IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/agisys/v103y2010i5p233-244.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Participatory evaluation of integrated pest and soil fertility management options using ordered categorical data analysis

Author

Listed:
  • De Groote, Hugo
  • Rutto, Esther
  • Odhiambo, George
  • Kanampiu, Fred
  • Khan, Zeyaur
  • Coe, Richard
  • Vanlauwe, Bernard

Abstract

Maize is becoming the major food crop around Lake Victoria. Major constraints to its production are Striga, stem borer, and declining soil fertility. Innovative integrated technologies have been developed: the 'push-pull' system (intercropping with Desmodium and surrounded by Napier grass), soybean and Crotalaria rotations, and imidazolinone-resistant (IR) maize seed. In 12 demonstration trials in four villages in Siaya and Vihiga districts (Kenya) and two villages in Busia (Uganda) in 2003 and 2004, 504 farmers evaluated all cropping systems and a mono-cropped continuous maize, each cropped with IR or local maize, and supplemented or not with fertilizer, totaling 16 treatments. Farmers evaluated all treatments for yield, resistance to Striga and stem borer, improvement of soil fertility, and provided an overall evaluation score, using an ordered scale of 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good). Data were analyzed using ordinal regression, estimating log odds ratios. The results show significant preferences for all treatments over the control. Push-pull with IR and fertilizer had the highest log odds ratio (2.93), so the odds of farmers preferring this treatment are 18.7 times the odds that farmers prefer the control. The odds ratios for the other push-pull combinations were generally highest (9-15), followed by the rotation systems with Crotalaria (3.5-7.0), and soybeans, especially with IR maize and fertilizer (odds ratio of 5.7). In mono-cropping systems, IR maize was only appreciated in combination with fertilizer, and then only in 2004. Push-pull and Crotalaria were more appreciated in 2004 than in 2003. Farmers in Vihiga had a stronger preference for push-pull, and those in Busia for soybean rotations. Significant differences among farmers were observed, but the effects were small. Women appreciated push-pull more than men, while other technologies were gender-neutral. Older farmers were more likely to prefer push-pull and Crotalaria with fertilizer. Livestock ownership was not found to have an effect on technology preferences. Measured yield, stem borer and Striga infestation all had significant but small effects, although their inclusion did not eliminate the treatment effects, indicating that other factors are still important. OLS of the scores for different criteria on the overall score shows yield to be the most important criterion (coefficient of 0.40), followed by soil fertility enhancement (0.25) and Striga resistance (0.13). Labor saving (0.09) and stem borer resistance (0.03) are relatively minor criteria. This research shows that scoring and analysis with ordinal regression is a convenient way to solicit and analyze farmers' preferences for new technologies, with wide applicability in farming systems and participatory research. Its application here shows that farmers like the new technologies, especially push-pull, but that there are substantial differences between years, sites and farmers. The use of this method can be very helpful to define and focus further research and formulate specific and targeted recommendations for agricultural extension.

Suggested Citation

  • De Groote, Hugo & Rutto, Esther & Odhiambo, George & Kanampiu, Fred & Khan, Zeyaur & Coe, Richard & Vanlauwe, Bernard, 2010. "Participatory evaluation of integrated pest and soil fertility management options using ordered categorical data analysis," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(5), pages 233-244, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:agisys:v:103:y:2010:i:5:p:233-244
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308-521X(09)00126-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version below or search for a different version of it.

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bellon, Mauricio R. & Adato, Michelle & Becerril, Javier & Mindek, Dubravka, 2006. "Poor farmers' perceived benefits from different types of maize germplasm: The case of creolization in lowland tropical Mexico," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 113-129, January.
    2. De Groote, Hugo & Wangare, Lucy & Kanampiu, Fred & Odendo, Martins & Diallo, Alpha & Karaya, Haron & Friesen, Dennis, 2008. "The potential of a herbicide resistant maize technology for Striga control in Africa," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 97(1-2), pages 83-94, April.
    3. Duflo, Esther & Glennerster, Rachel & Kremer, Michael, 2008. "Using Randomization in Development Economics Research: A Toolkit," Handbook of Development Economics, in: T. Paul Schultz & John A. Strauss (ed.), Handbook of Development Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 61, pages 3895-3962, Elsevier.
    4. De Groote, Hugo & Wangare, Lucy & Kanampiu, Fred & Odendo, Martins & Friesen, Dennis, 2005. "Potential Markets for Herbicide Resistant Maize Seed for Striga Control in Africa," 2005 International Congress, August 23-27, 2005, Copenhagen, Denmark 24690, European Association of Agricultural Economists.
    5. Train,Kenneth E., 2009. "Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521766555.
    6. Rosegrant, Mark W. & Paisner, Michael S. & Meijer, Siet & Witcover, Julie, 2001. "2020 Global food outlook," Food policy reports 30, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
    7. Versteeg, M. N. & Amadji, F. & Eteka, A. & Gogan, A & Koudokpon, V., 1998. "Farmers' adoptability of Mucuna fallowing and agroforestry technologies in the coastal savanna of Benin," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 56(3), pages 269-287, March.
    8. Bellon, Mauricio R. & Reeves, Jane, 2002. "Quantitative Analysis Of Data From Participatory Methods In Plant Breeding," Manuals 23718, CIMMYT: International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center.
    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. Hugo De Groote & Bernard Vanlauwe & Esther Rutto & George D. Odhiambo & Fred Kanampiu & Zeyaur R. Khan, 2010. "Economic analysis of different options in integrated pest and soil fertility management in maize systems of Western Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(5), pages 471-482, September.

