IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v16y2024i24p10821-d1540717.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Heterogeneities in Farmers’ Preference for Advisory Services: A Choice Experiment of Vegetable Growers in North-Western Ethiopia

Author

Listed:
  • Ermias Tesfaye Teferi

    (International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Addis Ababa P.O. Box 5689, Ethiopia
    Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Blue Nile Water Institute, Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar P.O. Box 79, Ethiopia)

  • Tigist Damtew Worku

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture, Food and Climate Science, Injibara University, Injibara P.O. Box 40, Ethiopia)

  • Solomon Bizuayehu Wassie

    (Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Blue Nile Water Institute, Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar P.O. Box 79, Ethiopia)

  • Bernd Muller

    (Faculty of Agriculture, Food, and Nutrition, Weihenstephan-Triesdorf University of Applied Sciences, 85354 Freising, Germany)

  • Abdul-Rahim Abdulai

    (International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Cali 6713, Colombia)

  • Céline Termote

    (The Alliance of Bioversity International and the International Center for Tropical Agriculture, Nairobi P.O. Box 823-00621, Kenya)

Abstract

This study investigated vegetable farmers’ willingness-to-pay (WTP) for private agricultural advisory services in northwestern Ethiopia. Understanding farmers’ preferences is a crucial step for modernizing agricultural advisory services and transforming smallholder agri-food systems into a sustainable path. Discrete choice experiment data from 393 farm households were analyzed using a random parameter logit model (RPL). The results revealed that vegetable farmers are willing to pay for practice-oriented private advisory services. The result also showed the existence of heterogeneity in farmers’ preference for features of vegetable advisory services. Household heads’ educational status and age influenced preferences for advisory service features. The result is substantiated by the fact that merely 25.5% of the sample households acquired formal education. Farmers in general preferred extension services with frequent expert visits and practical engagement on-farm as opposed to digitized options that rely on short message service (SMS) and voice-based guidance. Additionally, farmers are willing to pay an ETB 120.89 and ETB 203.94 monthly fee for an extension service that emphasizes fruity and root and tuber vegetables, respectively, as opposed to leafy vegetables. The findings imply initiatives that push for commercializing agricultural advisory services should strive to achieve a balance between the practical application and digitization of extension services accounting for the heterogeneous preferences of smallholder farmers.

