IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v189y2021ics0308521x21000226.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantifying farmers' preferences for cropping systems intensification: A choice experiment approach applied in coastal Bangladesh's risk prone farming systems

Author

Listed:
  • Aravindakshan, Sreejith
  • Krupnik, Timothy J.
  • Amjath-Babu, T.S.
  • Speelman, Stijn
  • Tur-Cardona, Juan
  • Tittonell, Pablo
  • Groot, Jeroen C.J.

Abstract

Sustainable intensification (SI) is envisioned as an effective strategy for developing countries to increase farm productivity while reducing negative environmental and social externalities. The development of regionally appropriate SI options however requires accounting for the knowledge and preferences of key stakeholders. In Bangladesh, the Government has requested international donors to support the development of dry season rice expansion in the coastal region. Policies however tend to be made without adequate study of farmers' preferences and ambitions; this can render crop intensification efforts ineffective. Understanding farmers' preferences for alternative crops and crop management practices are therefore crucial for success where agricultural development investments aim at incorporating the principles of SI.

Suggested Citation

  • Aravindakshan, Sreejith & Krupnik, Timothy J. & Amjath-Babu, T.S. & Speelman, Stijn & Tur-Cardona, Juan & Tittonell, Pablo & Groot, Jeroen C.J., 2021. "Quantifying farmers' preferences for cropping systems intensification: A choice experiment approach applied in coastal Bangladesh's risk prone farming systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:189:y:2021:i:c:s0308521x21000226
    DOI: 10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103069
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308521X21000226
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103069?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ortega, David L. & Waldman, Kurt B. & Richardson, Robert B. & Clay, Daniel C. & Snapp, Sieglinde, 2016. "Sustainable Intensification and Farmer Preferences for Crop System Attributes: Evidence from Malawi’s Central and Southern Regions," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 139-151.
    2. Sreejith Aravindakshan & Frederick Rossi & T. S. Amjath-Babu & Prakashan Chellattan Veettil & Timothy J. Krupnik, 2018. "Application of a bias-corrected meta-frontier approach and an endogenous switching regression to analyze the technical efficiency of conservation tillage for wheat in South Asia," Journal of Productivity Analysis, Springer, vol. 49(2), pages 153-171, June.
    3. Oyinbo, Oyakhilomen & Chamberlin, Jordan & Vanlauwe, Bernard & Vranken, Liesbet & Kamara, Yaya Alpha & Craufurd, Peter & Maertens, Miet, 2019. "Farmers' preferences for high-input agriculture supported by site-specific extension services: Evidence from a choice experiment in Nigeria," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 173(C), pages 12-26.
    4. Dasgupta, Susmita & Hossain, Md. Moqbul & Huq, Mainul & Wheeler, David, 2018. "Climate Change, Salinization and High-Yield Rice Production in Coastal Bangladesh," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 47(1), pages 66-89, April.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555, January.
    6. Sarrias, Mauricio & Daziano, Ricardo, 2017. "Multinomial Logit Models with Continuous and Discrete Individual Heterogeneity in R: The gmnl Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 79(i02).
    7. Smale, Melinda & Bellon, Mauricio R & Aguirre Gomez, Jose Alfonso, 2001. "Maize Diversity, Variety Attributes, and Farmers' Choices in Southeastern Guanajuato, Mexico," Economic Development and Cultural Change, University of Chicago Press, vol. 50(1), pages 201-225, October.
    8. Liesbeth Colen & Sergio Gomez y Paloma & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Marianne Lefebvre & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2016. "Economic Experiments as a Tool for Agricultural Policy Evaluation: Insights from the European CAP," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(4), pages 667-694, December.
    9. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    10. Rajabu, Kossa R.M., 2007. "Use and impacts of the river basin game in implementing integrated water resources management in Mkoji sub-catchment in Tanzania," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 94(1-3), pages 63-72, December.
    11. 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.
    12. Dolinska, Aleksandra, 2017. "Bringing farmers into the game. Strengthening farmers' role in the innovation process through a simulation game, a case from Tunisia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 129-139.
    13. Scarpa, R. & Thiene, M. & Train, K., 2008. "Appendix to Utility in WTP space: a tool to address confounding random scale effects in destination choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics APPENDICES, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 1-9, January.
