An Economic Assessment of Banana Genetic Improvement and ...
An Economic Assessment of Banana Genetic Improvement and ... An Economic Assessment of Banana Genetic Improvement and ...
96 CHAPTER 7 Table 7.2 Definition of variables, hypothesized effects, and the summary statistics Variable Definition Expected effect Mean Standard deviation Use of mulch (δ 1 ) Use of manure (δ 2 ) Share of banana mats grown under dry grass or nonbanana crop residues Share of banana mats grown under waste (from cattle or pigs) or composted manure 0.199 0.260 0.119 0.233 Farm characteristics (Ω F ) Elevation Elevation at which the farm is located (1 = high, 0 = low) +/– 0.281 0.450 Slope of the farm Dummy equal to 1 if slope is rated steep and 0 otherwise + 0.779 0.415 Soil moisture reten tion capacity Drainage conditions in the plot Dummy equal to 1 if soil moisture retention capacity of the banana plot is rated low and 0 otherwise Dummy equal to 1 if the drainage conditions in the banana plot are rated poor and 0 otherwise + 0.207 0.406 – 0.394 0.489 Mats Total number of banana mat counts grown + 283.43 334.677 Household characteristics (Ω HH ) Income (I ) Total income received by the household in form of rent and interest during the production year (000 Ush) +/– 37.739 219.821 Age Age of primary banana production decisionmaker (years) – 43.076 15.670 Gender Gender of the primary banana production decisionmaker (1 = male, 0 = female) +/– 0.547 0.510 Education Years of schooling of primary banana production decisionmaker + 4.563 3.863 Household size Land per capita Livestock unit Market characteristics (Ω M ) Price/wage ratio (P B /w) Number of people who live in the same homestead and eat from the same cooking pot Total cultivable hectares of land (computed as total land possessed less area under forests, water/swamps, settlements) divided by the household size Sum of cattle units (0.8), sheep (0.4), pig (0.4), and goat (0.4) divided by the age of household head Average farm-gate selling price per kg of bananas in the village divided by the average wage rate for hired labor + 5.874 2.765 +/– 0.372 0.677 + 0.032 0.042 + 0.095 0.033 Distance Farm location from paved roads (km) as a measure of market access +/– 10.689 7.050 Diffusion parameters (Ω D ) Extension Number of cumulative contacts with the extension educators + 1.151 2.049 Exposure Dummy equal to 1 if a village was exposed to the new improved + 0.497 0.500 banana varieties and 0 otherwise Experience mulch (τ 1 ) Number of years mulching has been used in banana production on the farm divided by the age of the household head + 0.251 0.244 Experience manure (τ 2 ) Number of years manure has been used in banana production on the farm divided by the age of the household head + 0.108 0.167
SOCIAL CAPITAL AND SOIL FERTILITY MANAGEMENT IN UGANDA 97 Table 7.2 (continued) Variable Definition Expected effect Mean Standard deviation Social capital (Ω s ) Membership density Number of household members that belong to at least one association +/– 1.251 0.975 Leadership heterogeneity Continuous index measuring the degree of leaders heterogeneity in terms of livelihood or education higher than most group members in the village + 4.441 0.559 Norms of decisionmaking Net labor transfers Net cash transfers Net other item transfers Continuous index measuring the degree to which decisionmaking in village associations is participatory Value (thousand Ush) of labor obtained from the social network less the value of labor supplied to the social network Amount of cash (thousand Ush) obtained from its social network less the amount of cash supplied to the social network Value (thousand Ush) of other household items obtained from the social network less the value of those items supplied to the social network + 6.114 0.4725 +/– 0.339 8.153 +/– –1.555 163.111 +/– 0.296 39.791 of the dependency ratio on use of mulching and manure cannot be determined a priori. The decision to invest in soil fertility management practices is also conditioned on farm characteristics (Ω F ), such as location, physical factors of the land, and scale of production. Elevation, a sample stratification parameter, is expected to condition both use of practices and perceptions. At higher elevations where there are more slopes on farms, the soil erosion potential is higher, which could stimulate farmer’s perception of the soil fertility problem and consequently investment in soil conservation (Ervin and Ervin 1982). Prior biophysical information also indicates that banana productivity potential is higher in high-altitude areas, which provides further incentives to use soil fertility management practices. Physical characteristics of the land, such as the slope of the farm and soil moisture retention capacity of the banana plot, are hypothesized to directly affect perceptions of the soil deterioration. The slope of the farm represents the erosion potential while the capacity of the soil to retain moisture measures the capacity of the soil to support the high demand of the banana crop for water. Therefore, low soil moisture retention capacity of banana plots should influence the demand for mulch and manure through its influence on perceptions. On the other hand, the counteracting effect of poor soil moisture retention capacity on the productivity of mulching or manure could lower the incentive to incur costly investments. Physical characteristics of land were measured in qualitative form using a subjective indicator reported by the farmers (Table 7.2). The drainage condition of the banana plot is another land characteristic important in banana production (Tushemereirwe et al. 2003). Bananas grown on poorly drained soils are more vulnerable to leaf spot diseases, which pose an exogenous risk in soil fertility management decisions. The scale of production (measured by the banana mat count) reduces the fixed costs of information acquisition per unit area, thereby increasing the benefits from adoption (Feder and O’Mara 1981). The scale of production could also reduce the economic impact of soil depletion on the household, as does the landholding size. However, with respect to mulching technology, landholding size increases the access to mulch materials, while the scale of banana production may act, through fixed costs of information acquisition, to influence use. These mechanisms are conceptually different, justifying inclusion of both farm characteristics in the estimation.
