Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for New Storage Technologies for Maize in Northern and Central Benin
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Sampling
2.3. Conceptual Framework
2.3.1. Choice Experiment (CE) Approach
2.3.2. Latent Class Logit Model
2.3.3. Identification of Relevant Attributes and Attribute Levels
2.3.4. Creation of Choice Sets
2.3.5. Empirical Model
3. Results
3.1. Socio Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
3.2. Latent Class Logit (LCL) Estimates (Segmentation)
3.3. Willingness to Pay for Structure Attributes by Segment
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Attributes | Rank |
---|---|
Capacity | 10.42 (1) |
Cost (FCFA) | 9.79 (4) |
Efficiency | 9.93 (3) |
Type of building material | 9.00 (5) |
Storage form | 10.08 (2) |
Life span (years) | 7.50 (6) |
Position in storage process | 5.21 (7) |
Need of lots of effort for building | 2.71 (11) |
Possibility to stock many cereals | 4.17 (8) |
Perfect airtightness/waterproofing | 4.00 (9) |
Need of important labor work for using | 2.29 (12) |
Necessity of using conservation product | 3.00 (10) |
Number of observations | 12 |
W of Kendall | 0.73 |
Chi2 x2 (11) | 14.66 *** |
Storage Technologies | Capacity | Storage Shape | Efficiency | Building Materials Types | Life Span (Years) | Cost (FCFA) | Fre-Quency (%) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Group 1 | Profile 1 | Medium (250–500 kg) | Cobs | Less effective (5–30% loss) | Imported | short (<4 years) | 15,000 | 10.41 |
Profile 2 | Small (25–250 kg) | Stalk | Very effective (<5% loss) | Traditional | long (>4 years) | 25,000 | 10.41 | |
Profile 3 (Traditional Clay Granary) | Large (>500 kg) | Grain | Ineffective (>30% loss) | Traditional | short (<4 years) | 40,000 | 1.92 | |
Profile 4 (Improved Clay Granary) | Medium (250–500 kg) | Grain | Less effective (5–30% loss) | Improved | long (>4 years) | 50,000 | 42.47 | |
Status q0 | Large (>500 kg) or Medium (250–500 kg) or Small (25–250 kg) | Grain or Cobs or Stalk | Ineffective (>30% loss) or Very effective (<5% loss) or Less effective (5–30% loss) | Imported or Improve or Traditional | long (>4 years) or short (<4 years) | 34.79 | ||
Group 2 | Profile 5 (Metal Silo of 1 ton) | Large (>500 kg) | Grain | Very effective (<5% loss) | Imported | long (>4 years) | 110,000 | 81.10 |
Profile 6 | Medium (250–500 kg) | Stalk | Less effective (5–30% loss) | Traditional | short (<4 years) | 20,000 | 1.64 | |
Profile 7 | Medium (250–500 kg) | Cobs | Ineffective (>30% loss) | Improved | long (>4 years) | 20,000 | 0.27 | |
Profile 8 | Small (25–250 kg) | Stalk | Very effective (<5% loss) | Imported | short (<4 years) | 10,000 | 7.04 | |
Status q0 | Large (>500 kg) or Medium (250–500 kg) or Small (25–250 kg) | Grain or Cobs or Stalk | Ineffective (>30% loss) or Very effective (<5% loss) or Less effective (5–30% loss) | Imported or Improve or Traditional | long (>4 years) or short (<4 years) | 9.95 | ||
Group 3 | Profile 9 | Large (>500 kg) | Cobs | Very effective (<5% loss) | Imported | long (>4 years) | 45,000 | 46.58 |
Profile 10 (Improved Vegetal materials Granary) | Large (>500 kg) | Stalk | Less effective (5–30% loss) | Traditional | long (>4 years) | 37,000 | 9.86 | |
Profile 11 | Medium (250–500 kg) | Grain | Ineffective (>30% loss) | Improved | long (>4 years) | 15,000 | 1.37 | |
Profile 12 (Improved wood granary) | Medium (250–500 kg) | Cobs | Less effective (5–30% loss) | Improved | long (>4 years) | 31,000 | 7.12 | |
