IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/cfcp15/344320.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Exploring farmers’ perspectives on desert locust management in Kenya: a comparison of Q and R-methodologies

Author

Listed:
  • Lumumba, Brian Omondi
  • Otieno, David Jakinda
  • Nyikal, Rose Adhiambo

Abstract

While desert locust invasions threaten agricultural production and household incomes, a common understanding of how to implement integrated control is missing. This study aimed to provide new insights on targeted policies that address the heterogeneity of perspectives held by farmers. To do so, the study compared both R and Q-methodologies to identify perspectives on desert locust management from a sample of 473 farmers. Based on internal consistency checks, the Q-methodology was found to better explain farmers’ perspectives through ranking and identification of distinguishing statements. The four different perspectives were labelled as "threat-aware but unprepared," “enthusiasts of indigenous control methods," “proponents of information access,” and “advocates of timely control and post-recovery assistance." The study also linked the various socio-economic and institutional factors that distinguish farmers across the four perspectives. A key finding is that farmers holding different perspectives agreed that integrated desert locust control is the best strategy. Considering the diversity in farmers' opinions, a mixed-policy framework is essential. Such policies should focus on information access, engagement of community members in desert locust control teams, and targeted post- recovery assistance, which would facilitate the implementation of integrated desert locust management.

Suggested Citation

  • Lumumba, Brian Omondi & Otieno, David Jakinda & Nyikal, Rose Adhiambo, 2024. "Exploring farmers’ perspectives on desert locust management in Kenya: a comparison of Q and R-methodologies," IAAE 2024 Conference, August 2-7, 2024, New Delhi, India 344320, International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:cfcp15:344320
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.344320
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/344320/files/21324.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.344320?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. Noori Akhtar-Danesh, 2018. "qfactor: A command for Q-methodology analysis," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 18(2), pages 432-446, June.
    2. Weyori, Alirah Emmanuel, 2021. "Are integrated livestock disease-management practices complements or substitutes? The case of AAT control in rural Ethiopia," African Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, African Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 16(3), September.
    3. Heidi Leonhardt & Michael Braito & Reinhard Uehleke, 2022. "Combining the best of two methodological worlds? Integrating Q methodology-based farmer archetypes in a quantitative model of agri-environmental scheme uptake," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(1), pages 217-232, March.
    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. Tyllianakis, Emmanouil, 2024. "Assessing the Landscape Recovery Scheme in the UK: a Q methodology study in Yorkshire, UK," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 13(1), May.
    2. Karalliyadda, S.M.C.B. & Kazunari, Tsuji & Fujimura, Miho, 2023. "Managing rain-fed uplands of cascaded tank village systems: What stakeholders really suggest?," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 208(C).
    3. Röös, E. & Wood, A. & Säll, S. & Abu Hatab, A. & Ahlgren, S. & Hallström, E. & Tidåker, P. & Hansson, H., 2023. "Diagnostic, regenerative or fossil-free - exploring stakeholder perceptions of Swedish food system sustainability," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 203(C).
    4. Marilena Gemtou & Konstantina Kakkavou & Evangelos Anastasiou & Spyros Fountas & Soren Marcus Pedersen & Gohar Isakhanyan & Kassa Tarekegn Erekalo & Serafin Pazos-Vidal, 2024. "Farmers’ Transition to Climate-Smart Agriculture: A Systematic Review of the Decision-Making Factors Affecting Adoption," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-34, March.
    5. Håkan Berg & Simon Dang & Nguyen Thanh Tam, 2023. "Assessing Stakeholders’ Preferences for Future Rice Farming Practices in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(14), pages 1-15, July.
    6. Canessa, Carolin & Ait-Sidhoum, Amer & Wunder, Sven & Sauer, Johannes, 2024. "What matters most in determining European farmers’ participation in agri-environmental measures? A systematic review of the quantitative literature," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 140(C).
    7. Thiermann, Insa & Silvius, Brechtje & Splinter, Melody & Dries, Liesbeth, 2023. "Making bird numbers count: Would Dutch farmers accept a result-based meadow bird conservation scheme?," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 214(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Farm Management;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:cfcp15:344320. 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://iaae-agecon.org/ .

    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.