IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v15y2023i19p14390-d1251232.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

More Interventions, Low Adoption: To What Extent Are the Existing Seed Sources to Blame? The Case of Orange Fleshed Sweet Potato in Central and Northern Malawi

Author

Listed:
  • Chrispin Sunganani Kaphaika

    (Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Lilongwe P.O. Box 219, Malawi)

  • Samson Pilanazo Katengeza

    (Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Lilongwe P.O. Box 219, Malawi
    Directorate of Research and Outreach, Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Lilongwe P.O. Box 219, Malawi)

  • Innocent Pangapanga-Phiri

    (Center for Agricultural Research and Development (CARD), Bunda College Campus, Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Lilongwe P.O. Box 219, Malawi)

  • Madalitso Happy Chambukira

    (Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Lilongwe University of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Lilongwe P.O. Box 219, Malawi)

Abstract

Vitamin A dense Orange fleshed sweet potato (OFSP) has the potential to build resilient livelihoods against Vitamin A Deficiency (VAD), food insecurity, and climate change. However, the adoption of OFSP among smallholder farmers in Malawi remains low. Although many scholars across the globe have reviewed the seed systems of OFSP, no empirical study, in Malawi or elsewhere, has modelled how the use of the various sources of vines affect farmers’ seed security and eventual decisions to adopt biofortified OFSP varieties. The study employed a mixed methods approach and used a Triple Hurdle model to analyze the effect of the existing sources of vines on the adoption of OFSP among 721 randomly sampled households in central and northern Malawi. The study also developed a seed security experience score ( SSES ) in order to assess the capacity of the existing sources of vines to ensure farmers’ seed security. By defining adoption as a three-stage process, and by shifting the seed systems focus to capacity of the existing sources of vines, the study departs from the conventional approaches that most scholars have used to model adoption of OFSP. The study found that the existing sources of vines influenced all the three stages of adoption. The SSES results indicated that the capacity of the existing sources subjected the majority of the farmers to a highly seed insecurity status. Interventions therefore must be designed to address the seed security challenges associated with the existing sources in order to enhance the capacity of the sources for widespread and sustained adoption of OFSP.