Status q0 | Large (>500 kg) or Medium (250–500 kg) or Small (25–250 kg) | Grain or Cobs or Stalk | Ineffective (>30% loss) or Very effective (<5% loss) or Less effective (5–30% loss) | Imported or Improve or Traditional | long (>4 years) or short (<4 years) | 35.07 | ||
Group 4 | Profile 13 (PICS bag or Zerofly bag <0.25 tons) | Small (25–250 kg) | Grain | Very effective (<5% loss) | Imported | short (<4 years) | 2500 | 39.18 |
Profile 14 (Metal silo: 0.35 and 0.5 tons) | Medium (250–500 kg) | Grain | Very effective (<5% loss) | Imported | long (>4 years) | 71,500 | 51.23 | |
Profile 15 | Large (>500 kg) | Stalk | Ineffective (>30% loss) | Imported | long (>4 years) | 35,000 | 0.27 | |
Profile 16 | Medium (250–500 kg) | Cobs | Very effective (<5% loss) | Imported | short (<4 years) | 20,000 | 1.92 | |
Status q0 | Large (>500 kg) or Medium (250–500 kg) or Small (25–250 kg) | Grain or Cobs or Stalk | Ineffective (>30% loss) or Very effective (<5% loss) or Less effective (5–30% loss) | Imported or Improve or Traditional | long (>4 years) or short (<4 years) | 7.40 | ||
Group 5 | Profile 17 (Traditional bamboo/palm Granary) | Medium (250–500 kg) | Stalk | Ineffective (>30% loss) | Traditional | short (<4 years) | 20,000 | 1.92 |
Profile 18 | Large (>500 kg) | Cobs | Less effective (5–30% loss) | Imported | long (>4 years) | 45,000 | 7.12 | |
Profile 19 (Plastic cans <0.25tons) | Small (25–250 kg) | Grain | Very effective (<5% loss) | Imported | long (>4 years) | 600 | 52.88 | |
Profile 20 | Medium (250–500 kg) | Grain | Very effective (<5% loss) | Improved | short (<4 years) | 25,000 | 16.71 | |
Status q0 | Large (>500 kg) or Medium (250–500 kg) or Small (25–250 kg) | Grain or Cobs or Stalk | Ineffective (>30% loss) or Very effective (<5% loss) or Less effective (5–30% loss) | Imported or Improve or Traditional | long (>4 years) or short (<4 years) | 21.37 |
References and Notes
- Gustavason, J.; Cederberg, C.; Van Otterdijk, R.; Meybeck, A. Pertes et Gaspillages Alimentaires dans le Monde; Étude Menée pour le Congrès International; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2011; 41p. [Google Scholar]
- FAO. Tropical Fruits Conpendium; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- World Bank. Missing Food: The Case of Postharvest Grain Losses in Sub-Saharan Africa; Report No. 60371-AFR; World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Stathersa, T.E.; Chigarirob, J.; Mudivac, B.M.; Golob, P. Small-scale farmers perceptions of diatomaceous earth products as potential stored grain proctectant in Zimbabwe. Crop Prot. 2002, 21, 1049–1060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tefera, T.; Kanampiu, F.; De Groote, H.; Hellin, J.; Mugo, S.; Kimenju, S.; Beyene, Y.; Boddupalli, P.M.; Shiferaw, B.; Banziger, M. The metal silo: An effective grain storage technology for reducing post-harvest insect and pathogen losses in maize while improving smallholder farmers’ food security in developing countries. Crop Prot. 2011, 30, 240–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rembold, F.; Hodges, R.; Bernard, M.; Knipschild, H.; Léo, O. The African Postharvest Losses Information System (APHLIS) An Innovative Framework to Analyse and Compute Quantitative Postharvest Losses for Cereals under Different Farming and Environmental Conditions in East and Southern Africa; Technical Report; Publications Office of the European Union: Luxembourg, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Centre de Partenariat et Expertise Pour le Development Durable (CEPED). Etude Pilote Pour L’actualisation des Normes de Consommation des Principaux Produits Vivriers au Bénin; 2010.
