An Economic Assessment of Banana Genetic Improvement and ...

An Economic Assessment of Banana Genetic Improvement and ... An Economic Assessment of Banana Genetic Improvement and ...

ifpri.cgiar.org
from ifpri.cgiar.org More from this publisher
23.01.2014 Views

100 CHAPTER 7 Table 7.3 Factors influencing the probability and extent of use of soil fertility management practices Probit model: Manure Probit model: Mulch Second step of Heckman model: Manure Ordinary least squares model: Mulch Variable Marginal effects Standard error Marginal effects Standard error Coefficient Standard error Coefficient Standard error Farm characteristics (Ω F ) Elevation –0.177 0.112 –0.042 0.110 –0.053 0.088 –0.116** 0.059 Plot drainage 0.137** 0.069 –0.008 0.055 0.037 0.045 –0.018 0.032 Moisture retention capacity 0.087 0.083 –0.121* 0.074 0.026 0.047 0.010 0.039 Slope of the farm –0.144* 0.082 0.029 0.068 0.004 0.045 0.122*** 0.036 Number of banana mats 8.3 × 10 –5 0.0001 0.0003** 0.0001 0.0001 0.000 –0.0001*** 4.7 × 10 –5 Household characteristics (Ω HH ) Age –0.006*** 0.002 0.0001 0.002 –0.002 0.001 0.0002 0.001 Gender 0.001 0.068 –0.021 0.055 0.012 0.041 0.050* 0.030 Education 0.004 0.009 0.013* 0.008 –0.002 0.006 0.011*** 0.004 Household size 0.021 0.014 0.022*** 0.012 0.020** 0.010 0.010 0.007 Dependency ratio 0.062 0.160 –0.218* 0.121 0.021 0.104 0.100 0.076 Livestock unit 0.099*** 0.021 0.019 0.015 0.008 0.010 –0.005 0.008 Per capita cultivatable land 0.026 0.022 0.049* 0.030 0.003 0.010 0.022*** 0.008 Exogenous income (I ) 8.5 × 10 –7 1.4 × 10 –6 1.6 × 10 –6 2.1 × 10 –6 1.1 × 10 –6 * 4.7 × 10 –7 5.5 × 10 –7 4.6 × 10 –7 Market characteristics (Ω H ) Distance from paved roads –0.009 0.006 –0.014*** 0.005 0.001 0.004 0.002 0.002 Price to wage ratio 3.165*** 1.285 4.085*** 1.167 1.526*** 0.632 2.129*** 0.482 Diffusion parameters (Ω D ) Extension 0.022 0.017 0.013 0.019 0.020** 0.009 –0.003 0.007 Exposure 0.171*** 0.082 0.044 0.069 0.103** 0.051 0.054 0.039 Relative experience (τ) 1.084*** 0.227 0.830*** 0.154 –0.168 0.140 0.022 0.074 Social capital (Ω S ) Membership density 0.034 0.040 0.027 0.036 –0.068*** 0.025 0.038** 0.017 Leader heterogeneity 0.168*** 0.064 0.050 0.050 0.087** 0.040 0.076*** 0.031 Norms of decisionmaking 0.220*** 0.087 0.230*** 0.068 0.014 0.061 –0.015 0.046 Net labor transfers 6.8 × 10 –6 5.2 × 10 –6 –3.0 × 10 –6 3.7 × 10 –6 5.8 × 10 –7 3.12 × 10 –6 1.2 × 10 –6 3.63 × 10 –6 Net cash transfers 2.3 × 10 –6 * 1.23 × 10 –6 1.5 × 10 –7 9.3 × 10 –7 –6.2 × 10 –7 5.3 × 10 –7 1.6 × 10 –8 4.73 × 10 –7 Net others transfers 3.8 × 10 –6 ** 1.5 × 10 –6 1.5 × 10 –6 1.3 × 10 –6 –1.7 × 10 –6 * 9.8 × 10 –7 –3.4 × 10 –7 6.2 × 10 –7 Mills ratio 0.001** 0.000 7.7 × 10 –8 5.5 × 10 –8 Constant –0.086 0.461 –0.416 0.352 F (26, 104) 4.44 5.89 Probability > F 0 0 R 2 0.5258 0.4387 Adjusted R 2 0.4073 0.3642 Number of observations 332 = 332 = 131 223

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND SOIL FERTILITY MANAGEMENT IN UGANDA 101 Table 7.3 (continued) Probit model: Manure Probit model: Mulch Second step of Heck man model: Manure Ordinary least squares model: Mulch Variable Marginal effects Standard error Marginal effects Standard error Coefficient Standard error Coefficient Standard error Observed probability 0.416 0.690 Predicted probability at mean 0.399 0.785 Correctly classified 79.2 78.1 Likelihood ratio χ 2 (25) 124.24 = 120.18 = Probability > χ 2 0 = 0 = Log likelihood –163.26 –145.518 Pseudo R 2 0.2756 = 0.2922 = Note: ***, **, and * indicate statistically significant differences at the 1, 5, and 10 percent levels, respectively. findings from other studies that slope is positively associated with perceptions about soil fertility problem, which in turn encourages use of soil fertility management practices (Ervin and Ervin 1982; Shiferaw and Holden 1998; Mwakubo et al. 2004). One explanation for this finding relates to the properties of the technologies. Although erosion potential may encourage the use of erosion control technologies, such as conservation structures, it may act against the use of technologies whose benefits are likely to be lost when erosion potential is high. Such is the case with manure in banana production. On high slopes, the water runoff can easily wash manure out of the plantation, reducing its benefits. The capacity of the soil to retain moisture is a statistically significant factor only in the probability of using mulching practices. The negative sign can be interpreted in the same way as in the case of slope with manure. Benefits of incurring the high costs of mulching may be low when the capacity of the soil to retain moisture is low. Combined, the two results suggest a “Malthusian scenario” that people may perceive a soil fertility problem but do nothing about it. Poor drainage conditions of the soil affect only the probability of applying manure. Again, the positive association between poor drainage conditions and probability of using manure lends itself to the same explanation given for the findings regarding slope. Poor drainage conditions in the banana plots can also act through disease risk, because manure—and hence good plant nutrition—increases plant vigor that enhances tolerance to leaf spot diseases. Most of the household characteristics (demographic factors, education, and wealth assets) were significant in the management decisions. As expected, education has a positive effect, reflecting the high degree of knowledge that these soil fertility management practices require. Other studies have also found a positive association between education and adoption of soil conservation technology (Ervin and Ervin 1982; Mwakubo et al. 2004). Endowment of wealth assets is equally important in decisions regarding use of soil fertility management practices. Ownership of livestock may reduce the cost of using manure, hence the positive effect of this parameter. Estimated effects of the per capita size of cultivatable landholding (adjusted for area in swamps and water bodies) have a posi-