    14. Kuehne, Geoff & Llewellyn, Rick & Pannell, David J. & Wilkinson, Roger & Dolling, Perry & Ouzman, Jackie & Ewing, Mike, 2017. "Predicting farmer uptake of new agricultural practices: A tool for research, extension and policy," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 115-125.
    15. Gebregziabher, Gebrehaweria & Namara, Regassa E. & Holden, Stein, 2009. "Poverty reduction with irrigation investment: An empirical case study from Tigray, Ethiopia," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 96(12), pages 1837-1843, December.
    16. Asad Qureshi & Zia Ahmad & Timothy Krupnik, 2015. "Moving from Resource Development to Resource Management: Problems, Prospects and Policy Recommendations for Sustainable Groundwater Management in Bangladesh," Water Resources Management: An International Journal, Published for the European Water Resources Association (EWRA), Springer;European Water Resources Association (EWRA), vol. 29(12), pages 4269-4283, September.
    17. Olivier Barreteau & Christophe Le Page & Patrick D'aquino, 2003. "Role-Playing Games, Models and Negotiation Processes," Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation, vol. 6(2), pages 1-10.
    18. McFadden, Daniel, 1974. "The measurement of urban travel demand," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 3(4), pages 303-328, November.
    19. Speelman, Stijn & Farolfi, Stefano & Frija, Aymen & D'Haese, Marijke & D'Haese, Luc, 2010. "The impact of the water rights system on smallholder irrigators' willingness to pay for water in Limpopo province, South Africa," Environment and Development Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(4), pages 465-483, August.
    20. Mekoya, A. & Oosting, S.J. & Fernandez-Rivera, S. & Van der Zijpp, A.J., 2008. "Multipurpose fodder trees in the Ethiopian highlands: Farmers' preference and relationship of indigenous knowledge of feed value with laboratory indicators," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 96(1-3), pages 184-194, March.
    21. Riccardo Scarpa & Mara Thiene & Kenneth Train, 2008. "Utility in Willingness to Pay Space: A Tool to Address Confounding Random Scale Effects in Destination Choice to the Alps," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 90(4), pages 994-1010.
    22. Ditzler, Lenora & Klerkx, Laurens & Chan-Dentoni, Jacqueline & Posthumus, Helena & Krupnik, Timothy J. & Ridaura, Santiago López & Andersson, Jens A. & Baudron, Frédéric & Groot, Jeroen C.J., 2018. "Affordances of agricultural systems analysis tools: A review and framework to enhance tool design and implementation," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 164(C), pages 20-30.
    23. Liesbeth Colen & Sergio Gomez y Paloma & Uwe Latacz-Lohmann & Marianne Lefebvre & Raphaële Préget & Sophie Thoyer, 2016. "Economic Experiments as a Tool for Agricultural Policy Evaluation: Insights from the European CAP," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 64(4), pages 667-694, December.
    24. Peter Boxall & Wiktor Adamowicz, 2002. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 23(4), pages 421-446, December.
    25. Aravindakshan, Sreejith & Krupnik, Timothy J. & Groot, Jeroen C.J. & Speelman, Erika N. & Amjath- Babu, T.S. & Tittonell, Pablo, 2020. "Multi-level socioecological drivers of agrarian change: Longitudinal evidence from mixed rice-livestock-aquaculture farming systems of Bangladesh," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 177(C).
    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. N’Banan Ouattara & Xueping Xiong & Chenguang Guo & Lacina Traoré & Zié Ballo, 2022. "Econometric Analysis of the Determinants of Rice Farming Systems Choice in Côte d’Ivoire," SAGE Open, , vol. 12(2), pages 21582440221, May.
    2. Silvia Saravia-Matus & T. S. Amjath-Babu & Sreejith Aravindakshan & Stefan Sieber & Jimmy A. Saravia & Sergio Gomez y Paloma, 2021. "Can Enhancing Efficiency Promote the Economic Viability of Smallholder Farmers? A Case of Sierra Leone," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(8), pages 1-17, April.
    3. Yongfeng Tan & Apurbo Sarkar & Airin Rahman & Lu Qian & Waqar Hussain Memon & Zharkyn Magzhan, 2021. "Does External Shock Influence Farmer’s Adoption of Modern Irrigation Technology?—A Case of Gansu Province, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 10(8), pages 1-16, August.
    4. Sreejith Aravindakshan & Timothy J. Krupnik & Sumona Shahrin & Pablo Tittonell & Kadambot H. M. Siddique & Lenora Ditzler & Jeroen C. J. Groot, 2021. "Socio-cognitive constraints and opportunities for sustainable intensification in South Asia: insights from fuzzy cognitive mapping in coastal Bangladesh," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(11), pages 16588-16616, November.
    5. Jalilov, Shokhrukh-Mirzo & Rahman, Wakilur & Palash, Salauddin & Jahan, Hasneen & Mainuddin, Mohammed & Ward, Frank A., 2022. "Exploring strategies to control the cost of food security: Evidence from Bangladesh," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 196(C).
    6. Subedi, Yuba Raj & Kristiansen, Paul & Cacho, Oscar, 2022. "Reutilising abandoned cropland in the Hill agroecological region of Nepal: Options and farmers’ preferences," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(C).