- Kossou, D.K.; Aho, N. Stockage et Conservation des Grains Alimentaires Tropicaux: Principes et Pratiques; Les Editions du Flamboyant: Cotonou, Bénin, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Affognon, H.; Kossou, D.; Bell, A. Développement Participatif de Technologies Post-Récolte au Bénin; Rapport; Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit: Eschborn, Germany, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Adegbola, Y.P. Economic Analyses of Maize Storage Innovations in Southern Benin. Ph.D. Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2010; p. 191. Available online: http://edepot.wur.nl/137893 (accessed on 12 July 2014).
- Adegbola, Y.P.; Arouna, A.; Ahoyo, N. Analyse des Facteurs Affectant L’adoption des Greniers Améliorés pour le Stockage du Maïs au Sud-Bénin; Numéro Special 2, Aspects economiques du stockage et de la conservation du Maïs au sud-Benin; Bulletin de la Recherche Agronomique du Benin: Benin, September 2011; pp. 43–50. [Google Scholar]
- Arouna, A.; Adegbola, P.Y.; Biaou, G. Analyse des coûts de Stockage et de Conservation du Maïs au Sud-Bénin; Numéro Special 2, Aspects economiques du stockage et de la conservation du Maïs au sud-Benin; Bulletin de la Recherche Agronomique du Benin: Benin, September 2011; pp. 13–23. [Google Scholar]
- Adebayo, M.A.; Menkir, A.; Blay, E.; Gracen, V.; Danquah, E.; Hearne, S. Genetic analysis of drought tolerance in adapted exotic crosses of maize inbred lines under managed stress conditions. Euphytica 2013, 196, 261–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Batz, F.-J.; Janseen, W.; Peters, K.J. Predicting technology adoption to improve research priority-setting. Agric. Econ. 2003, 28, 151–164. [Google Scholar]
- Negatu, W.; Parikhb, A. The impact of perception and other factors on the adoption of agricultural technology in the Moret and Jiru Woreda (district) of Ethiopia. Agric. Econ. 1999, 21, 205–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Llewellyn, R.S.; Lindner, R.K.; Pannell, D.J.; Powles, S.B. Grain grower perceptions and use of integrated weed management. Aust. J. Exp. Agric. 2004, 44, 993–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wossink, G.A.A.; de Buck, A.J.; van Niejenhuis, J.H.; Haverkamp, H.C.M. Farmers perceptions of weed control techniques in sugarbeet. Agric. Syst. 1997, 55, 409–423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sall, S.; Norman, D.; Featherstone, A.M. Quantitative assessment of improved rice variety adoption: The farmer’s perspective. Agric. Syst. 2000, 66, 129–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Reed, G.V.; Binks, M.R.; Ennew, C.T. Matching the characteristics of a service to the preferences of customers. Manag. Decis. Econ. 1991, 12, 231–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Baidu-Forson, J.; Ntare, B.R.; Waliyar, F. Utilizing coinjoint analysis to design modern crop varieties: Empirical example for groundnut in Niger. Agric. Econ. 1997, 16, 219–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamath, A.S.; Famivow, D.M.; Johnson, V.G.; Crow, G. Estimating the values of cattle characteristics using an ordered probit model. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 1997, 79, 463–476. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, K.; Ali, M.; Veeman, M.; Unterschultz, J.; Le, T. Relative importance rankings for pork attributes by Asian-origin consumers in Califormia: Applying an ordered probit model to a choice-based sample. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2002, 34, 67–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kouadio, T.; Kamuanga, M.; Faminow, M.D.; Swallow, B. Analysis using conjoint analysis to estimate farmer’s preferences for cattle traits in West Africa. Ecol. Econ. 2003, 45, 393–407. [Google Scholar]
- Ndjeunga, J.; Nelson, C.H. Towards understanding household preference for consumption characteristics of millet varieties: A case study from western Niger. Agric. Econ. 2005, 21, 151–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cembalo, L.; Ciciaet, G.; Giudice, T.D. The influence of country of origin on German consumer preferences for peaches: A latent class choice model. In Proceedings of the 113th EAAE Seminar “A Resilient European Food Industry and Food Chain in a Challenging World”, Chania, Crete, Greece, 3–6 September 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Faustin, V.; Adegbidi, A.; Garnett, S.T.; Koudandé, D.O.; Agbo, V.; Zander, K.K. Peace, health or fortune? Preference for chicken traits in rural Benin. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1848–1857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Birol, E.D.; Asare-Marfoet, D.R. A Latent Class Approach to Investigating Farmer Demand for Bio fortified Staple Food Crops in Developing Countries: The Case of High-Iron Pearl Millet in Maharashtra, India; Harvest Plus Working Paper No. 7; International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI): Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Dangbedji, J.C. Evaluation Agroenvironnementale et Économique Intégrée de Scénarii de Pratiques de Gestion Bénéfiques. Master’s Thesis, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada, 2014; p. 92. [Google Scholar]
