random preferences towards bioenergy environmental externalities: A case study of woody biomass based electricity in the Southern United States," Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 1111-1118.
    5. Ridier, Aude & Roussy, Caroline & Chaib, Karim, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique (INRA), vol. 102(1), April.
    6. Andreas Niedermayr & Lena Schaller & Petr Mariel & Pia Kieninger & Jochen Kantelhardt, 2018. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Public Goods Provided by Agriculture in a Region of Intensive Agricultural Production: The Case of the Marchfeld," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-18, June.
    7. Martey, E., 2018. "Heterogeneous Demand for Quality Soybean in Northern Ghana," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277013, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    8. Carnegie, Rachel & Wang, Holly & Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David, 2014. "Consumer Preferences for Quality and Safety Attributes of Duck in Restaurant Entrees: Is China A Viable Market for The U.S. Duck Industry?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170717, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Star, Megan & Rolfe, John & Barbi, Emily, 2019. "Do outcome or input risks limit adoption of environmental projects: Rehabilitating gullies in Great Barrier Reef catchments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 73-82.
    10. Nordén, Anna & Coria, Jessica & Jönsson, Anna Maria & Lagergren, Fredrik & Lehsten, Veiko, 2017. "Divergence in stakeholders' preferences: Evidence from a choice experiment on forest landscapes preferences in Sweden," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 132(C), pages 179-195.
    11. De Valck, Jeremy & Vlaeminck, Pieter & Liekens, Inge & Aertsens, Joris & Chen, Wendy & Vranken, Liesbet, 2012. "The sources of preference heterogeneity for nature restoration scenarios," Working Papers 146522, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Centre for Agricultural and Food Economics.
    12. Juutinen, Artti & Kosenius, Anna-Kaisa & Ovaskainen, Ville, 2014. "Estimating the benefits of recreation-oriented management in state-owned commercial forests in Finland: A choice experiment," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(4), pages 396-412.
    13. Martey, Edward & Goldsmith, Peter, 2020. "Heterogeneous demand for soybean quality," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 15(1), March.
    14. Francisco J. Más & Juan Luis Nicolau, 2006. "A New Marketing Segmentation Approach Based On Marginal Individual Utilities: Applying Crm Is Not A Chimera Anymore," Working Papers. Serie EC 2006-16, Instituto Valenciano de Investigaciones Económicas, S.A. (Ivie).
    15. Rombach, Meike & Widmar, Nicole Olynk & Byrd, Elizabeth & Bitsch, Vera, 2018. "Do all roses smell equally sweet? Willingness to pay for flower attributes in specialized retail settings by German consumers," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 40(C), pages 91-99.
    16. Wakamatsu, Mihoko & Shin, Kong Joo & Wilson, Clevo & Managi, Shunsuke, 2018. "Exploring a Gap between Australia and Japan in the Economic Valuation of Whale Conservation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 397-407.
    17. Meemken, Eva-Marie & Veettil, Prakashan Chellattan & Qaim, Matin, 2017. "Toward Improving the Design of Sustainability Standards—A Gendered Analysis of Farmers’ Preferences," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 285-298.
    18. Wongprawmas, Rungsaran & Canavari, Maurizio, 2017. "Consumers’ willingness-to-pay for food safety labels in an emerging market: The case of fresh produce in Thailand," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 25-34.
    19. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    20. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 1134-8984, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:afjare:208927. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaaeaea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.