IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecolec/v68y2009i8-9p2451-2460.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Evaluation and effectiveness of breeding and production services for dairy goat farmers in Kenya

Author

Listed:
  • Bett, R.C.
  • Bett, H.K.
  • Kahi, A.K.
  • Peters, K.J.

Abstract

This study evaluates the provision of services; veterinary services (VS), extension services (ES), marketing services (MS), performance recording (PR), monitoring and evaluation of dairy goat breeding activities (ME) and provision of water (WT) and determines the effectiveness of applying these services in dairy goat production systems in Kenya. A household survey was conducted with 311 farmers participating in three dairy goat projects (Dairy Goat Association of Kenya (DGAK), Higher Education Links-Egerton University Community Dairy Goats Project (HEL-EUCDGP) and Heifer Project International (HPI)) to assess farmers' willingness to pay for provision of these services. Ranking these services revealed that MS was the most important service in priority order for goat keepers. Farmers with and without experience were willing to pay significantly more for provision of VS. Variables such as satisfaction with project activities, system of production, social benefits, flock size, participation in the projects, farm visits, market linkage and information, and experiences on the services significantly influenced willingness to pay (WTP). The decision to pay or not was not necessarily affected by those not willing to pay because of the inter-linkage probabilities with the ability to pay. Projects should take a broader responsibility of providing these services or link farmers to agents to provide the services. The poor farmers should be supported in a cost-sharing manner to avoid undesirable practises or the services left to those who can afford to pay.

Suggested Citation

  • Bett, R.C. & Bett, H.K. & Kahi, A.K. & Peters, K.J., 2009. "Evaluation and effectiveness of breeding and production services for dairy goat farmers in Kenya," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(8-9), pages 2451-2460, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:8-9:p:2451-2460
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921-8009(09)00182-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    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. Echessah, Protase N. & Swallow, Brent M. & Kamara, Damaris W. & Curry, John J., 1997. "Willingness to contribute labor and money to tsetse control: Application of contingent valuation in Busia District, Kenya," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 239-253, February.
    2. Whittington, Dale, 1998. "Administering contingent valuation surveys in developing countries," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 26(1), pages 21-30, January.
    3. Drucker, Adam G. & Gomez, Veronica & Anderson, Simon, 2001. "The economic valuation of farm animal genetic resources: a survey of available methods," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 1-18, January.
    4. Cicia, Gianni & D'Ercole, Elisabetta & Marino, Davide, 2003. "Costs and benefits of preserving farm animal genetic resources from extinction: CVM and Bio-economic model for valuing a conservation program for the Italian Pentro horse," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 445-459, July.
    5. Chilton, Susan M. & Burgess, Diane & Hutchinson, W. George, 2006. "The relative value of farm animal welfare," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 353-363, September.
    6. Magnus Johannesson & Bengt Liljas & Per-Olov Johansson, 1998. "An experimental comparison of dichotomous choice contingent valuation questions and real purchase decisions," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(5), pages 643-647.
    7. Wollny, Clemens B. A., 2003. "The need to conserve farm animal genetic resources in Africa: should policy makers be concerned?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(3), pages 341-351, July.
    8. Heckman, James, 2013. "Sample selection bias as a specification error," Applied Econometrics, Publishing House "SINERGIA PRESS", vol. 31(3), pages 129-137.
    9. Richard Carson & Nicholas Flores & Norman Meade, 2001. "Contingent Valuation: Controversies and Evidence," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 19(2), pages 173-210, June.
    10. Anderson, Jock R. & Feder, Gershon, 2007. "Agricultural Extension," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: Robert Evenson & Prabhu Pingali (ed.),Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 44, pages 2343-2378, Elsevier.
    11. Peter A. Diamond & Jerry A. Hausman, 1994. "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 45-64, Fall.
    12. Christie, Mike & Hanley, Nick & Warren, John & Murphy, Kevin & Wright, Robert & Hyde, Tony, 2006. "Valuing the diversity of biodiversity," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 304-317, June.
    13. W. Michael Hanemann, 1994. "Valuing the Environment through Contingent Valuation," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 19-43, Fall.
    14. Staal, Steven & Delgado, Christopher & Nicholson, Charles, 1997. "Smallholder dairying under transactions costs in East Africa," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 25(5), pages 779-794, May.
    15. Ayalew, W. & Rischkowsky, B. & King, J. M. & Bruns, E., 2003. "Crossbreds did not generate more net benefits than indigenous goats in Ethiopian smallholdings," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 1137-1156, June.
    16. Bosman, H. G. & Moll, H. A. J. & Udo, H. M. J., 1997. "Measuring and interpreting the benefits of goat keeping in tropical farm systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 53(4), pages 349-372, April.
    17. Paul R. Portney, 1994. "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 8(4), pages 3-17, Fall.
    18. Upton, Martin, 2004. "The Role of Livestock in Economic Development and Poverty Reduction," PPLPI Working Papers 23783, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative.
    19. Innes, Robert, 2002. "Market failures and second-best analysis with a focus on nutrition, credit, and incomplete markets," Handbook of Agricultural Economics, in: B. L. Gardner & G. C. Rausser (ed.),Handbook of Agricultural Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 35, pages 1827-1892, Elsevier.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:ecolec:v:68:y:2009:i:8-9:p:2451-2460. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Haili He). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/ecolecon .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.