- Houessionon, P.; Fonta, W.M.; Bossa, A.Y.; Sanfo, S.; Thiombiano, N.; Zahonogo, P.; Yameogo, T.B.; Balana, B. Economic Valuation of Ecosystem Services from Small-Scale Agricultural Management Interventions in Burkina Faso: A Discrete Choice Experiment Approach. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Damien, P. Mise en place d’enquêtes par préférences déclarées dans le cadre de projets d’études relatifs au secteur des transports de personnes; Thesis Réalisée au sein du Laboratoire D’économie des Transports, Unité Mixte de Recherche Rattaché au Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (UMR No. 5593). Ph.D. Thesis, Université Lumière-Lyon II, Lyon, France, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Kouwenhoven, M. Incidence de L’accessibilité sur le Choix des Aéroports, Centre Conjoint de Recherche sur les Transports. 2008; p. 14.
- Louviere, J.J.; Hensher, D.A.; Swait, J.D.; Adamowicz, W.L. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Applications; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- (United Nations Development Programme) PNUD. Rapport National sur le Développement Humain (RNDH); Agriculture, Sécurité Alimentaire et Développement Humain au Benin; The United Nations in Benin: Benin, 2015; 144p. [Google Scholar]
- Institut National des Recherches Agricoles du Bénin (INRAB)/PAPA. Caractérisation et Évaluation des Milieux Homogènes des Zones Agroécologiques du Bénin; Institut National des Recherches Agricoles du Bénin (INRAB): Cotonou, Benin, 2016; 307p. [Google Scholar]
- Dillman, D.A. Mail and Internet Surveys—The Tailored Design Method, 2nd ed.; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Bonnichsen, O.; Ladenburg, J. Reducing status quo bias in choice experiments. Nord. J. Health Econ. 2015, 3, 47–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lancaster, J.K. A new approach to consumer theory. J. Polit. Econ. 1966, 74, 132–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tapsoba, D.-H. Une Estimation du Choix des Consommateurs Canadiens en Matière de Véhicules Personnels, de Nouvelles Technologies et de Carburants de Remplacement par Logit Mixte. Master’s Thesis, Université Laval, Québec, QC, Canada, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Hall, J.; Viney, R.; Haa, M.; Louviere, J.J. Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate health care programs. J. Bus. Res. 2004, 57, 1026–1032. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Desmet, P. Analyse Conjointe: Reconstituer Les Choix Déclaratifs Effectués par des Consommateurs au Sein de Plans Expérimentaux, Présentation Mémoire de Master en Marketing; Université Paris Dauphine: Paris, France, 2011; 27p. [Google Scholar]
- Mennecke, B.E.; Townsend, A.M.; Hayes, D.J.; Lonergana, S.M. A Study of the Factors that Influence Consumer Attitudes toward Beef Products Using the Conjoint Market Analysis Tool. J. Anim. Sci. 2007, 85, 2639–2659. Available online: http://jas.fass.org (accessed on 23 May 2014). [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Guyon, H. L’analyse Conjointe Discrète: Une Illustration Pour le Marché du Pneu; Pesor, Université Paris Sud 11: Orsay, France, 2010; 17p. [Google Scholar]
- Gill, J.M.; Sánchez, M. Consumer preferences for wine attributes: A conjoint approach. Br. Food J. 1997, 99, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Louvrière, J.J.; Woodworth, G.G. Design and analysis of simulated consumer choice or allocation experiments: An approach based on aggregate data. J. Mark. Res. 1983, 20, 350–367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Train, K.E. Recreation demand Models with taste Differences over peoples. Land Econ. 1998, 74, 230–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben-Akiva, M.; Bierlaire, M. Discrete choice methods and their applications to short term travel decisions. In Handbook of Transportation Science; Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT): Cambridge, MA, USA, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- McFadden, D. Econometric analysis of qualitative responses models. In Handbook of Econometrics; Heckman, J.J., Griliches, Z., Leamer, E.E., Intriligator, M.D., Eds.; Elvesier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1984; Chapter 24; Volume 2, pp. 1395–1457. Available online: https://www.elvesier.com (accessed on 6 April 2005).