Suggested Citation

  • Chrispin Sunganani Kaphaika & Samson Pilanazo Katengeza & Innocent Pangapanga-Phiri & Madalitso Happy Chambukira, 2023. "More Interventions, Low Adoption: To What Extent Are the Existing Seed Sources to Blame? The Case of Orange Fleshed Sweet Potato in Central and Northern Malawi," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-20, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:19:p:14390-:d:1251232
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/19/14390/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/15/19/14390/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Isabel C. Sakala & Thomson H. Kalinda & Chewe Nkonde & William J. Burke, 2021. "Adoption of ox-drawn minimum tillage ripping by smallholder farmers in Zambia," Agrekon, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(3), pages 335-351, July.
    2. Shawn McGuire & Louise Sperling, 2016. "Seed systems smallholder farmers use," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(1), pages 179-195, February.
    3. Sartori, Anne E., 2003. "An Estimator for Some Binary-Outcome Selection Models Without Exclusion Restrictions," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 111-138, April.
    4. Besley, Timothy & Case, Anne, 1993. "Modeling Technology Adoption in Developing Countries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(2), pages 396-402, May.
    5. William J Burke, 2019. "Evidence against Imposing Restrictions on Hurdle Models as a Test for Simultaneous versus Sequential Decision Making," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1473-1481.
    6. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    7. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, December.
    8. Marenya, Paswel P. & Barrett, Christopher B., 2007. "Household-level determinants of adoption of improved natural resources management practices among smallholder farmers in western Kenya," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 32(4), pages 515-536, August.
    9. Bekele A. Shiferaw & Tewodros A. Kebede & Liang You, 2008. "Technology adoption under seed access constraints and the economic impacts of improved pigeonpea varieties in Tanzania," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 39(3), pages 309-323, November.
    10. Wellington Jogo & Temesgen Bocher & Frederick Grant, 2021. "Factors influencing farmers’ dis-adoption and retention decisions for biofortified crops: the case of orange-fleshed sweetpotato in Mozambique," Agrekon, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 60(4), pages 445-459, October.
    11. Cragg, John G, 1971. "Some Statistical Models for Limited Dependent Variables with Application to the Demand for Durable Goods," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 39(5), pages 829-844, September.
    12. Asfaw, Solomon & Shiferaw, Bekele & Simtowe, Franklin & Lipper, Leslie, 2012. "Impact of modern agricultural technologies on smallholder welfare: Evidence from Tanzania and Ethiopia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 283-295.
    13. William J. Burke & Robert J. Myers & Thomas S. Jayne, 2015. "A Triple-Hurdle Model of Production and Market Participation in Kenya's Dairy Market," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 97(4), pages 1227-1246.
    14. Amemiya, Takeshi, 1984. "Tobit models: A survey," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 24(1-2), pages 3-61.
    15. Conny J. M. Almekinders & Steve Walsh & Kim S. Jacobsen & Jorge L. Andrade-Piedra & Margaret A. McEwan & Stef Haan & Lava Kumar & Charles Staver, 2019. "Why interventions in the seed systems of roots, tubers and bananas crops do not reach their full potential," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 11(1), pages 23-42, February.
    16. David Roodman, 2011. "Fitting fully observed recursive mixed-process models with cmp," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 11(2), pages 159-206, June.
    17. Akinwumi A. Adesina & Jojo Baidu‐Forson, 1995. "Farmers' perceptions and adoption of new agricultural technology: evidence from analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, October.
    18. Shawn McGuire & Louise Sperling, 2016. "Seed systems smallholder farmers use," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 8(1), pages 179-195, February.
    19. Daniel O. Gilligan, 2012. "Biofortification, Agricultural Technology Adoption, and Nutrition Policy: Some Lessons and Emerging Challenges ," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 58(2), pages 405-421, June.
    20. Raju Ghimire & Wen-Chi Huang, 2015. "Household wealth and adoption of improved maize varieties in Nepal: a double-hurdle approach," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 7(6), pages 1321-1335, December.
    21. Adesina, Akinwumi A. & Baidu-Forson, Jojo, 1995. "Farmers' perceptions and adoption of new agricultural technology: evidence from analysis in Burkina Faso and Guinea, West Africa," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Felister Y. Tibamanya & Mursali A. Milanzi & Arne Henningsen, 2021. "Drivers of and Barriers to Adoption of Improved Sun- flower Varieties amongst Smallholder Farmers in Singida, Tanzania: the Double-Hurdle Approach," IFRO Working Paper 2021/03, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    2. Abebayehu Girma Geffersa & Frank W. Agbola & Amir Mahmood, 2022. "Improved maize adoption and impacts on farm household welfare: Evidence from rural Ethiopia," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 66(4), pages 860-886, October.
    3. Hazarika, Bhabesh & Bezbaruah, Madhurjya Prashad & Goswami, Kishor, 2016. "Adoption of modern weaving technology in the handloom micro-enterprises in Assam: A Double Hurdle approach," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 344-356.
    4. Yigezu, Yigezu Atnafe & Mugera, Amin & El-Shater, Tamer & Aw-Hassan, Aden & Piggin, Colin & Haddad, Atef & Khalil, Yaseen & Loss, Stephen, 2018. "Enhancing adoption of agricultural technologies requiring high initial investment among smallholders," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 134(C), pages 199-206.
    5. Aloyce R Kaliba & Kizito Mazvimavi & Theresia L Gregory & Frida M Mgonja & Mary Mgonja, 2018. "Factors affecting adoption of improved sorghum varieties in Tanzania under information and capital constraints," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 6(1), pages 1-21, December.
    6. Ngouhouo Poufoun, Jonas & Abildtrup, Jens & Sonwa, Dénis Jean & Delacote, Philippe, 2016. "The value of endangered forest elephants to local communities in a transboundary conservation landscape," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 126(C), pages 70-86.
    7. Bert Lenaerts & Yann de Mey & Matty Demont, 2022. "Revisiting multi‐stage models for upstream technology adoption: Evidence from rapid generation advance in rice breeding," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(1), pages 277-300, February.
    8. Garbero, A. & Marion, P., 2018. "IFAD RESEARCH SERIES 28 - Understanding the dynamics of adoption decisions and their poverty impacts: the case of improved maize seeds in Uganda," IFAD Research Series 280077, International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
    9. William J Burke, 2019. "Evidence against Imposing Restrictions on Hurdle Models as a Test for Simultaneous versus Sequential Decision Making," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1473-1481.
    10. Thinda, K.T. & Ogundeji, A.A. & Belle, J.A. & Ojo, T.O., 2020. "Understanding the adoption of climate change adaptation strategies among smallholder farmers: Evidence from land reform beneficiaries in South Africa," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    11. Lucy Mulugo & Florence Birungi Kyazze & Paul Kibwika & Bonaventure Aman Omondi & Enoch Mutebi Kikulwe, 2020. "Seed Security Factors Driving Farmer Decisions on Uptake of Tissue Culture Banana Seed in Central Uganda," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-17, December.
    12. Dorgyles C. M. Kouakou, 2023. "Competing against ‘invisibles’: the effect of competition from informal firms on formal firms’ R&D," Eurasian Business Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 13(1), pages 87-117, March.
    13. Marie Bouchard & Damien Rousselière, 2018. "Does Gibrat's law hold among urban social economy enterprises? A research note on Montreal social economy," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 38(3), pages 1523-1540.
    14. Momanyi, Denis & Lagat, Prof. Job K. & Ayuya, Dr. Oscar I., 2016. "Analysis of the Marketing Behaviour of African Indigenous Leafy Vegetables among Smallholder Farmers in Nyamira County, Kenya," MPRA Paper 69202, University Library of Munich, Germany, revised 27 Jan 2016.
    15. Thomas Pircher & Conny J. M. Almekinders, 2021. "Making sense of farmers’ demand for seed of root, tuber and banana crops: a systematic review of methods," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(5), pages 1285-1301, October.
    16. Rama Lionel Ngenzebuke, 2016. "Female say on income and child outcomes: Evidence from Nigeria," WIDER Working Paper Series 134, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    17. Negash, Martha & Swinnen, Johan F.M., 2013. "Biofuels and food security: Micro-evidence from Ethiopia," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 963-976.
    18. Lisette Ibanez & Sébastien Roussel, 2022. "The impact of nature video exposure on pro-environmental behavior: An experimental investigation," Post-Print hal-03847453, HAL.
    19. Juliana D. Araujo & Povilas Lastauskas & Chris Papageorgiou, 2017. "Evolution of Bilateral Capital Flows to Developing Countries at Intensive and Extensive Margins," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 49(7), pages 1517-1554, October.
    20. Regner, Tobias, 2014. "Social preferences? Google Answers!," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 85(C), pages 188-209.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:15:y:2023:i:19:p:14390-:d:1251232. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.