IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ess/wpaper/id11274.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Gender Dimensions on Farmers’ Preferences for Direct-Seeded Rice with Drum Seeder in India

Author

Listed:
  • Md. Tajuddin Khan
  • Avinash Kishore
  • P.K. Joshi

Abstract

This study measures the willingness of male and female farmers to pay for climate-smart technology in rice. Rice is the most important crop in India in terms of area, production, and consumption. It is also the biggest source of greenhouse gas emissions among all crops. Direct-seeded rice (DSR) with drum seeder, a climate-smart technology, requires less labor and water and is more climate friendly than transplanted rice; yet, its adoption is slow in India. The authors of this study carried out a discrete choice experiment with 666 farmers from the Palghar and Thane districts of Maharashtra to measure their willingness to pay for drum seeders—a key piece of equipment for adopting DSR. Both male and female farmers were surveyed to capture the heterogeneity in their valuation of the key attributes of drum seeders. Although both male and female farmers prefer cheaper drum seeders, the marginal valuation of different attributes of the drum seeder varies by the farmers’ gender. [IFPRI Discussion Paper 01550].

Suggested Citation

  • Md. Tajuddin Khan & Avinash Kishore & P.K. Joshi, 2016. "Gender Dimensions on Farmers’ Preferences for Direct-Seeded Rice with Drum Seeder in India," Working Papers id:11274, eSocialSciences.
  • Handle: RePEc:ess:wpaper:id:11274
    Note: Institutional Papers
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.esocialsciences.org/Download/repecDownload.aspx?fname=A2016831123552_20.pdf&fcategory=Articles&AId=11274&fref=repec
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ward, Patrick S. & Ortega, David L. & Spielman, David J. & Singh, Vartika, 2014. "Heterogeneous Demand for Drought-Tolerant Rice: Evidence from Bihar, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 125-139.
    2. Drummond, Michael F. & Sculpher, Mark J. & Torrance, George W. & O'Brien, Bernie J. & Stoddart, Greg L., 2005. "Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, edition 3, number 9780198529453.
    3. Alkire, Sabina & Meinzen-Dick, Ruth & Peterman, Amber & Quisumbing, Agnes & Seymour, Greg & Vaz, Ana, 2013. "The Women’s Empowerment in Agriculture Index," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 71-91.
    4. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74, pages 132-132.
    5. Jayson L. Lusk & Ted C. Schroeder, 2004. "Are Choice Experiments Incentive Compatible? A Test with Quality Differentiated Beef Steaks," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 86(2), pages 467-482.
    6. Patrick S. Ward & Vartika Singh, 2015. "Using Field Experiments to Elicit Risk and Ambiguity Preferences: Behavioural Factors and the Adoption of New Agricultural Technologies in Rural India," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 51(6), pages 707-724, June.
    7. Amil Petrin & Kenneth Train, 2003. "Omitted Product Attributes in Discrete Choice Models," NBER Working Papers 9452, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Krinsky, Itzhak & Robb, A Leslie, 1986. "On Approximating the Statistical Properties of Elasticities," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 68(4), pages 715-719, November.
    9. Ward, Patrick S. & Bell, Andrew R. & Parkhurst, Gregory M. & Droppelmann, Klaus & Mapemba, Lawrence, 2015. "Heterogeneous preferences and the effects of incentives in promoting conservation agriculture in Malawi:," IFPRI discussion papers 1440, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    10. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    11. Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod K. & Pandey, Divya, 2015. "Droughts, Distress and a Conditional Cash Transfer Program to Mitigate the Impact of Droughtin Bihar, India," 2015 Conference, August 9-14, 2015, Milan, Italy 212009, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    12. Hurd, Brian H., 2006. "Water Conservation and Residential Landscapes: Household Preferences, Household Choices," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 31(2), pages 1-20, August.
    13. Arora, Anchal & Bansal, Sangeeta & Ward, Patrick S., 2015. "Do farmers value rice varieties tolerant to droughts and floods? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in Odisha, India," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 204881, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Girma G. Selassie & Yiannis Kountouris, 2010. "Fishing Permit Price and Wetland Conservation: A Choice Experiment on the Value of Improved Environmental Quality of Lake Awassa, Ethiopia," Chapters, in: Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), Choice Experiments in Developing Countries, chapter 4, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    15. Daniel McFadden & Kenneth Train, 2000. "Mixed MNL models for discrete response," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(5), pages 447-470.
    16. Fredrik Carlsson & Peter Martinsson, 2003. "Design techniques for stated preference methods in health economics," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 12(4), pages 281-294, April.
    17. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028, September.
    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. Sudha Narayanan & Sharada Srinivasan, 2020. "No country for young women farmers: A situation analysis for India," Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai Working Papers 2020-041, Indira Gandhi Institute of Development Research, Mumbai, India.
    2. Alvi, Muzna & Barooah, Prapti & Gupta, Shweta & Saini, Smriti, 2021. "Women's access to agriculture extension amidst COVID-19: Insights from Gujarat, India and Dang, Nepal," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 188(C).
    3. Roy, Chandan & Roy Mukherjee, Sanchari, 2020. "A study on productivity & empowerment of women intensive sericulture sector of West Bengal," MPRA Paper 106728, University Library of Munich, Germany.