- Henscher, D.A.; Greene, W.H. The Mixed Logit model: The state of practice. Transportation 2003, 30, 133–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vidogbena, F.; Martin, T.; Saidi, M.; Assogba Komlan, F.; Simon, S.; Kasina, M.; Parrot, L.; Adegbidi, A.; Wasilwa, L.A.; Subramanian, S. Des filets pour protéger les cultures maraichères en Afrique Sub-Saharienne. Ecol. Econ. 2010, 69, 1848–1857. [Google Scholar]
- Espinosa-Goded, M.; Barreiro-Hurle, J.; Ruto, E. What Do Farmers Want From Agri-Environmental Scheme Design? A Choice Experiment Approach. J. Agric. Econ. 2009, 61, 259–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Hole, A.R. Mixed logit modeling in Stata—An overview. In Proceedings of the 19th London Stata Users Group Meeting, Cass Business School, London, UK, 12–13 September 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Johnson, F.R.; Lancsar, E.; Marshall, D.; Vikram, K.; Regier Muhlbacher, A.; Regier, D.A.; Bresnahan, W.B.; Barbara, K.; Bridges, J.F.P. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: Report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2013, 16, 3–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gueye, M.T.; Seck, D.; Wathel, J.; Lognay, G. Typologie des systèmes de stockage et de conservation du Maïs dans l’est et le sud du Sénégal. Biotechnol. Agron. Soc. Environ. 2012, 16, 49–58. [Google Scholar]
- Fandohan, P. Introduction du Grenier Fermé en Tterre au Sud-Bénin pour le Stockage du Maïs; Rapport Technique de la Recherche; Institut National des Recherches Agricoles du Bénin (INRAB): Cotonou, Benin, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Schneider, K. Étude de Faisabilité pour la Promotion de Technologies Post-Récolte Améliorées dans Deux Régions du Bénin; Rapport de Mission; Helvetas Swiss Intercooperation: Cotonou, Bénin, 2015; 26p. [Google Scholar]
- Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Difficultés-Acceptabilité-Eléments de Coûts des Techniques Améliorées de Stockage; Projet BEN/87/017; Systèmes de Stockage Décentralisé; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Fiagan, Y.S. Les Systèmes de Stockage de Maïs en Milieu Paysan Béninois: Bilan et Perspectives; CIRAD—FAS/UNB; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1994; 12p. [Google Scholar]
- Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO). Rapport Technique sur les Expérimentations du Stockage Villageois Amélioré du Maïs (Zones du Zou-Nord et du Nord du Bénin); FAO: Rome, Italy, 1994; p. 10. [Google Scholar]
- Adegbola, P.; Sissinto, E.; Hessavi, P.; Ohouko, O.K. Efficacité et Acceptabilité de Structures de Stockage du Maïs dans les Communes de Savalou et de Boukombé au Bénin; Rapport Technique de Recherches; Helvetas Swiss Intercooperation: Cotonou Bénin, 2017; 62p. [Google Scholar]
- Compton, J.A.F.; Tyler, P.S.; Hindmarsh, P.S.; Golob, P.; Boxall, R.A.; Haines, C.P. Reducing losses in small farm grain storage in the tropics. Trop. Sci. 1993, 33, 283–318. [Google Scholar]
- Pacifico, D.; Yoo, H. A Stata Module for Estimating Latent Class Conditional Logit Models via the Expectation-Maximization Algorithm; Paper No. 2012 ECON 49; UNSW Australian School of Business Research: Sydney, Australia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Adegbola, P.; Gardebroek, C. The effect of information sources on technology adoption and modification decisions. Agric. Econ. 2007, 37, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thangata, P.H.; Alavalapati, J.R.R. Agroforestry adoption in southern Malawi: The case of mixed intercropping of Gliricidia sepium and maize. Agric. Syst. 2003, 78, 57–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- PSRSA. Plan Stratégique de Relance du Secteur Agricole. 2011, p. 116. Available online: http://extwprlegs1.fao.org/docs/pdf/ben149176.pdf (accessed on 2 October 2017).
