IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/ubzefd/338419.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Farmer-friendly delivery of veterinary services: Experimental insights from the Kenyan dairy sector

Author

Listed:
  • Maina, Kevin W.
  • Parlasca, Martin C.
  • Rao, Elizaphan J.O.
  • Qaim, Matin

Abstract

Poor health conditions of livestock cause sizeable losses for many farmers in the Global South. Veterinary services, including vaccinations, could help but often fail to reach farmers under typical smallholder conditions. Here, we examine how the provision of a vaccine against East Cost Fever (ECF) – a tick-borne disease affecting cattle in Africa – can be designed to reduce typical adoption barriers. Using data from a choice experiment with dairy farmers in Kenya, we evaluate farmers’ preferences and willingness to pay for various institutional innovations in vaccine delivery, such as a stronger role of dairy cooperatives, new payment modalities with a check-off system, vaccination at farmers’ homestead, and bundling vaccinations with discounts for livestock insurance. Our data reveal that farmers’ awareness of the ECF vaccine is limited and adoption rates are low, largely due to institutional constraints. Results from mixed logit and latent class models suggest that suitable institutional innovations – tailored to farmers’ heterogeneous conditions – could significantly increase adoption. This general finding likely also holds for other veterinary technologies and services in the Global South.

Suggested Citation

  • Maina, Kevin W. & Parlasca, Martin C. & Rao, Elizaphan J.O. & Qaim, Matin, 2023. "Farmer-friendly delivery of veterinary services: Experimental insights from the Kenyan dairy sector," Discussion Papers 338419, University of Bonn, Center for Development Research (ZEF).
    • Handle: RePEc:ags:ubzefd:338419
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.338419
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/338419/files/ZEF_DP_332.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.338419?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Nhantumbo, Nascimento S. & Zivale, Clemente O. & Nhantumbo, Ivete S. & Gomes, Ana M., 2016. "Making agricultural intervention attractive to farmers in Africa through inclusive innovation systems," World Development Perspectives, Elsevier, vol. 4(C), pages 19-23.
    2. Vincenzina Caputo & Riccardo Scarpa & Rodolfo M. Nayga, 2017. "Cue versus independent food attributes: the effect of adding attributes in choice experiments," European Review of Agricultural Economics, Oxford University Press and the European Agricultural and Applied Economics Publications Foundation, vol. 44(2), pages 211-230.
    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. Edgar E. Twine & Elizaphan J. O. Rao & Isabelle Baltenweck & Amos O. Omore, 2019. "Are Technology Adoption and Collective Action Important in Accessing Credit? Evidence from Milk Producers in Tanzania," The European Journal of Development Research, Palgrave Macmillan;European Association of Development Research and Training Institutes (EADI), vol. 31(3), pages 388-412, July.
    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. Lang, Ghislaine & Farsi, Mehdi & Lanz, Bruno & Weber, Sylvain, 2021. "Energy efficiency and heating technology investments: Manipulating financial information in a discrete choice experiment," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    2. David Throsby & Anita Zednik & Jorge E. Araña, 2021. "Public preferences for heritage conservation strategies: a choice modelling approach," Journal of Cultural Economics, Springer;The Association for Cultural Economics International, vol. 45(3), pages 333-358, September.
    3. Frith, Michael J., 2019. "Modelling taste heterogeneity regarding offence location choices," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 33(C).
    4. Abdullah, Sabah & Mariel, Petr, 2010. "Choice experiment study on the willingness to pay to improve electricity services," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 4570-4581, August.
    5. 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).
    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. Kalouptsidis, N. & Psaraki, V., 2010. "Approximations of choice probabilities in mixed logit models," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 200(2), pages 529-535, January.
    8. Pepermans, Guido, 2011. "The value of continuous power supply for Flemish households," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 39(12), pages 7853-7864.
    9. Francisco Javier Amador & Rosa Marina González & Juan de Dios Ortúzar, 2004. "Preference heterogeneity and willingness to pay for travel time," Documentos de trabajo conjunto ULL-ULPGC 2004-12, Facultad de Ciencias Económicas de la ULPGC.
    10. 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.
    11. Péter Czine & Péter Balogh & Zsanett Blága & Zoltán Szabó & Réka Szekeres & Stephane Hess & Béla Juhász, 2024. "Is It Sufficient to Select the Optimal Class Number Based Only on Information Criteria in Fixed- and Random-Parameter Latent Class Discrete Choice Modeling Approaches?," Econometrics, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-16, August.
    12. Mogens Fosgerau & André de Palma, 2016. "Generalized entropy models," Working Papers hal-01291347, HAL.
    13. Small, Kenneth A & Winston, Clifford & Yan, Jia, 2002. "Uncovering the Distribution of Motorists' Preferences for Travel Time and Reliability: Implications for Road Pricing," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt8zd2r34k, University of California Transportation Center.
    14. Greene, David & Hossain, Anushah & Hofmann, Julia & Helfand, Gloria & Beach, Robert, 2018. "Consumer willingness to pay for vehicle attributes: What do we Know?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 258-279.
    15. 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.
    16. Doherty, Edel & Campbell, Danny, 2011. "Demand for improved food safety and quality: a cross-regional comparison," 85th Annual Conference, April 18-20, 2011, Warwick University, Coventry, UK 108791, Agricultural Economics Society.
    17. Vij, Akshay & Walker, Joan L., 2016. "How, when and why integrated choice and latent variable models are latently useful," Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 192-217.
    18. Richard G. Newell & Juha Siikamäki, 2014. "Nudging Energy Efficiency Behavior: The Role of Information Labels," Journal of the Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, University of Chicago Press, vol. 1(4), pages 555-598.
    19. Abdurrahman B. Aydemir & Erkan Duman, 2021. "Migrant Networks and Destination Choice: Evidence from Moves across Turkish Provinces," Koç University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum Working Papers 2109, Koc University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Farm Management; Livestock Production/Industries;

    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:ags:ubzefd:338419. 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: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zefbnde.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.