- Page 62 and 63: 46 CHAPTER 4 The most widely used m
- Page 64 and 65: 48 CHAPTER 4 Ortíz, R., and D. Vuy
- Page 66 and 67: here> 5.3near here>
- Page 68 and 69: 52 CHAPTER 5 Table 5.4 Percentage o
- Page 70 and 71: 54 CHAPTER 5 Table 5.7 Percentage o
- Page 72 and 73: here> 9near 5. here> 10near 5. 56 C
- Page 74 and 75: here> 12near 5. 58 CHAPTER 5 Table
- Page 76 and 77: 60 CHAPTER 5 Table 5.14 Number and
- Page 78 and 79: here> 18near 5. 62 CHAPTER 5 Table
- Page 80 and 81: 64 CHAPTER 5 Table 5.20 Average num
- Page 82 and 83: 66 CHAPTER 5 Table 5.23 Percentage
- Page 84 and 85: 68 CHAPTER 5 Table 5.26 Average dis
- Page 86 and 87: 70 CHAPTER 5 considerably higher in
- Page 89: Part III. Economic Assessment of Te
- Page 92 and 93: 76 CHAPTER 6 The agricultural house
- Page 94 and 95: 78 CHAPTER 6 grow, but have grown i
- Page 96 and 97: 80 CHAPTER 6 Table 6.2 Summary stat
- Page 98 and 99: 82 CHAPTER 6 tion. More frequent vi
- Page 100 and 101: 84 CHAPTER 6 Table 6.4 Prototype ho
- Page 102 and 103: 86 CHAPTER 6 Table 6.5 Characterist
- Page 104 and 105: 88 CHAPTER 6 References Cameron, A.
- Page 106 and 107: 90 CHAPTER 7 by-products of other f
- Page 108 and 109: here> 1near 7. 92 CHAPTER 7 Table 7
- Page 110 and 111: 94 CHAPTER 7 ity in the two technol
- Page 114 and 115: 98 CHAPTER 7 The direct link betwee
- Page 116 and 117: 100 CHAPTER 7 Table 7.3 Factors inf
- Page 118 and 119: 102 CHAPTER 7 tive sign but are onl
- Page 120 and 121: 104 CHAPTER 7 fertility management
- Page 122 and 123: 106 CHAPTER 7 participatory decisio
- Page 124 and 125: 108 CHAPTER 7 Stevens, J. P. 2002.
- Page 126 and 127: 110 CHAPTER 8 defined as a function
- Page 128 and 129: 112 CHAPTER 8 inputs or implement c
- Page 130 and 131: 114 CHAPTER 8 Crop output is determ
- Page 132 and 133: 116 CHAPTER 8 Table 8.1 Variable de
- Page 134 and 135: here> 8.6near here> 8.2near 8.3nea
- Page 136 and 137: 120 CHAPTER 8 Table 8.4 Production
- Page 138 and 139: 122 CHAPTER 8 during the SOM decomp
- Page 140 and 141: 124 CHAPTER 8 Supplementary Tables
- Page 142 and 143: 126 CHAPTER 8 Table 8A.3 Production
- Page 144 and 145: 128 CHAPTER 8 Thomas, G. W. 1982. E
- Page 146 and 147: 130 CHAPTER 9 (Nkuba et al. 1999).