- Maboudou, A.G. Adoption et Diffusion de Technologies Améliorées de Stockage du Maïs en Milieu Paysan dans le Centre et le Nord du Bénin; Mémoire Pour L’obtention du Diplôme D’etudes Approfondies; Université de Lomé, Faculté des Lettres et Sciences Humaines/Institut International d’Agriculture Tropicale: Lome, Togo, 2003; p. 108. [Google Scholar]
- Addo, S.; Birkinshaw, L.A.; Hodges, R.J. Ten years after the arrival in Ghana of Larger Grain Borer: Farmers’ responses and adoption of IPM strategies. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2002, 48, 315–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coulibaly, O.; Nkamleu, G.B.; Tamo, M.; Ngeve, J. Adoption of Storage Pest-Control Technologies Cowpea Traders in Western Cameroon: A Probit Model Application; International Institute of Tropical Agriculture: Ibadan, Nigeria, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Maboudou, A.G.; Adegbola, P.Y.; Coulibaly, O.; Hell, K.; Amouzou, E. Factors affecting the use of improved clay store for maize storage in the central and northern Benin. In New Directions for a Diverse Planet, Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress, Brisbane, Australia, 26 September–1 October 2004; Fischer, T., Ed.; Crop Science Society of America: Madison, WI, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Bhandari, G.; Bahadur, G.; Kaduwal, S.; Shrestha, J.; Acharya, R. Effects of storage structures and moisture contents on seed quality attributes of quality protein maize. J. Maize Res. Dev. 2017, 3, 77–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adesina, A.A. Factors affecting the adoption of fertilizers by rice farmers in Côte d’Ivoire. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 1996, 46, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sanginga, P.C.; Adesina, A.A.; Manyong, V.M.; Otite, O.; Dashiell, K.E. Social Impact of Soybean in Nigeria’s Southern Guinea Savanna; International Institute of Tropical Agriculture: Ibadan, Nigeria, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Hagos, F.; Aster, G.; Lulseged, T.; Schmitter, P.; Tegegne, D. Innovation Adoption for Scaling: Africa RISING Science, Innovations and Technologies with Scaling Potential from the Ethiopian Highlands. 2017. Available online: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/bitstream/handle/10568/80067/AR_eth_iwmi_Jan2017.pdfsequence=1 (accessed on 28 June 2018).
- Tarfasa, S.; Balana, B.; Teferac, T.; Woldeamanuel, T. Modeling Smallholder Farmers’ Preferences for Soil Management Measures: A Case Study from South Ethiopia. Ecol. Econ. 2018, 145, 410–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zulfiqar, F.; Thapa, G. Determinants and intensity of adoption of “better cotton” as an innovative cleaner production alternative. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 172, 3468–3478. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.024 (accessed on 28 June 2018). [CrossRef]
- Ram, H.; Balwinder, N.K.; Kaur, A. Resource-Conserving Technologies for Enhancing Resource Use Efficiency and Crop Productivity. In 2018 Eco-Friendly Agro-Biological Techniques for Enhancing Crop Productivity; Springer: Singapore, 2018; pp. 129–145. [Google Scholar]
Attributes | Description | Attribute Levels | |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Capacity | Contain of storage structure is determined by the volume of maize production. | 1 = Large (>500 kg) |
