IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaae13/161633.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Farmers Preferences for Cassava Variety Traits: Empirical Evidence from Ghana

Author

Listed:
  • Acheampong, Patricia Pinamang
  • Owusu, Victor
  • Nurah, Gyiele K.

Abstract

Cassava, has received much research on improved varietal development in Ghana. The National Agricultural Research Systems (NARS) have released about 24 improved cassava varieties since 1993, which are high yielding, disease and pest resistant and early maturing. However, adoption by smallholder farmers is very low leading to low outputs and low incomes. Adoption could be improved with greater understanding of farmers’ cassava variety attributes preferences. Using stated preference technique, specifically, choice experiment applied across 450 farm households, we evaluated farmers preferences for cassava variety attributes in Ghana and identified farm household-specific and institutional factors that governed the preferences. The empirical results showed that in-soil storage (longevity) and disease resistance are important attributes for farmers' choice of cassava varieties. Farmers have lower utility towards high productivity. Farmers are willing to forgo some extra incomes and yields in order to obtain a more disease and pest resistant varieties and increased longevity of matured roots in the soil. This implies that until market chains are expanded the introduction of new and improved varieties would not contribute significantly towards utilities. Among other things, age, gender, extension and years of farming experience, are the major factors causing household heterogeneity of cassava varieties preferences. Based on our experimental results, we derived important policy implications for breeding priority setting and cassava varieties adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Acheampong, Patricia Pinamang & Owusu, Victor & Nurah, Gyiele K., 2013. "Farmers Preferences for Cassava Variety Traits: Empirical Evidence from Ghana," 2013 Fourth International Conference, September 22-25, 2013, Hammamet, Tunisia 161633, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:aaae13:161633
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.161633
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/161633/files/Patricia%20Pinamang%20Acheampong_%20Victor%20Owusu%20and%20Gyiele%20K.%20Nur.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.161633?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. Svetlana Edmeades & Daniel J. Phaneuf & Melinda Smale & Mitch Renkow, 2008. "Modelling the Crop Variety Demand of Semi‐Subsistence Households: Bananas in Uganda," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(2), pages 329-349, June.
    2. F Alpizar & F Carlsson & P Martinsson, 2003. "Using Choice Experiments for Non-Market Valuation," Economic Issues Journal Articles, Economic Issues, vol. 8(1), pages 83-110, March.
    3. Ringler, Claudia & Rosegrant, Mark W. & Scott, Gregory J., 2000. "Roots and tubers for the 21st century: trends, projections and policy options," 2020 vision discussion papers 31, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    4. Mather, D. L. & Bernsten, R. & Rosas, J. C. & Viana Ruano, A. & Escoto, D., 2003. "The economic impact of bean disease resistance research in Honduras," Agricultural Economics, Blackwell, vol. 29(3), pages 343-352, December.
    5. David Revelt & Kenneth Train, 1998. "Mixed Logit With Repeated Choices: Households' Choices Of Appliance Efficiency Level," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 80(4), pages 647-657, November.
    6. Arne Risa Hole, 2007. "Fitting mixed logit models by using maximum simulated likelihood," Stata Journal, StataCorp LLC, vol. 7(3), pages 388-401, September.
    7. Zander, Kerstin K. & Drucker, Adam G., 2008. "Conserving what's important: Using choice model scenarios to value local cattle breeds in East Africa," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 68(1-2), pages 34-45, December.
    8. Erik Meijer & Jan Rouwendal, 2006. "Measuring welfare effects in models with random coefficients," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 227-244, March.
    9. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    10. Mara Thiene & Riccardo Scarpa, 2009. "Deriving and Testing Efficient Estimates of WTP Distributions in Destination Choice Models," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 44(3), pages 379-395, November.
    11. Akinwumi A. Adesina & Moses M. Zinnah, 1993. "Technology characteristics, farmers' perceptions and adoption decisions: A Tobit model application in Sierra Leone," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 9(4), pages 297-311, December.
    12. Joyce Willock & Ian J. Deary & Gareth Edwards‐Jones & Gavin J. Gibson & Murray J. McGregor & Alistair Sutherland & J. Barry Dent & Oliver Morgan & Robert Grieve, 1999. "The Role of Attitudes and Objectives in Farmer Decision Making: Business and Environmentally‐Oriented Behaviour in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(2), pages 286-303, May.
    13. Mather, David & Bernsten, Richard H. & Rosas, Juan Carlos & Ruano, Abelardo Viana & Escoto, Danilo & Martinez, Julio, 2003. "The Impact Of Bean Research In Honduras," Staff Paper Series 11496, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    14. Nweke, Felix, 2004. "New challenges in the cassava transformation in Nigeria and Ghana:," EPTD discussion papers 118, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    15. David Hensher & Nina Shore & Kenneth Train, 2005. "Households’ Willingness to Pay for Water Service Attributes," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 32(4), pages 509-531, December.
    16. Boxall, Peter C. & Adamowicz, Wiktor L., 1999. "Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: The Use of Latent Class Analysis," Staff Paper Series 24090, University of Alberta, Department of Resource Economics and Environmental Sociology.
    17. Eric Ruto & Guy Garrod & Riccardo Scarpa, 2008. "Valuing animal genetic resources: a choice modeling application to indigenous cattle in Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 38(1), pages 89-98, January.
    18. Nick Hanley & Douglas MacMillan & Robert E. Wright & Craig Bullock & Ian Simpson & Dave Parsisson & Bob Crabtree, 1998. "Contingent Valuation Versus Choice Experiments: Estimating the Benefits of Environmentally Sensitive Areas in Scotland," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 49(1), pages 1-15, March.
    19. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1990. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities: A Correction," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 72(1), pages 189-190, February.
    20. Adam Drucker, 2007. "Measuring Heterogeneous Preferences for Cattle Traits among Cattle-Keeping Households in East Africa," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(4), pages 1005-1019.
    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.
    22. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Frykblom & Carl Johan Lagerkvist, 2007. "Consumer Benefits of Labels and Bans on GM Foods—Choice Experiments with Swedish Consumers," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 89(1), pages 152-161.
    23. David A. Hensher, 2001. "Measurement of the Valuation of Travel Time Savings," Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, University of Bath, vol. 35(1), pages 71-98, January.
    24. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    25. 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.
    26. Scott, Gregory J. & Rosegrant, Mark W. & Ringler, Claudia, 2000. "Racines et tubercules pour le 21ème siècle: tendances, projections et choix de politiques," 2020 vision briefs 66, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    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. Mutanyagwa, Ange Pacifique, 2017. "Smallholder Farmers’ Preferences For Improved Maize Seeds Varieties In Tanzania," Research Theses 265536, Collaborative Masters Program in Agricultural and Applied Economics.

