Hostname: page-component-686fd747b7-mrck6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-13T11:57:06.204Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Farmers’ heterogeneous preferences for traits of improved varieties: Informing demand-oriented crop breeding in Tanzania

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 September 2023

Mekdim D. Regassa Open the ORCID record for Mekdim D. Regassa [Opens in a new window] ,
Philip K. Miriti  and
Mequanint B. Melesse Open the ORCID record for Mequanint B. Melesse [Opens in a new window]
Mekdim D. Regassa
Affiliation:
Leibniz Institute of Vegetable and Ornamental Crops (IGZ), Großbeeren, Germany
Philip K. Miriti
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Nairobi, Kenya
Mequanint B. Melesse*
Affiliation:
International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics (ICRISAT), Nairobi, Kenya
*
Corresponding author: Mequanint B. Melesse; Email: mequanint.melesse@icrisat.org
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Understanding farmers’ preferences and willingness to pay for different traits is critical for demand-driven varietal development and designing targeted strategies that stimulate adoption of varieties by farmers. This study uses choice experiment data from a random sample of 1299 Tanzanian farmers to analyze their preferences for traits of groundnut varieties, investigate trade-offs involved in valuation of attributes, and explore heterogeneity in preferences. Results reveal that farmers have strong preferences for groundnut varieties that are high yielding, tolerant to environmental stresses, early-maturing, red-colored, and fetching high sale prices in grain markets. Farmers are willing to pay the highest premium for high-yielding attributes, closely followed by the tolerance trait. Further, a latent class analysis identifies four distinct classes of farmers, confirming considerable heterogeneity in farmers’ preferences for various groundnut traits. A specific distinction is notable between preferences of consumption-oriented and market-oriented farmer classes. Our results have important implications for demand-driven variety development and targeted dissemination of improved varieties.