2 = Medium (250–500 kg) | |||
3 = Small (25–250 kg) | |||
2 | Storage shape | Storage form | 1 = Grain |
2 = Cobs | |||
3 = Stalk | |||
3 | Efficiency | Effectiveness against pest attacks based on the rates of losses | 1 = Very effective (<5% loss) |
2 = Less effective (5–30% loss) | |||
3 = Not effective (>30% loss) | |||
4 | Type of building material | Local (traditional or improved) and imported materials | 1 = Imported |
2 = Improved | |||
3 = Traditional | |||
5 | Life span (years) | Length of life of storage structure | 0 = long (>4 years) |
1 = short (<4 years) | |||
6 | Cost (FCFA) | Price of building or of purchase (FCFA) | 600; 15,000; 25,000; 40,000; 50,000; 110,000 |
Variable | Modality | Expected Sign |
---|---|---|
Cost a | Continuous variable | − |
Status q0 | 1 = YES, 0 = if applicable | − |
Medium Capacity (1*) | 1 = YES, 0 = if applicable | +/− |
Large Capacity (1*) | 1 = YES, 0 = if applicable | +/− |
Stored as cobs (2*) | 1 = YES, 0 = if applicable | − |
Stored as stalk (2*) | 1 = YES, 0 = if applicable | − |
Less effective storage structure (3*) | 1 = YES, 0 = if applicable | +/− |
Highly effective storage structure (3*) | 1 = YES, 0 = if applicable | + |
Type of materials: Improved (4*) | 1 = YES, 0 = if applicable | +/− |
Type of materials: Imported (4*) | 1 = YES, 0 = if applicable | + |
Life span | 1 = YES, 0 = if applicable | + |
Gender | 1 = Man, 0 = Woman | |
Years of experience in storage | Continuous variable | |
Stored quantity for sale | Continuous variable | |
Participation in on-farm trials | 1 = YES, 0 = if applicable | |
Access to credit | 1 = YES, 0 = if applicable |
Columns | Male | Female | Set | Test | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gender (%) | 80.55 | 19.45 | 100 | ||
Years of experience in maize storage | 15.49 (10.07) | 8.04 (5.66) | 14.04 (9.82) | T = −6.00 *** | |
Contact with institutions (%) | 15.99 | 71.83 | 26.85 | χ2 = 90.81 *** | |
Access to agricultural credit (%) | 13.27 | −14.08 | 13.42 | χ2 = 0.03 | |
Distance to local market (km) | <10 km (%) | 75.85 | 50.70 | 70.96 | 23.63 *** |
10–25 km (%) | 18.03 | 42.25 | 22.74 | ||
25–30 km (%) | 2.72 | 0.00 | 2.19 | ||
>30 km (%) | 3.40 | 7.04 | 4.11 | ||
Maximum maize land size (Ha) | 3.92 (5.36) | 1.94 (1.63) | 3.53 (4.92) | t = −3.07 *** | |
Maximum income from maize production (FCFA) | 529,022.8 (691,066.1) | 323,725.4 (309,230.8) | 489,088.2 (639,867.6) | t = −2.44 *** | |
Quantity of maize produced (Tons) | 5.62 (7.54) | 2.46 (2.04) | 5.01 (6.98) | t = −3.47 *** | |
Maximum quantity of maize stored (Tons) | 2.75 (2.40) | 1.84 (1.37) | 2.57 (2.26) | t = −3.07 *** |
Number of Segments | AIC | BIC | CAIC |
---|---|---|---|
2 | 4082.28 | 4164.18 | 4185.18 |
3 | 4015.04 | 4139.84 | 4171.84 |
4 | 3938.96 | 4106.65 * | 4149.65 |
5 | 3912.64 | 4123.24 | 4177.24 |
6 | 3859.16 * | 4112.65 | 4177.65 |
Attributes | Segment 1 | Segment 2 | Segment 3 | Segment 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Cost of the storage structure (FCFA) | 0.36 (0.06) *** | 0.34 (0.08) *** | 0.21 (−0.06) *** | 0.11 (0.07) |
Medium capacity (250–500 kg) (1*) | −3.01 (0.37) *** | −0.14 (0.24) | −1.42 (0.26) *** | 2.04 (0.37) *** |
Large capacity (>500 kg) (1*) | −1.48 (0.27) *** | −0.52 (0.27) ** | −0.50 (0.20) *** | 2.46 (0.46) *** |
