IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jagris/v12y2022i8p1186-d883830.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Typology and Preferences for Pigeon Pea in Smallholder Mixed Farming Systems in Uganda

Author

Listed:
  • Dorothy Birungi Namuyiga

    (Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Genscherallee 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany
    National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO), Berkeley Road, Entebbe P.O. Box 295, Uganda)

  • Till Stellmacher

    (Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Genscherallee 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany)

  • Christian Borgemeister

    (Center for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, Genscherallee 3, 53113 Bonn, Germany)

  • Jeroen C. J. Groot

    (Farming Systems Ecology, Wageningen University & Research, P.O. Box 430, 6700 Wageningen, The Netherlands)

Abstract

Pigeon pea ( Cajanus cajan ) remains an under-researched ‘orphan crop’ yet is important for food and nutrition security of smallholders. Furthermore, smallholders are heterogeneous, with varying perceptions and resource capacities. Against this backdrop, we clustered smallholders and assessed their preferences for pigeon pea. Data were gathered through a cross-sectional survey of 257 smallholders from northern Uganda, corroborated with key informant interviews. Using multivariate analysis, we generated six clusters that explained 63% of the total variance. Three farm types (LEX—low-resourced and experienced, LUN—low-resourced and inexperienced, and LED—low-resourced and educated) represented 15, 10, and 17% of the farms, respectively, and were resource-constrained with low farm size, low livestock units, low education level and low pigeon pea sales. Three other types (MEX—medium-resourced and experienced, HEX—high-resourced and experienced, HED—high-resourced and educated) represented 7, 6, and 7% of the samples and were highly-resourced given their above-average level of endowment. Pigeon pea was mainly produced for household consumption, especially by the low-resourced farm types. Across farm types, smallholders preferred pigeon pea because it fixed nitrogen (94%), is relatively easy to harvest (90%) and it provided more biomass (89%) compared to other crops. The developed typology allows for tailored pro-poor agricultural policies to address particular necessities of specific farm types. Understanding varied preferences can facilitate investments into improving pigeon pea traits, which are particularly desirable and appropriate for smallholders.

Suggested Citation

  • Dorothy Birungi Namuyiga & Till Stellmacher & Christian Borgemeister & Jeroen C. J. Groot, 2022. "A Typology and Preferences for Pigeon Pea in Smallholder Mixed Farming Systems in Uganda," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-15, August.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:8:p:1186-:d:883830
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/8/1186/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0472/12/8/1186/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clifton Makate & Marshall Makate & Nelson Mango, 2018. "Farm household typology and adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices in smallholder farming systems of southern Africa," African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 421-439, June.
    2. Matthias Schonlau, 2002. "The clustergram: A graph for visualizing hierarchical and nonhierarchical cluster analyses," Stata Journal, StataCorp LP, vol. 2(4), pages 391-402, November.
    3. Shikuku, Kelvin Mashisia, 2019. "Information exchange links, knowledge exposure, and adoption of agricultural technologies in northern Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 94-106.
    4. Tittonell, P. & Muriuki, A. & Shepherd, K.D. & Mugendi, D. & Kaizzi, K.C. & Okeyo, J. & Verchot, L. & Coe, R. & Vanlauwe, B., 2010. "The diversity of rural livelihoods and their influence on soil fertility in agricultural systems of East Africa - A typology of smallholder farms," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 103(2), pages 83-97, February.
    5. Henry Kaiser, 1974. "An index of factorial simplicity," Psychometrika, Springer;The Psychometric Society, vol. 39(1), pages 31-36, March.
    6. Sara Kaweesa & Saidi Mkomwa & Willibald Loiskandl, 2018. "Adoption of Conservation Agriculture in Uganda: A Case Study of the Lango Subregion," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(10), pages 1-13, September.
    7. Kumar, Shalander & Craufurd, Peter & Haileslassie, Amare & Ramilan, Thiagarajah & Rathore, Abhishek & Whitbread, Anthony, 2019. "Farm typology analysis and technology assessment: An application in an arid region of South Asia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    8. Abednego Kiwia & David Kimani & Rebbie Harawa & Bashir Jama & Gudeta W. Sileshi, 2019. "Sustainable Intensification with Cereal-Legume Intercropping in Eastern and Southern Africa," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(10), pages 1-18, May.
    9. Ken E. Giller & Thomas Delaune & João Vasco Silva & Mark Wijk & James Hammond & Katrien Descheemaeker & Gerrie Ven & Antonius G. T. Schut & Godfrey Taulya & Regis Chikowo & Jens A. Andersson, 2021. "Small farms and development in sub-Saharan Africa: Farming for food, for income or for lack of better options?," Food Security: The Science, Sociology and Economics of Food Production and Access to Food, Springer;The International Society for Plant Pathology, vol. 13(6), pages 1431-1454, December.
    10. Marc Rockmore, 2020. "Conflict-Risk and Agricultural Portfolios: Evidence from Northern Uganda," Journal of Development Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 56(10), pages 1856-1876, October.
    11. World Bank, 2016. "The Uganda Poverty Assessment Report 2016," World Bank Publications - Reports 26075, The World Bank Group.
    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. Azamat Azarov & Zbynek Polesny & Dietrich Darr & Maksim Kulikov & Vladimir Verner & Roy C. Sidle, 2022. "Classification of Mountain Silvopastoral Farming Systems in Walnut Forests of Kyrgyzstan: Determining Opportunities for Sustainable Livelihoods," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-15, November.