Keywords

Varietal choiceCrop breedingChoice experimentLatent class analysisGroundnutTanzania
Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 59 , 2023 , e19
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akpo, E., Muricho, G., Lukurugu, G.A., Opie, H., Ojiewo, C.O. and Varshney, R. (2020). Legume seed production for sustainable seed supply and crop productivity: case of groundnut in Tanzania and Uganda. Journal of Crop Improvement 34, 518–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arndt, C., Farmer, W., Strzepek, K. and Thurlow, J. (2012). Climate change, agriculture and food security in Tanzania. Review of Development Economics 16, 378–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boxall, P.C. and Adamowicz, W.L. (2002). Understanding heterogeneous preferences in random utility models: a latent class approach. Environmental and Resource Economics 23, 421–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiaensen, L. (2017). Agriculture in Africa – Telling myths from facts: A synthesis. Food Policy, 67, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cooper, M., Messina, C.D., Podlich, D., Totir, L.R., Baumgarten, A., Hausmann, N.J., Wright, D. and Graham, G. (2014). Predicting the future of plant breeding: complementing empirical evaluation with genetic prediction. Crop and Pasture Science 65, 311–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cummings, R.G. and Taylor, L.O. (1999). Unbiased value estimates for environmental goods: a cheap talk design for the contingent valuation method. American Economic Review 89, 649–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daudi, H., Shimelis, H., Laing, M., Okori, P. and Mponda, O. (2018). Groundnut production constraints, farming systems, and farmer-preferred traits in Tanzania. Journal of Crop Improvement 32, 812–828.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duflo, E., Kremer, M. and Robinson, J. (2011). Nudging farmers to use fertilizer: theory and experimental evidence from Kenya. American Economic Review 101, 2350–2390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Enid, K., Enoch, K. and Rosemary, E. (2015). Analysis of farmers valuation of common bean attributes and preference heterogeneity under environmental stresses of Kenya. African Journal of Agricultural Research 10, 2889–2901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FAO (2016). Agricultural Cost of Production Statistics: Guidelines for Data Collection, Compilation and Dissemination. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO).Google Scholar
Feder, G., Just, R.E. and Zilberman, D. (1985). Adoption of agricultural innovations in developing countries: a survey. Economic Development and Cultural Change 33, 255–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (2020). FAOSTAT statistical database: Groundnut Production Quantities in Tanzania. Rome, Italy: FAO.Google Scholar
Giller, K.E., Delaune, T., Silva, J.V., van Wijk, M., Hammond, J., Descheemaeker, K., van de Ven, G., Schut, A.G.T., Taulya, G., Chikowo, R. and Andersson, J.A. (2021). Small farms and development in sub-Saharan Africa: farming for food, for income or for lack of better options? Food Security 13, 1431–1454. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-021-01209-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greene, W.H. and Hensher, D.A. (2003). A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 37, 681–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hensher, D. A., & Greene, W. H. (2003). The mixed logit model: the state of practice. Transportation, 30, 133–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jada, K.S., Melesse, M.B. and van den Berg, M. (2022). The effects of safety certification and nutrition messaging on the demand for nutritionally enhanced food in urban Ethiopia. Food Security. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-022-01327-3.Google Scholar
Karlan, D., Osei, R., Osei-Akoto, I. and Udry, C. (2014). Agricultural decisions after relaxing credit and risk constraints. Quarterly Journal of Economics 129, 597–652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kostandini, G., Mills, B. and Mykerezi, E. (2011). Ex ante evaluation of drought-tolerant varieties in Eastern and Central Africa. Journal of Agricultural Economics 62, 172–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuhfeld, W. (2010). Marketing Research Methods in SAS: Experimental Design, Choice, Conjoint, and Graphical Techniques (Vol. 13, Issue 7). Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.Google Scholar
Kusmec, A., Zheng, Z., Archontoulis, S., Ganapathysubramanian, B., Hu, G., Wang, L., Yu, J. and Schnable, P.S. (2021). Interdisciplinary strategies to enable data-driven plant breeding in a changing climate. One Earth 4, 372–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambrecht, I., Vanlauwe, B., Merckx, R. and Maertens, M. (2014). Understanding the process of agricultural technology adoption: mineral fertilizer in Eastern DR Congo. World Development 59, 132–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lancaster, K. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy 74, 132–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latacz-Lohmann, U. and Breustedt, G. (2019). Using choice experiments to improve the design of agri-environmental schemes. European Review of Agricultural Economics 46, 495–528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lunduka, R., Fisher, M. and Snapp, S. (2012). Could farmer interest in a diversity of seed attributes explain adoption plateaus for modern maize varieties in Malawi? Food Policy 37, 504–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Macours, K. (2019). Farmers’ demand and the traits and diffusion of agricultural innovations in developing countries. Annual Review of Resource Economics 11, 483–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magaisa, A., Manjeru, P., Kamutando, C.N. and Moyo, M.P. (2022). Participatory variety selection and stability of agronomic performance of advanced sorghum lines in Zimbabwe. Journal of Crop Improvement 36, 440–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maredia, M.K., Byerlee, D. and Pee, P. (2000). Impacts of food crop improvement research: evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy 25, 531–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marenya, P.P., Wanyama, R., Alemu, S. and Woyengo, V. (2021). Trait preference trade-offs among maize farmers in western Kenya. Heliyon 7, e06389.