Stored as cobs (2*) | −0.84 (0.35) ** | −0.12 (0.18) | −2.55 (0.36) *** | −4.05 (0.51) *** |
Stored as stalks (2*) | −2.61 (0.46) *** | −1.08 (0.22) *** | −1.13 (0.38) *** | −2.19 (0.83) *** |
Less efficient (5–30% loss) (3*) | 3.96 (1.05) *** | 0.57 (0.23) *** | 55.81 (1399.01) | 4.31 (0.69) *** |
Very efficient (<5% loss) (3*) | 4.71 (1.04) *** | 1.21 (0.26) *** | 56.19 (1399.01) * | 5.05 (0.69) *** |
Type of materials: Improved (4*) | 1.79 (0.52) *** | −1.76 (0.34) *** | −0.04 (1.44) | 1.88 (0.69) *** |
Type of materials: Imported (4*) | 0.39 (0.45) ** | −0.33 (0.25) | 4.66 (0.79) *** | 2.24 (0.72) *** |
Long life span (>4 years) | 0.77 (0.22) *** | 0.33 (0.18) ** | 0.14 (0.23) | 2.56 (0.44) *** |
Socio-demographic characteristics | ||||
Gender (1 = Man; 0 = Women) | 0.06 (0.53) | 1.06 (0.66) ** | 0.80 (0.86) * | |
Years of experience in storage | 0.01 (0.30) | 1.48 (0.44) | 0.25 (0.40) | |
Stored maize volume (Ton) | 0.50 (0.29) ** | −0.03 (0.18) | −0.55 (0.16) *** | |
Maize income (FCFA per year) | 0.05 (0.26) | −0.72 (0.29) ** | 0.68 (0.27) *** | |
Access to credit (1 = Yes, 0 = No) | 0.34 (0.51) ** | −1.96 (1.25) | 0.12 (0.66) ** | |
Participation in on-farms trials (1 = Yes, 0 = No) | −0.76 ** | −0.63 (0.60) * | −2.94 (0.98) *** | |
Distance to the market (km) | −0.17 (0.19) | 0.89 (0.27) *** | −0.60 (0.24) *** | |
Probability of belonging to each class | 28.5 | 20.7 | 27.3 | 23.5 |
Constant | −2.76 (2.67) | 3.21 (2.98) | −6.10 (3.32) *** | |
Number of observations | 9125 | |||
Number of respondents | 365 | |||
Log likelihood | −1690.34 | |||
R2 | 0.64 |
Segment 1 (FCFA) | Segment 2 (FCFA) | Segment 3 (FCFA) | Segment 4 (FCFA) | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Medium capacity (250–500 kg) (1*) | −82,187.74 | −4190.26 | −65,338.79 | 171,576.91 |
Large capacity (>500 kg) (1*) | −4504.46 | −15,160.97 | −22,973.14 | 206,581.46 |
Form of storage in the cob (2*) | −23,126.61 | −3469.58 | −22,973.14 | −340,255.31 |
Form of storage as stalk (2*) | −71,353.63 | −31,289.92 | −51,965.03 | −184,649.04 |
Less effective (5–30% loss) (3*) | 108,356.79 | 16,463.85 | 98,727.8 | 361,867.26 |
Very effective (<5% loss) (3*) | 128,681 | 34,919.65 | 100,499.57 | 423,819.52 |
Type of materials: Improved (4*) | 49,174.15 | −50,802.42 | −810,308.4 | 158,052.47 |
Type of materials: Imported (4*) | 10,778.40 | −9592.91 | 213,298.85 | 188,434.62 |
Long life span (>4 years) | 21,263.27 | 9704.10 | 6753.76 | 215,452.78 |
© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Gbénou-Sissinto, E.; Adegbola, Y.P.; Biaou, G.; Zossou, R.C. Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for New Storage Technologies for Maize in Northern and Central Benin. Sustainability 2018, 10, 2925. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082925
Gbénou-Sissinto E, Adegbola YP, Biaou G, Zossou RC. Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for New Storage Technologies for Maize in Northern and Central Benin. Sustainability. 2018; 10(8):2925. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082925
Chicago/Turabian StyleGbénou-Sissinto, Evelyne, Ygué P. Adegbola, Gauthier Biaou, and Roch C. Zossou. 2018. "Farmers’ Willingness to Pay for New Storage Technologies for Maize in Northern and Central Benin" Sustainability 10, no. 8: 2925. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10082925