    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. Waldman, Kurt B. & Ortega, David L. & Richardson, Robert B. & Snapp, Sieglinde S., 2017. "Estimating demand for perennial pigeon pea in Malawi using choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 222-230.
    2. Owusu, Rebecca & Dadzie, Samuel Kwesi Ndzebah, 2021. "Heterogeneity in consumer preferences for organic and genetically modified food products in Ghana," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 16(2), June.
    3. Oyakhilomen Oyinbo & Jordan Chamberlin & Miet Maertens, 2020. "Design of Digital Agricultural Extension Tools: Perspectives from Extension Agents in Nigeria," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 71(3), pages 798-815, September.
    4. Christian Pfarr & Andreas Schmid & Morten Raun Mørkbak, 2018. "Modelling Heterogeneous Preferences for Income Redistribution–An Application of Continuous and Discrete Distributions," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 270-294, June.
    5. West, Grant H. & Snell, Heather & Kovacs, Kent & Nayga, Rodolfo M., 2020. "Estimation of the preferences for the intertemporal services from groundwater," 2020 Annual Meeting, July 26-28, Kansas City, Missouri 304220, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    6. Nguyen, Manh-Hung & Nguyen, Thi Lan Anh & Nguyen, Tuan & Reynaud, Arnaud & Simioni, Michel & Hoang, Viet-Ngu, 2021. "Economic analysis of choices among differing measures to manage coastal erosion in Hoi An (a UNESCO World Heritage Site)," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 529-543.
    7. Engelman, Marc & Lagerkvist, Carl-Johan & Gren, Ing-Marie, 2018. "Hunters' trade-off in valuation of different game animals in Sweden," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 73-81.
    8. Benoit Chèze & Charles Collet & Anthony Paris, 2021. "Estimating discrete choice experiments : theoretical fundamentals," CIRED Working Papers hal-03262187, HAL.
    9. Pfarr, Christian & Schmid, Andreas & Mørkbak, Morten Raun, 2015. "Latent characteristics and preferences for income redistribution," VfS Annual Conference 2015 (Muenster): Economic Development - Theory and Policy 113001, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    10. Dan Pan, 2016. "The Design of Policy Instruments towards Sustainable Livestock Production in China: An Application of the Choice Experiment Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 8(7), pages 1-18, July.
    11. Klaiman, Kimberly & Ortega, David L. & Garnache, Cloé, 2016. "Consumer preferences and demand for packaging material and recyclability," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 1-8.
    12. Waldman, Kurt B. & Richardson, Robert B., 2018. "Confronting Tradeoffs Between Agricultural Ecosystem Services and Adaptation to Climate Change in Mali," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 150(C), pages 184-193.
    13. David Throsby & Anita Zednik & Jorge E. Araña, 2021. "Public preferences for heritage conservation strategies: a choice modelling approach," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 45(3), pages 333-358, September.
    14. Zemo, Kahsay Haile & Termansen, Mette, 2018. "Farmers’ willingness to participate in collective biogas investment: A discrete choice experiment study," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 87-101.
    15. Ballco, Petjon & Gracia, Azucena, 2020. "Do market prices correspond with consumer demands? Combining market valuation and consumer utility for extra virgin olive oil quality attributes in a traditional producing country," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 53(C).
    16. Meressa, Abrha Megos & Navrud, Stale, 2020. "Not my cup of coffee: Farmers’ preferences for coffee variety traits – Lessons for crop breeding in the age of climate change," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 9(3), December.
    17. Landmann, D. & Feil, J.-H. & Lagerkvist, C.J. & Otter, V., 2018. "Designing capacity development activities of small-scale farmers in developing countries based on discrete choice experiments," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277738, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    18. Ding, Ye & Nayga Jr, Rodolfo M. & Zeng, Yinchu & Yang, Wei & Arielle Snell, Heather, 2022. "Consumers’ valuation of a live video feed in restaurant kitchens for online food delivery service," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
    19. Gillespie Rob & Kragt Marit E., 2012. "Accounting for Nonmarket Impacts in a Benefit-Cost Analysis of Underground Coal Mining in New South Wales, Australia," Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis, De Gruyter, vol. 3(2), pages 1-29, May.
    20. 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.

    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:eee:agisys:v:189:y:2021:i:c:s0308521x21000226. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    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.