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McFadden, D. and Train, K. (2000). Mixed MNL models for discrete response. Journal of Applied Econometrics 15, 447–470.3.0.CO;2-1>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miriti, P., Regassa, M.D., Ojiewo, C.O. and Melesse, M.B. (2023). Farmers’ preferences and willingness to pay for traits of sorghum varieties: informing product development and breeding programs in Tanzania. Journal of Crop Improvement 37, 253–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mwalongo, S., Akpo, E., Lukurugu, G.A., Muricho, G., Vernooy, R., Minja, A., Ojiewo, C., Njuguna, E., Otieno, G. and Varshney, R. (2020). Factors influencing preferences and adoption of improved groundnut varieties among farmers in Tanzania. Agronomy 10, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noriega, L.I., Halewood, M., Galluzzi, G., Vernooy, R., Bertacchini, E., Gauchan, D. and Welch, E. (2013). How policies affect the use of plant genetic resources: the experience of the CGIAR. Resources 2, 231–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okori, P., Chirwa, R., Chisale, V., Jumbo, M.B., Makumba, W., Makumbi, D., Matumba, A., Mosha, I., Munthali, W., Nadigatla, G., Ngowi, P., Njeru, J., Ochieng, J., Setimela, P., Swai, E. and Tarekegne, A. (2022). New high-yielding, stress-resilient, and nutritious crop varieties. In M. Bekunda, J. Odhong, and I. Hoeschle-Zeledon (eds.), Sustainable Agricultural Intensification: A Handbook for Practitioners in East and Southern Africa. GB: CABI, pp. 13–32.Google Scholar
Otieno, D.J. and Ogutu, S.O. (2020). Consumer willingness to pay for chicken welfare attributes in Kenya. Journal of International Food and Agribusiness Marketing 32, 379–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oyinbo, O., Chamberlin, J., Vanlauwe, B., Vranken, L., Kamara, Y.A., Craufurd, P. and Maertens, M. (2019). Farmers’ preferences for high-input agriculture supported by site-specific extension services: evidence from a choice experiment in Nigeria. Agricultural Systems 173, 12–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2019.02.003 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pambo, K.O., Otieno, D.J. and Okello, J.J. (2017). Analysis of consumer preference for vitamin A-fortified sugar in Kenya. European Journal of Development Research 29, 745–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasupuleti, J., Nigam, S., Pandey, M.K., Nagesh, P. and Varshney, R.K. (2013). Groundnut improvement: use of genetic and genomic tools. Frontiers in Plant Science 4, 23.Google Scholar
Regassa, M.D., Abate, G.T. and Kubik, Z. (2021). Incentivising and retaining public servants in remote areas: a discrete choice experiment with agricultural extension agents in Ethiopia. Journal of Agricultural Economics 72, 878–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Regassa, M.D., Degnet, M.B. and Melesse, M.B. (2023). Access to credit and heterogeneous effects on agricultural technology adoption: evidence from large rural surveys in Ethiopia. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics/Revue Canadienne d’agroeconomie, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/cjag.12329.Google Scholar
Scarpa, R. and Thiene, M. (2005). Destination choice models for rock climbing in the Northeastern Alps: a latent-class approach based on intensity of preferences. Land Economics 81, 426–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shikuku, K.M. and Melesse, M.B. (2020). Networks, incentives and technology adoption: evidence from a randomised experiment in Uganda. European Review of Agricultural Economics 47, 1740–1775.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singbo, A., Badolo, F., Lokossou, J. and Affognon, H. (2021). Market participation and technology adoption: An application of a triple-hurdle model approach to improved sorghum varieties in Mali. Scientific African 13, e00859. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2021.e00859 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Train, K. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. In Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation (2nd ed., Vol. 9780521816): Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753930 Google Scholar
Train, K. and Weeks, M. (2005). Discrete choice models in preference space and willingness to pay space. In Scarpa, R. and Alberini, A. (eds.), Applications of Simulation Methods in Environmental and Resource Economics. Netherlands: Springer, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Valle, J.F., Arnaud, E., Marimo, P. and van Etten, J. (2022). Enabling cumulative learning in user-oriented research for root, tuber and banana crop breeding. Experimental Agriculture 58, e58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wale, E. & Chianu, J.N. (2015). Farmers’ demand for extra yield from improved Tef [(Eragrostis tef (Zucc.) Trotter] varieties in Ethiopia: implications for crop improvement and agricultural extension. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology 17, 1449–1462.Google Scholar
Weissmann, E.A., Yadav, R.N., Seth, R., Udaya Bhaskar, K. (2023). Principles of Variety Maintenance for Quality Seed Production. In: Dadlani, M., Yadava, D.K. (eds) Seed Science and Technology. Singapore: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-5888-5_8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhao, J., Marek, T.H., Liu, K., Harrison, M.T. and Xue, Q. (2022). Drought tolerant maize hybrids have higher yields and lower water use under drought conditions at a regional scale. Agricultural Water Management 274, 107978.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Regassa et al. supplementary material

Regassa et al. supplementary material

Download Regassa et al. supplementary material(File)
File 33.7 KB