IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/fpr/ifprid/1550.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:

Author

Listed:
  • Khan, Md. Tajuddin
  • Kishore, Avinash
  • Joshi, Pramod Kumar

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 ofarea, 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. Theauthors of this studycarried 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 drumseeders. 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. The authors also used the Women Empowerment in Agriculture Index (WEAI), developed by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), to collect self-reported data on the role and say of women in agriculture. The respective gender roles in the family and on the farm seem to explain some of this difference. Men have a greater say over how the family spends the cash. Accordingly, men tend to have a higher willingness to pay for attributes that increase income (increase in yield) or reduce cash costs (reduction in the seedrate). Women contribute a large share of the labor for transplanting rice, much of whichis unpaid work on family farms. Not surprisingly, therefore, women seem to value labor saving significantly more than their male counterparts. Further, theWEAI data show that although men in the family have more say, women do have an influence on decisions regarding crop production and the adoption of new technologies,to an extent. Therefore, to enhance the adoption of drum seeders, the product designers and extension workers should also target women

Suggested Citation

  • Khan, Md. Tajuddin & Kishore, Avinash & Joshi, Pramod Kumar, 2016. "Gender dimensions on farmers’ preferences for direct-seeded rice with drum seeder in India:," IFPRI discussion papers 1550, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    • Handle: RePEc:fpr:ifprid:1550
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://cdm15738.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/130595/filename/130806.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    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. 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).
    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. Esther Duflo & Christopher Udry, 2003. "Intrahousehold Resource Allocation in Côte D'ivoire: Social Norms, Separate Accounts and Consumption Choices," Working Papers 857, Economic Growth Center, Yale University.
    10. 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.
    11. Cheryl R. Doss & Michael L. Morris, 2000. "How does gender affect the adoption of agricultural innovations?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 25(1), pages 27-39, June.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    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. Jeff Bennett & Ekin Birol (ed.), 2010. "Choice Experiments in Developing Countries," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 13208.
    16. 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.
    17. Amil Petrin & Kenneth Train, 2003. "Omitted Product Attributes in Discrete Choice Models," NBER Working Papers 9452, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. Jeff Bennett & Russell Blamey (ed.), 2001. "The Choice Modelling Approach to Environmental Valuation," Books, Edward Elgar Publishing, number 2028.
    21. Avinash Kishore & P.K. Joshi & Divya Pandey, 2015. "Drought, distress, and a conditional cash transfer programme to mitigate the impact of drought in Bihar, India," Water International, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 40(3), pages 417-431, May.
    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. 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.
    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. Raghunathan, K., 2018. "Women's self-help groups, decision-making, and improved agricultural practices in India," 2018 Conference, July 28-August 2, 2018, Vancouver, British Columbia 277537, International Association of Agricultural Economists.
    4. 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.
    5. Sophia Huyer & Samuel Partey, 2020. "Weathering the storm or storming the norms? Moving gender equality forward in climate-resilient agriculture," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 158(1), pages 1-12, January.
    6. Nitya Chanana-Nag & Pramod K. Aggarwal, 2020. "Woman in agriculture, and climate risks: hotspots for development," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 158(1), pages 13-27, January.

    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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Yanling Peng & Yuansheng Jiang & Yu Hong, 2022. "Heterogeneous Preferences for Selecting Attributes of Farmland Management Right Mortgages in Western China: A Demand Perspective," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-14, July.
    5. 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.
    6. 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).
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Choi, Andy S., 2013. "Nonmarket values of major resources in the Korean DMZ areas: A test of distance decay," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 97-107.
    11. Jianhua Wang & Jiaye Ge & Yuting Ma, 2018. "Urban Chinese Consumers’ Willingness to Pay for Pork with Certified Labels: A Discrete Choice Experiment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(3), pages 1-14, February.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. Apurba Shee & Calum G. Turvey & Ana Marr, 2021. "Heterogeneous Demand and Supply for an Insurance‐linked Credit Product in Kenya: A Stated Choice Experiment Approach," Journal of Agricultural Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 72(1), pages 244-267, February.
    15. Robert Gillespie & Jeff Bennett, 2011. "Willingness to pay for kerbside recycling the Brisbane Region," Environmental Economics Research Hub Research Reports 1097, Environmental Economics Research Hub, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    16. 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.
    17. 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.
    18. Peng, Yanling & Ren, Yanjun & Zhong, Yu & Jiang, Yuansheng, 2022. "Farmers’ Heterogeneous Preferences for Selecting Attributes of Farmland Management Right Mortgages: Evidence from Western China," 2022 Annual Meeting, July 31-August 2, Anaheim, California 322408, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    gender; rice; willingness to pay; women; sowing methods; technology adoption;
    All these keywords.

    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:fpr:ifprid:1550. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ifprius.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.