Suggested Citation

  • Ermias Tesfaye Teferi & Tigist Damtew Worku & Solomon Bizuayehu Wassie & Bernd Muller & Abdul-Rahim Abdulai & Céline Termote, 2024. "Heterogeneities in Farmers’ Preference for Advisory Services: A Choice Experiment of Vegetable Growers in North-Western Ethiopia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(24), pages 1-15, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:24:p:10821-:d:1540717
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/24/10821/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/16/24/10821/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nicholas Ozor & Chris J. Garforth & Michael C. Madukwe, 2013. "Farmers' Willingness To Pay For Agricultural Extension Service: Evidence From Nigeria," Journal of International Development, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 25(3), pages 382-392, April.
    2. Kebede Manjur Gebru & Maggi Leung & Crelis Rammelt & Annelies Zoomers & Guus van Westen, 2019. "Vegetable Business and Smallholders’ Food Security: Empirical Findings from Northern Ethiopia," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-28, January.
    3. List John A. & Sinha Paramita & Taylor Michael H., 2006. "Using Choice Experiments to Value Non-Market Goods and Services: Evidence from Field Experiments," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(2), pages 1-39, January.
    4. Purushothaman Venkatesan & Nilakandan Sivaramane & Bharat Shankar Sontakki & Ch. Srinivasa Rao & Ved Prakash Chahal & Ashok Kumar Singh & P. Sethuraman Sivakumar & Prabhukumar Seetharaman & Bommu Kaly, 2023. "Aligning Agricultural Research and Extension for Sustainable Development Goals in India: A Case of Farmer FIRST Programme," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-15, January.
    5. Rodrigo Abed & Haroon Sseguya & James Flock & Silvanus Mruma & Hamisi Mwango, 2020. "An Evolving Agricultural Extension Model for Lasting Impact: How Willing Are Tanzanian Farmers to Pay for Extension Services?," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-13, October.
    6. Dan Rigby & Michael Burton, 2005. "Preference heterogeneity and GM food in the UK," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 32(2), pages 269-288, June.
    7. David Hensher & William Greene, 2003. "The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice," Transportation, Springer, vol. 30(2), pages 133-176, May.
    8. 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.
    9. Pilar Useche & Bradford L. Barham & Jeremy D. Foltz, 2013. "Trait-based Adoption Models Using Ex-Ante and Ex-Post Approaches," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 95(2), pages 332-338.
    10. Knowler, D. & Philcox, N. & Nathan, S. & Delamare, W. & Haider, W. & Gupta, K., 2009. "Assessing prospects for shrimp culture in the Indian Sundarbans: A combined simulation modelling and choice experiment approach," Marine Policy, Elsevier, vol. 33(4), pages 613-623, July.
    11. Kelvin J. Lancaster, 1966. "A New Approach to Consumer Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 74(2), pages 132-132.
    12. Togba V. Sumo & Cecilia Ritho & Patrick Irungu, 2023. "Determinants of Smallholder Rice Farmers’ Willingness-to-Pay for Private Extension Services in Liberia: The Case of Gibi District," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(19), pages 1-13, September.
    13. Yitayew, Asresu & Abdulai, Awudu & Yigezu, Yigezu A., 2023. "The effects of advisory services and technology channeling on farm yields and technical efficiency of wheat farmers in Ethiopia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    14. J. M. Gibson & D. Rigby & D. A. Polya & N. Russell, 2016. "Discrete Choice Experiments in Developing Countries: Willingness to Pay Versus Willingness to Work," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 65(4), pages 697-721, December.
    15. Zhiguo Wang & Junbin Wang & Guoping Zhang & Zhixiong Wang, 2021. "Evaluation of Agricultural Extension Service for Sustainable Agricultural Development Using a Hybrid Entropy and TOPSIS Method," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(1), pages 1-17, January.
    16. Christiaensen, Luc & Demery, Lionel & Kuhl, Jesper, 2011. "The (evolving) role of agriculture in poverty reduction--An empirical perspective," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(2), pages 239-254, November.
    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. Marit E. Kragt & J.W. Bennett, 2011. "Using choice experiments to value catchment and estuary health in Tasmania with individual preference heterogeneity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 55(2), pages 159-179, April.
    2. 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.
    3. Christian Pfarr & Andreas Schmid & Morten Raun Mørkbak, 2018. "Modelling Heterogeneous Preferences for Income Redistribution–An Application of Continuous and Discrete Distributions," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 64(2), pages 270-294, June.
    4. Daniele Moro & Mario Veneziani & Paolo Sckokai & Elena Castellari, 2015. "Consumer Willingness to Pay for Catechin‐enriched Yogurt: Evidence from a Stated Choice Experiment," Agribusiness, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(2), pages 243-258, April.
    5. Lea Skræp Svenningsen, 2017. "Distributive outcomes matter: Measuring social preferences for climate policy," IFRO Working Paper 2017/11, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    6. Sckokai, Paolo & Veneziani, Mario & Moro, Daniele & Castellari, Elena, 2014. "Consumer willingness to pay for food safety: the case of mycotoxins in milk," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 3(1), pages 1-19, April.
    7. Lea S. Svenningsen, 2019. "Social preferences for distributive outcomes of climate policy," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 157(2), pages 319-336, November.
    8. Czajkowski, Mikołaj & Zagórska, Katarzyna & Letki, Natalia & Tryjanowski, Piotr & Wąs, Adam, 2021. "Drivers of farmers’ willingness to adopt extensive farming practices in a globally important bird area," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    9. Veneziani, Mario & Sckokai, Paolo & Moro, Daniele, 2012. "Consumers’ willingness to pay for a functional food," 2012 First Congress, June 4-5, 2012, Trento, Italy 124101, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA).
    10. 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.
    11. Illichmann, R. & Abdulai, A., 2014. "Analysis of Consumer Preferences and Wilingness-To-Pay for Organic Food Products in Germany," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 49, March.
    12. Aude Ridier & Caroline Roussy & Karim Chaib, 2021. "Adoption of crop diversification by specialized grain farmers in south-western France: evidence from a choice-modelling experiment," Review of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Studies, Springer, vol. 102(3), pages 265-283, September.
    13. Mohammed H. Alemu & Søren Bøye Olsen & Suzanne E. Vedel & John Kinyuru & Kennedy O. Pambo, 2016. "Integrating sensory evaluations in incentivized discrete choice experiments to assess consumer demand for cricket flour buns in Kenya," IFRO Working Paper 2016/02, University of Copenhagen, Department of Food and Resource Economics.
    14. Faulques, Martin & Bonnet, Jean & Bourdin, Sébastien & Juge, Marine & Pigeon, Jonas & Richard, Charlotte, 2022. "Generational effect and territorial distributive justice, the two main drivers for willingness to pay for renewable energies," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C).
    15. Erlend Dancke Sandorf & Danny Campbell, 2019. "Accommodating satisficing behaviour in stated choice experiments," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 46(1), pages 133-162.
    16. Bernadeta Gołębiowska & Anna Bartczak & Mikołaj Czajkowski, 2020. "Energy Demand Management and Social Norms," Energies, MDPI, vol. 13(15), pages 1-20, July.
    17. Caroline Roussy & Aude Ridier & Karim Chaïb, 2014. "Adoption d’innovations par les agriculteurs : rôle des perceptions et des préférences," Post-Print hal-01123427, HAL.
    18. Juan Carlos Martín & Concepción Román & Cira Mendoza, 2018. "Determinants for sun-and-beach self-catering accommodation selection," Tourism Economics, , vol. 24(3), pages 319-336, May.
    19. Zander, K. & Janssen, M., 2013. "Präferenzen deutscher Öko-Konsumenten für Wein," Proceedings “Schriften der Gesellschaft für Wirtschafts- und Sozialwissenschaften des Landbaues e.V.”, German Association of Agricultural Economists (GEWISOLA), vol. 48, March.
    20. Chèze, Benoît & David, Maia & Martinet, Vincent, 2020. "Understanding farmers' reluctance to reduce pesticide use: A choice experiment," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C).

    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:jsusta:v:16:y:2024:i:24:p:10821-:d:1540717. 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.