SOCIAL CAPITAL AND SOIL FERTILITY MANAGEMENT IN UGANDA 101<br />

Table 7.3 (continued)<br />

Probit model:<br />

Manure<br />

Probit model:<br />

Mulch<br />

Second step <strong>of</strong><br />

Heck man model:<br />

Manure<br />

Ordinary least<br />

squares model:<br />

Mulch<br />

Variable<br />

Marginal<br />

effects<br />

St<strong>and</strong>ard<br />

error<br />

Marginal<br />

effects<br />

St<strong>and</strong>ard<br />

error<br />

Coefficient<br />

St<strong>and</strong>ard<br />

error<br />

Coefficient<br />

St<strong>and</strong>ard<br />

error<br />

Observed probability 0.416 0.690<br />

Predicted probability at mean 0.399 0.785<br />

Correctly classified 79.2 78.1<br />

Likelihood ratio χ 2 (25) 124.24 = 120.18 =<br />

Probability > χ 2 0 = 0 =<br />

Log likelihood –163.26 –145.518<br />

Pseudo R 2 0.2756 = 0.2922 =<br />

Note: ***, **, <strong>and</strong> * indicate statistically significant differences at the 1, 5, <strong>and</strong> 10 percent levels, respectively.<br />

findings from other studies that slope is<br />

positively associated with perceptions about<br />

soil fertility problem, which in turn encourages<br />

use <strong>of</strong> soil fertility management practices<br />

(Ervin <strong>and</strong> Ervin 1982; Shiferaw <strong>and</strong><br />

Holden 1998; Mwakubo et al. 2004).<br />

One explanation for this finding relates<br />

to the properties <strong>of</strong> the technologies. Although<br />

erosion potential may encourage the<br />

use <strong>of</strong> erosion control technologies, such as<br />

conservation structures, it may act against<br />

the use <strong>of</strong> technologies whose benefits are<br />

likely to be lost when erosion potential is<br />

high. Such is the case with manure in banana<br />

production. On high slopes, the water<br />

run<strong>of</strong>f can easily wash manure out <strong>of</strong> the<br />

plantation, reducing its benefits. The capacity<br />

<strong>of</strong> the soil to retain moisture is a statistically<br />

significant factor only in the probability<br />

<strong>of</strong> using mulching practices. The negative<br />

sign can be interpreted in the same way as<br />

in the case <strong>of</strong> slope with manure. Benefits<br />

<strong>of</strong> incurring the high costs <strong>of</strong> mulching may<br />

be low when the capacity <strong>of</strong> the soil to retain<br />

moisture is low. Combined, the two<br />

results suggest a “Malthusian scenario” that<br />

people may perceive a soil fertility problem<br />

but do nothing about it. Poor drainage conditions<br />

<strong>of</strong> the soil affect only the probability<br />

<strong>of</strong> applying manure. Again, the positive association<br />

between poor drainage conditions<br />

<strong>and</strong> probability <strong>of</strong> using manure lends itself<br />

to the same explanation given for the findings<br />

regarding slope. Poor drainage conditions<br />

in the banana plots can also act<br />

through disease risk, because manure—<strong>and</strong><br />

hence good plant nutrition—increases plant<br />

vigor that enhances tolerance to leaf spot<br />

diseases.<br />

Most <strong>of</strong> the household characteristics<br />

(demographic factors, education, <strong>and</strong><br />

wealth assets) were significant in the management<br />

decisions. As expected, education<br />

has a positive effect, reflecting the high<br />

degree <strong>of</strong> knowledge that these soil fertility<br />

management practices require. Other studies<br />

have also found a positive association<br />

between education <strong>and</strong> adoption <strong>of</strong> soil<br />

conservation technology (Ervin <strong>and</strong> Ervin<br />

1982; Mwakubo et al. 2004). Endowment<br />

<strong>of</strong> wealth assets is equally important in<br />

decisions regarding use <strong>of</strong> soil fertility<br />

management practices. Ownership <strong>of</strong> livestock<br />

may reduce the cost <strong>of</strong> using manure,<br />

hence the positive effect <strong>of</strong> this parameter.<br />

Estimated effects <strong>of</strong> the per capita size <strong>of</strong><br />

cultivatable l<strong>and</strong>holding (adjusted for area<br />

in swamps <strong>and</strong> water bodies) have a posi-

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!