    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. De Groote, Hugo & Kariuki, Sarah & Traore, Djibril & Taylor, John R.N. & Mario, Ferruzi & Hamaker, Bruce, "undated". "Measuring consumers’ interest in instant fortified millet products - a field experiment in Touba, Senegal," 2016 Fifth International Conference, September 23-26, 2016, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 246973, African Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE).
    2. Groote, Hugo De & Munyua, Bernard & Traore, Djibril & Taylor, John R. N. & Ferruzzi, Mario & Ndiaye, Cheikh & Onyeoziri, Isiguzoro O. & Hamaker, Bruce R., 2021. "Measuring consumer acceptance of instant fortified millet products using affective tests and auctions in Dakar, Senegal," International Food and Agribusiness Management Review, International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, vol. 24(3), March.
    3. Yusuke Narita, 2018. "Toward an Ethical Experiment," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2127, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University.
    4. Yusuke Narita, 2018. "Experiment-as-Market: Incorporating Welfare into Randomized Controlled Trials," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 2127r, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised May 2019.
    5. Timothy R. Silberg & Robert B. Richardson & Maria Claudia Lopez, 2020. "Maize farmer preferences for intercropping systems to reduce Striga in Malawi," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 12(2), pages 269-283, April.
    6. Hugo De Groote & Bernard Vanlauwe & Esther Rutto & George D. Odhiambo & Fred Kanampiu & Zeyaur R. Khan, 2010. "Economic analysis of different options in integrated pest and soil fertility management in maize systems of Western Kenya," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 41(5), pages 471-482, September.
    7. Zhifeng Gao & Ted C. Schroeder, 2009. "Consumer responses to new food quality information: are some consumers more sensitive than others?," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 40(3), pages 339-346, May.
    8. Cheng, Leilei & Yin, Changbin & Chien, Hsiaoping, 2015. "Demand for milk quantity and safety in urban China: evidence from Beijing and Harbin," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 59(2), April.
    9. Wen, Chieh-Hua & Huang, Chia-Jung & Fu, Chiang, 2020. "Incorporating continuous representation of preferences for flight departure times into stated itinerary choice modeling," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 10-20.
    10. Johannes Buggle & Thierry Mayer & Seyhun Orcan Sakalli & Mathias Thoenig, 2023. "The Refugee’s Dilemma: Evidence from Jewish Migration out of Nazi Germany," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 138(2), pages 1273-1345.
    11. Christelis, Dimitris & Dobrescu, Loretti I. & Motta, Alberto, 2020. "Early life conditions and financial risk-taking in older age," The Journal of the Economics of Ageing, Elsevier, vol. 17(C).
    12. 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.
    13. Eduardo Fernández-Arias & Ricardo Hausmann & Ugo Panizza, 2020. "Smart Development Banks," Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, Springer, vol. 20(2), pages 395-420, June.
    14. Tina Birgitte Hansen & Jes Sanddal Lindholt & Axel Diederichsen & Rikke Søgaard, 2019. "Do Non-participants at Screening have a Different Threshold for an Acceptable Benefit–Harm Ratio than Participants? Results of a Discrete Choice Experiment," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 12(5), pages 491-501, October.
    15. Doyle, Orla & Fidrmuc, Jan, 2006. "Who favors enlargement?: Determinants of support for EU membership in the candidate countries' referenda," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 22(2), pages 520-543, June.
    16. Tovar, Jorge, 2012. "Consumers’ Welfare and Trade Liberalization: Evidence from the Car Industry in Colombia," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(4), pages 808-820.
    17. Pereira, Pedro & Ribeiro, Tiago, 2011. "The impact on broadband access to the Internet of the dual ownership of telephone and cable networks," International Journal of Industrial Organization, Elsevier, vol. 29(2), pages 283-293, March.
    18. Yamada, Katsunori & Sato, Masayuki, 2013. "Another avenue for anatomy of income comparisons: Evidence from hypothetical choice experiments," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 35-57.
    19. Potoglou, Dimitris & Palacios, Juan & Feijoo, Claudio & Gómez Barroso, Jose-Luis, 2015. "The supply of personal information: A study on the determinants of information provision in e-commerce scenarios," 26th European Regional ITS Conference, Madrid 2015 127174, International Telecommunications Society (ITS).
    20. Sant'Anna, Ana Claudia & Bergtold, Jason & Shanoyan, Aleksan & Caldas, Marcellus & Granco, Gabriel, 2021. "Deal or No Deal? Analysis of Bioenergy Feedstock Contract Choice with Multiple Opt-out Options and Contract Attribute Substitutability," 2021 Conference, August 17-31, 2021, Virtual 315289, International Association of Agricultural Economists.

    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:agisys:v:103:y:2010:i:5:p:233-244. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/agsy .

    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.