    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. Faustin, Vidogbèna & Adégbidi, Anselme A. & Garnett, Stephen T. & Koudandé, Delphin O. & Agbo, Valentin & Zander, Kerstin K., 2010. "Peace, health or fortune?: Preferences for chicken traits in rural Benin," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(9), pages 1848-1857, July.
    2. Zander, Kerstin K. & Signorello, Giovanni & De Salvo, Maria & Gandini, Gustavo & Drucker, Adam G., 2013. "Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 219-229.
    3. Angel Bujosa & Antoni Riera & Robert Hicks, 2010. "Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 47(4), pages 477-493, December.
    4. Hole, Arne Risa, 2008. "Modelling heterogeneity in patients' preferences for the attributes of a general practitioner appointment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 1078-1094, July.
    5. James Madzimure & Michael Chimonyo & Kennedy Dzama & Stephen T. Garnett & Kerstin K. Zander, 2015. "Classical Swine Fever Changes the Way Farmers Value Pigs in South Africa," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(3), pages 812-831, September.
    6. Carole Ropars-Collet & Mélody Leplat & Philippe Le Goffe & Marie Lesueur, 2015. "La pêche professionnelle est-elle un facteur d’attractivité récréative sur le littoral ?," Revue économique, Presses de Sciences-Po, vol. 66(4), pages 729-754.
    7. Tonsor, Glynn T. & Olynk, Nicole & Wolf, Christopher, 2009. "Consumer Preferences for Animal Welfare Attributes: The Case of Gestation Crates," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 41(3), pages 713-730, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Birol, Ekin & Falck-Zepeda, Jose Benjamin & Kikulwe, Enoch M. & Wesseler, Justus, 2013. "Benefits, costs, and consumer perceptions of the potential introduction of a fungus-resistant banana in Uganda and policy implications," IFPRI book chapters, in: Falck-Zepeda, Jose Benjamin; Gruère, Guillaume P.; Sithole-Niang, Idah (ed.), Genetically modified crops in Africa: Economic and policy lessons from countries south of the Sahara, chapter 4, pages 99-141, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    10. Teferi, Ermias Tesfaye & Kassie, Girma T. & Pe, Mario Enrico & Fadda, Carlo, 2020. "Are farmers willing to pay for climate related traits of wheat? Evidence from rural parts of Ethiopia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 185(C).
    11. Haghani, Milad & Bliemer, Michiel C.J. & Hensher, David A., 2021. "The landscape of econometric discrete choice modelling research," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 40(C).
    12. Halkos, George & Galani, Georgia, 2016. "Assessing willingness to pay for marine and coastal ecosystems: A Case Study in Greece," MPRA Paper 68767, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    13. Ajayi, V. & Reiner, D., 2020. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Reducing the Environmental Footprint of Green Plastics," Cambridge Working Papers in Economics 20110, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge.
    14. Marit Kragt & Jeffrey Bennett, 2012. "Attribute Framing in Choice Experiments: How Do Attribute Level Descriptions Affect Value Estimates?," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 51(1), pages 43-59, January.
    15. Mulatu, Dawit W. & van der Veen, Anne & van Oel, Pieter R., 2014. "Farm households' preferences for collective and individual actions to improve water-related ecosystem services: The Lake Naivasha basin, Kenya," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 7(C), pages 22-33.
    16. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    17. O'Dell, Dallas & Contu, Davide & Shreedhar, Ganga, 2025. "Public support for degrowth policies and sufficiency behaviours in the United States: a discrete choice experiment," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 126084, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Caplan, Arthur J. & Akhundjanov, Sherzod B. & Toll, Kristopher, 2021. "Measuring heterogeneous preferences for residential amenities," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(C).

    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:aaae13:161633. 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.