IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/ajfand/334095.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Determinants of smallholder farmers’ willingness -to -pay for soyabean production inputs in northern Ghana

Author

Listed:
  • Adjei-Nsiah, Samuel
  • Gyan, Kwasi
  • Ahiakpa, John Kojo
  • Ampadu-Boakye T
  • Sedebo, DA

Abstract

Farmers in northern Ghana have been cultivating soyabean with very little or no agro-inputs due to cost and limited accessibility. Use of quality agro-inputs can significantly improve the productivity of soyabean. This study assesses farmers’ current use of soyabean production agro-inputs, identifies challenges faced by smallholder farmers in soyabean cultivation and assesses factors influencing farmers’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for soyabean inputs (determinants) in northern Ghana. Four hundred (400) smallholder soyabean farmers were sampled using a multi-stage sampling method. In stage one, the study area was stratified into three regions, northern, upper east and upper west regions. Stage two encompassed purposive sampling of eight (8) districts across the three northern regions famed for soyabean production. Data was collected using a semi-structured questionnaire, key informant interviews and focus group discussions were conducted.. Descriptive statistics were performed and a contingency valuation method (CVM) was used to assess key determinants that influence farmers’ WTP for soyabean inputs. The results show that 74 % of the respondents were willing to pay for the soyabean inputs. However, 43, 47.3, 39.5 and 49.5 % of respondents were willing to pay at the bid price of 1.06/kg, 3.98/litre, 31.91/50kg bag and USD 5.32/100g sachet for certified seeds, herbicide (glyphosate), TSP fertiliser and inoculants, respectively. Age, household size, access to credit, participation and gains made from on-farm demonstrations significantly influenced farmers’ willingness to purchase certified soyabean seeds. Factors that significantly influenced farmers’ willingness to purchase glyphosate included household size, purpose and experience in soyabean production. In the case of triple superphosphaste fertiliser (TSP), access to extension services, participation and gains from farm demonstrations and distance to the nearest agro-input shop were identified as key determinants. Farmers’ willingness to purchase inoculants markedly correlated with age, credit, participation in on-field demonstrations, membership of farmer-based organisation and experience in soyabean production. The results of this study form a basis for making a business case for agro-input companies to invest in the distribution and sale of the newly introduced soyabean production inputs in northern Ghana. Development and promotion of early maturing and drought tolerant soyabean varieties by the National Agricultural Research Institutes are required to enable farmers to cope with the changing climatic conditions which pose a threat to soyabean production in northern Ghana.