    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. So Pyay Thar & Thiagarajah Ramilan & Robert J. Farquharson & Deli Chen, 2021. "Identifying Potential for Decision Support Tools through Farm Systems Typology Analysis Coupled with Participatory Research: A Case for Smallholder Farmers in Myanmar," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-20, June.
    2. Falconnier, Gatien N. & Leroux, Louise & Beillouin, Damien & Corbeels, Marc & Hijmans, Robert J. & Bonilla-Cedrez, Camila & van Wijk, Mark & Descheemaeker, Katrien & Zingore, Shamie & Affholder, Franç, 2023. "Increased mineral fertilizer use on maize can improve both household food security and regional food production in East Africa," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 205(C).
    3. Assogba, Gildas G.C. & Adam, Myriam & Berre, David & Descheemaeker, Katrien, 2022. "Managing biomass in semi-arid Burkina Faso: Strategies and levers for better crop and livestock production in contrasted farm systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 201(C).
    4. Kumar, Shalander & Craufurd, Peter & Haileslassie, Amare & Ramilan, Thiagarajah & Rathore, Abhishek & Whitbread, Anthony, 2019. "Farm typology analysis and technology assessment: An application in an arid region of South Asia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    5. Lillemo, Shuling Chen, 2014. "Measuring the effect of procrastination and environmental awareness on households' energy-saving behaviours: An empirical approach," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 249-256.
    6. Simplice A. Asongu, 2014. "Knowledge Economy and Financial Sector Competition in African Countries," African Development Review, African Development Bank, vol. 26(2), pages 333-346, June.
    7. Pasura Aungkulanon & Walailak Atthirawong & Pongchanun Luangpaiboon & Wirachchaya Chanpuypetch, 2024. "Navigating Supply Chain Resilience: A Hybrid Approach to Agri-Food Supplier Selection," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-42, May.
    8. Rodríguez-Fuentes, Carlos Javier & Hernández-López, Montserrat, 1997. "Análisis de diferencias estructurales interregionales determinantes en el impacto de la política monetaria," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 7, pages 141-157, Junio.
    9. Simplice A. Asongu & Vanessa S. Tchamyou & Ndemaze Asongu & Nina Tchamyou, 2018. "The Comparative African Economics of Governance in Fighting Terrorism," AFEA Working Papers 18/046, African Finance and Economic Association (AFEA).
    10. Simplice A Asongu, 2013. "Modeling the future of knowledge economy: evidence from SSA and MENA countries," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 33(1), pages 612-624.
    11. Xiangfei Yuan & Haijing Hao & Chenghua Guan & Alex Pentland, 2022. "Which factors affect the performance of technology business incubators in China? An entrepreneurial ecosystem perspective," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(1), pages 1-20, January.
    12. Peltier Aguiar & Margarida Arrobas & Ezar Alfredo Nharreluga & Manuel Ângelo Rodrigues, 2024. "Different Species and Cultivars of Broad Beans, Lupins, and Clovers Demonstrated Varying Environmental Adaptability and Nitrogen Fixation Potential When Cultivated as Green Manures in Northeastern Por," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(23), pages 1-17, December.
    13. Orkhan Sariyev & Tim K. Loos & Manfred Zeller & Tulsi Gurung, 2020. "Women in household decision-making and implications for dietary quality in Bhutan," Agricultural and Food Economics, Springer;Italian Society of Agricultural Economics (SIDEA), vol. 8(1), pages 1-20, December.
    14. Romero, Pascual & Botía, Pablo & del Amor, Francisco M. & Gil-Muñoz, Rocío & Flores, Pilar & Navarro, Josefa María, 2019. "Interactive effects of the rootstock and the deficit irrigation technique on wine composition, nutraceutical potential, aromatic profile, and sensory attributes under semiarid and water limiting condi," Agricultural Water Management, Elsevier, vol. 225(C).
    15. Mohd Hizam Hanafiah, & Sheikh Usman Yousaf, & Bushra Usman,, 2017. "The influence of psychological capital on the growth intentions of entrepreneurs: A study on Malaysian SME entrepreneurs," Business and Economic Horizons (BEH), Prague Development Center, vol. 13(5), pages 556-569, December.
    16. Jose Cuesta & Jon Jellema & Lucia Ferrone, 2021. "Fiscal Policy, Multidimensional Poverty, and Equity in Uganda: A Child-Lens Analysis," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 33(3), pages 427-458, June.
    17. Omar Hegazi & Samer Alalalmeh & Ahmad Alfaresi & Soheil Dashtinezhad & Ahmed Bahada & Moyad Shahwan & Ammar Abdulrahman Jairoun & Tesleem K. Babalola & Haya Yasin, 2022. "Development, Validation, and Utilization of a Social Media Use and Mental Health Questionnaire among Middle Eastern and Western Adults: A Pilot Study from the UAE," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(23), pages 1-18, November.
    18. Benjamin Bathfield & Pierre Gasselin & Rémy Vandame & Santiago López-Ridaura & Luís García Barrios, 2010. "Adaptation de la gestion technique des producteurs de café et de miel face aux variations de prix au Guatemala : concepts et méthodes," Post-Print hal-00783500, HAL.
    19. Mudaca, Joao Daniel & Tsuchiya, Toshiyuki & Yamada, Masaaki & Onwona-Agyeman, Siaw, 2015. "Household participation in Payments for Ecosystem Services: A case study from Mozambique," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 21-27.
    20. Khushbu Mishra & Abdoul G. Sam & Gracious M. Diiro & Mario J. Miranda, 2020. "Gender and the dynamics of technology adoption: Empirical evidence from a household‐level panel data," Agricultural Economics, International Association of Agricultural Economists, vol. 51(6), pages 857-870, November.

    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:gam:jagris:v:12:y:2022:i:8:p:1186-:d:883830. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.