    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. Robert J. Johnston & Kevin J. Boyle & Wiktor (Vic) Adamowicz & Jeff Bennett & Roy Brouwer & Trudy Ann Cameron & W. Michael Hanemann & Nick Hanley & Mandy Ryan & Riccardo Scarpa & Roger Tourangeau & Ch, 2017. "Contemporary Guidance for Stated Preference Studies," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 319-405.
    2. Shijiu Yin & Shanshan Lv & Yusheng Chen & Linhai Wu & Mo Chen & Jiang Yan, 2018. "Consumer preference for infant milk‐based formula with select food safety information attributes: Evidence from a choice experiment in China," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue canadienne d'agroeconomie, Canadian Agricultural Economics Society/Societe canadienne d'agroeconomie, vol. 66(4), pages 557-569, December.
    3. Domenico Carlucci & Biagia De Devitiis & Gianluca Nardone & Fabio Gaetano Santeramo, 2017. "Certification Labels Versus Convenience Formats: What Drives the Market in Aquaculture Products?," Marine Resource Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(3), pages 295-310.
    4. H. Holly Wang & Lu Liu & David L. Ortega & Yu Jiang & Qiujie Zheng, 2020. "Are smallholder farmers willing to pay for different types of crop insurance? An application of labelled choice experiments to Chinese corn growers," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan;The Geneva Association, vol. 45(1), pages 86-110, January.
    5. Carlucci, Domenico & Dedevitiis, Biagia & Nardone, Gianluca & Santeramo, Fabio Gaetano, 2016. "Certification Labels Vs Convenience Formats: What drives the market in aquaculture products?," MPRA Paper 75448, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Hong, Soo Jeong, 2015. "Retail channel and consumer demand for food quality in China," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 36(C), pages 359-366.
    7. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    8. Ortega, David L. & Wang, H. Holly & Wu, Laping & Olynk, Nicole J., 2011. "Modeling heterogeneity in consumer preferences for select food safety attributes in China," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(2), pages 318-324, April.
    9. Carnegie, Rachel & Wang, Holly & Widmar, Nicole & Ortega, David, 2014. "Consumer Preferences for Quality and Safety Attributes of Duck in Restaurant Entrees: Is China A Viable Market for The U.S. Duck Industry?," 2014 Annual Meeting, July 27-29, 2014, Minneapolis, Minnesota 170717, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    10. Hoyos, David, 2010. "The state of the art of environmental valuation with discrete choice experiments," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(8), pages 1595-1603, June.
    11. Chen, Junhong & Wang, H. Holly & Bai, Junfei & Lai, John, 2017. "Consumers’ Willingness-to-Pay of Different Pork Preservation Methods in Chinese Retail Market," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 257247, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    12. 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.
    13. David L. Ortega & H. Holly Wang & Nicole J. Olynk Widmar, 2014. "Aquaculture imports from Asia: an analysis of U.S. consumer demand for select food quality attributes," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 45(5), pages 625-634, September.
    14. Arora, Anchal & Bansal, Sangeeta & Ward, Patrick S., 2015. "Do farmers value rice varieties tolerant to droughts and floods? Evidence from a discrete choice experiment in Odisha, India," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 204881, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    15. Helen Scarborough & Jeff Bennett, 2012. "Cost–Benefit Analysis and Distributional Preferences," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 14376, September.
    16. Djamel Rahmani & Zein Kallas & Maria Pappa & José Maria Gil, 2019. "Are Consumers’ Egg Preferences Influenced by Animal-Welfare Conditions and Environmental Impacts?," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 11(22), pages 1-23, November.
    17. Wu, Linhai & Wang, Shuxian & Zhu, Dian & Hu, Wuyang & Wang, Hongsha, 2015. "Chinese consumers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traceable food quality and safety attributes: The case of pork," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 121-136.
    18. Ward, Patrick S. & Ortega, David L. & Spielman, David J. & Singh, Vartika, 2014. "Heterogeneous Demand for Drought-Tolerant Rice: Evidence from Bihar, India," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 64(C), pages 125-139.
    19. Hoyos Ramos, David, 2010. "Using discrete choice experiments for environmental valuation," BILTOKI 2010-03, Universidad del País Vasco - Departamento de Economía Aplicada III (Econometría y Estadística).

    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:ess:wpaper:id:11274. 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: . General contact details of provider: http://www.esocialsciences.org .

    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: Padma Prakash (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.esocialsciences.org .

    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.