Suggested Citation

  • Adjei-Nsiah, Samuel & Gyan, Kwasi & Ahiakpa, John Kojo & Ampadu-Boakye T & Sedebo, DA, 2022. "Determinants of smallholder farmers’ willingness -to -pay for soyabean production inputs in northern Ghana," African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development (AJFAND), vol. 22(08).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:ajfand:334095
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/334095/files/Kojo20830.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ariga, Joshua & Jayne, Thomas S., 2006. "Can the Market Deliver? Lessons from Kenya's Rising Use of Fertilizer Following Liberalization," Food Security Collaborative Policy Briefs 54646, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    2. Flett, Ross & Alpass, Fiona & Humphries, Steve & Massey, Claire & Morriss, Stuart & Long, Nigel, 2004. "The technology acceptance model and use of technology in New Zealand dairy farming," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 80(2), pages 199-211, May.
    3. W. Michael Hanemann, 1984. "Welfare Evaluations in Contingent Valuation Experiments with Discrete Responses," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 66(3), pages 332-341.
    4. Pinuccia Calia & Elisabetta Strazzera, 2000. "Bias and efficiency of single versus double bound models for contingent valuation studies: a Monte Carlo analysis," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 32(10), pages 1329-1336.
    5. Gockowski, James & Ndoumbe, Michel, 2004. "The adoption of intensive monocrop horticulture in southern Cameroon," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 30(3), pages 195-202, May.
    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. Rong-Chang Jou & Yuan-Chan Wu & Ke-Hong Chen, 2011. "Analysis of the environmental benefits of a motorcycle idling stop policy at urban intersections," Transportation, Springer, vol. 38(6), pages 1017-1033, November.
    2. Gebretsadik, Kidanemariam Abreha & Romstad, Eirik, 2020. "Climate and farmers’ willingness to pay for improved irrigation water supply," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 20(C).
    3. Kansinee Panwanitdumrong & Chung-Ling Chen, 2022. "Are Tourists Willing to Pay for a Marine Litter-Free Coastal Attraction to Achieve Tourism Sustainability? Case Study of Libong Island, Thailand," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-18, April.
    4. Ricardo Faria & Raul Matsuhita & Jorge Nogueira & Benjamin Tabak, 2007. "Realism Versus Statistical Efficiency: A Note on Contingent Valuation with Follow-up Queries," Atlantic Economic Journal, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 35(4), pages 451-462, December.
    5. Togba V. Sumo & Cecilia Ritho & Patrick Irungu, 2023. "Determinants of Smallholder Rice Farmers’ Willingness-to-Pay for Private Extension Services in Liberia: The Case of Gibi District," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-13, September.
    6. Rodriguez, Luis C. & Pascual, Unai & Niemeyer, Hermann M., 2006. "Local identification and valuation of ecosystem goods and services from Opuntia scrublands of Ayacucho, Peru," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(1), pages 30-44, April.
    7. Soliño, Mario & Vázquez, María X. & Prada, Albino, 2009. "Social demand for electricity from forest biomass in Spain: Does payment periodicity affect the willingness to pay?," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 37(2), pages 531-540, February.
    8. Cooper, Joseph C., 2002. "Flexible Functional Form Estimation of Willingness to Pay Using Dichotomous Choice Data," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 267-279, March.
    9. Chaikaew, Pasicha & Hodges, Alan W. & Grunwald, Sabine, 2017. "Estimating the value of ecosystem services in a mixed-use watershed: A choice experiment approach," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 23(C), pages 228-237.
    10. Franz Hackl & Gerald J. Pruckner, 2005. "Warm glow, free‐riding and vehicle neutrality in a health‐related contingent valuation study," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(3), pages 293-306, March.
    11. Nayga, Rodolfo M., Jr. & Aiew, Wipon & Woodward, Richard T., 2004. "Willingness to Pay for Irradiated Food: A Non Hypothetical Market Experiment," 84th Seminar, February 8-11, 2004, Zeist, The Netherlands 24995, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Rodríguez, Elsa Mirta M. & Lacaze, María Victoria & Lupín, Beatriz, 2007. "Willingness to pay for organic food in Argentina: evidence from a consumer survey," Nülan. Deposited Documents 1300, Universidad Nacional de Mar del Plata, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas y Sociales, Centro de Documentación.
    13. Olga Lucía Cadena Durán & Andrés Mauricio Gómez Sánchez, 2014. "Racionalidades y prácticas campesinas cafeteras en el departamento del Huila, Colombia," Revista Economía y Región, Universidad Tecnológica de Bolívar, vol. 8(2), pages 157-184, December.
    14. Clarke, Philip M., 1998. "Cost-benefit analysis and mammographic screening: a travel cost approach," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(6), pages 767-787, December.
    15. Philippe Polome & Anne van der Veen & Peter Geurts, 2006. "Is Referendum the Same as Dichotomous Choice Contingent Valuation?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 82(2), pages 174-188.
    16. Yoonae Jo, 2001. "Does college education nourish egoism?," Environmental Economics and Policy Studies, Springer;Society for Environmental Economics and Policy Studies - SEEPS, vol. 4(2), pages 115-128, September.
    17. Pere Riera & Raúl Brey & Guillermo Gándara, 2008. "Bid design for non-parametric contingent valuation with a single bounded dichotomous choice format," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 186(3), pages 43-60, October.
    18. Sabina Shaikh & Pavel Suchánek & Lili Sun & G. Cornelis van Kooten, 2003. "Does Inclusion of Landowners’ Non-Market Values Lower Costs of Creating Carbon Forest Sinks?," Working Papers 2003-03, University of Victoria, Department of Economics, Resource Economics and Policy Analysis Research Group.
    19. Kerstin K Zander & Gillian B Ainsworth & Jürgen Meyerhoff & Stephen T Garnett, 2014. "Threatened Bird Valuation in Australia," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-9, June.
    20. Seck, Abdoulaye & Thiam, Djiby Racine, 2022. "Understanding consumer attitudes to and valuation of organic food in Sub-Saharan Africa: A double-bound contingent method applied in Dakar, Senegal," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 17(1), March.

    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:ajfand:334095. 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://www.ajfand.net/ .

    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.