- Page 148 and 149: 132 CHAPTER 9 be reduced through la
- Page 150 and 151: 134 CHAPTER 9 Table 9.2 Summary sta
- Page 152 and 153: 136 CHAPTER 9 Table 9.3 Coefficient
- Page 154 and 155: 138 CHAPTER 9 Table 9.4 Mean compar
- Page 156 and 157: 140 CHAPTER 9 References Anandajaya
- Page 158 and 159: 142 CHAPTER 10 Table 10.1 Ugandan c
- Page 160 and 161: 144 CHAPTER 10 (Kangire and Rutherf
96 CHAPTER 7<br />
Table 7.2 Definition <strong>of</strong> variables, hypothesized effects, <strong>and</strong> the summary statistics<br />
Variable<br />
Definition<br />
Expected<br />
effect<br />
Mean<br />
St<strong>and</strong>ard<br />
deviation<br />
Use <strong>of</strong> mulch (δ 1 )<br />
Use <strong>of</strong> manure (δ 2 )<br />
Share <strong>of</strong> banana mats grown under dry grass or nonbanana crop<br />
residues<br />
Share <strong>of</strong> banana mats grown under waste (from cattle or pigs) or<br />
composted manure<br />
0.199 0.260<br />
0.119 0.233<br />
Farm characteristics (Ω F )<br />
Elevation Elevation at which the farm is located (1 = high, 0 = low) +/– 0.281 0.450<br />
Slope <strong>of</strong> the farm Dummy equal to 1 if slope is rated steep <strong>and</strong> 0 otherwise + 0.779 0.415<br />
Soil moisture<br />
reten tion capacity<br />
Drainage conditions<br />
in the plot<br />
Dummy equal to 1 if soil moisture retention capacity <strong>of</strong> the banana plot<br />
is rated low <strong>and</strong> 0 otherwise<br />
Dummy equal to 1 if the drainage conditions in the banana plot are<br />
rated poor <strong>and</strong> 0 otherwise<br />
+ 0.207 0.406<br />
– 0.394 0.489<br />
Mats Total number <strong>of</strong> banana mat counts grown + 283.43 334.677<br />
Household characteristics (Ω HH )<br />
Income (I )<br />
Total income received by the household in form <strong>of</strong> rent <strong>and</strong> interest<br />
during the production year (000 Ush)<br />
+/– 37.739 219.821<br />
Age Age <strong>of</strong> primary banana production decisionmaker (years) – 43.076 15.670<br />
Gender Gender <strong>of</strong> the primary banana production decisionmaker (1 = male, 0<br />
= female)<br />
+/– 0.547 0.510<br />
Education Years <strong>of</strong> schooling <strong>of</strong> primary banana production decisionmaker + 4.563 3.863<br />
Household size<br />
L<strong>and</strong> per capita<br />
Livestock unit<br />
Market characteristics (Ω M )<br />
Price/wage ratio<br />
(P B /w)<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> people who live in the same homestead <strong>and</strong> eat from the<br />
same cooking pot<br />
Total cultivable hectares <strong>of</strong> l<strong>and</strong> (computed as total l<strong>and</strong> possessed<br />
less area under forests, water/swamps, settlements) divided by the<br />
household size<br />
Sum <strong>of</strong> cattle units (0.8), sheep (0.4), pig (0.4), <strong>and</strong> goat (0.4) divided<br />
by the age <strong>of</strong> household head<br />
Average farm-gate selling price per kg <strong>of</strong> bananas in the village divided<br />
by the average wage rate for hired labor<br />
+ 5.874 2.765<br />
+/– 0.372 0.677<br />
+ 0.032 0.042<br />
+ 0.095 0.033<br />
Distance Farm location from paved roads (km) as a measure <strong>of</strong> market access +/– 10.689 7.050<br />
Diffusion parameters (Ω D )<br />
Extension Number <strong>of</strong> cumulative contacts with the extension educators + 1.151 2.049<br />
Exposure<br />
Dummy equal to 1 if a village was exposed to the new improved<br />
+ 0.497 0.500<br />
banana varieties <strong>and</strong> 0 otherwise<br />
Experience mulch<br />
(τ 1 )<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> years mulching has been used in banana production on the<br />
farm divided by the age <strong>of</strong> the household head<br />
+ 0.251 0.244<br />
Experience manure<br />
(τ 2 )<br />
Number <strong>of</strong> years manure has been used in banana production on the<br />
farm divided by the age <strong>of</strong> the household head<br />
+ 0.108 0.167
Change language